Canada to Step Up Deportations of Undocumented Migrants
Canada’s border agency said Wednesday that it planned to increase its deportations of undocumented migrants by 10,000 a year.
These are to include not just failed refugees and asylum-seekers but those authorities regard as national security threats.
“While Canada is a humanitarian country that has welcomed many immigrants and asylum-seekers over the years, those coming to our country are expected to abide by our laws and processes,” a border agency spokesperson told the state-run Canadian Broadcasting Corp.
There is a backlog of about 18,000 migrants listed for deportation, with 5,300 so-called actionable cases, meaning there are no legal appeals or other reasons for them to stay.
Opposition conservatives call the number of asylum-seekers entering Canada through unmanned U.S. border crossings a crisis. They say the government does not take the matter seriously and has no plan.
Some Republican candidates want to suspend refugee resettlement in Minnesota. Can they do that?
Minnesota has welcomed thousands of refugees since the federal resettlement process was set in 1980. So why does a trio of key Republicans up for election want to stop the program now?
Well, it depends on whom you ask.
Jeff Johnson, Jim Newberger and Jim Hagedorn have each said they will ask the federal government to pause refugee resettlement in Minnesota if elected Tuesday. And they’ve each made it a key issue in their campaigns.
Johnson, who is running for governor, said he is concerned about how much it costs taxpayers, as well as high unemployment rates among Somali men.
Hagedorn, who is running for U.S. House in the 1st Congressional District, claims refugees are poorly vetted and pose a threat to national security.
Newberger, a candidate for U.S. Senate, alleges that some refugees don’t want to follow American law.
The Democrats running against them support the state’s openness to refugees, arguing that they strengthen local communities. Immigration experts and advocates say that Republicans’ opposition to the program is purely political and misses the benefits the newcomers provide.
The story goes on to tell us that all the Democrats running in the state have spoken out in favor of more refugees for the state claiming that the refugees have benefited the state by bringing cultural diversity and that the refugees fill cheap labor needs (of course that last is my phrase).
As for the question: Can they stop resettlement if elected?
I’m not going to wander in to the legal weeds on that. There is still a lawsuit pending in Tennessee on the issue of State’s Rights that holds some hope for relief.
Suffice it to say, if Minnesotans elect these outspoken Republicans, and they forcefully take their concern to the President and his US State Department, the flow could be diverted away from Minnesota for now (as long as Trump is in the White House).
Of course the open borders Leftists (and the federal resettlement agencies) will say that its the ‘unwelcoming’ attitude in the state that requires the slowdown in placement there. (Code for calling you racists!).
I guess what I am trying to say is that there is no easy legal avenue that would allow Minnesotans to take a break from the contentiousness there now.
However, I know for sure if enough Minnesotans make enough political noise and elect candidates willing to speak as strongly as these three, you have a fighting chance of saving taxpayer dollars, staying safe, and maintaining some control of who is placed*** in your state by Washington and federal resettlement contractors.
In other words—there is no rest for the weary!
*** Of course, as Minnesota knows all too well, secondary migrants are moving in from other states to be with their own ethnic ‘community’ there and there is no way to stop that migration.
Pittsburgh’s Jewish refugee resettlement agency, HIAS vow to continue work after threats, Squirrel Hill shooting
The story paints a picture of a ‘non-profit‘ group that is all about welcoming the poor and downtrodden to America, but never mentions the fact that it is more than 50% funded by US and state taxpayers many of whom do not share its open-borders views and would prefer their tax dollars be spent on America’s needy people.
HIAS received $186 million from taxpayers in the last ten years, here. Its CEO is paid over $300,000 annually.
And, like virtually all mainstream media stories about the horrific attack on innocents, The Post-Gazette, mentions not one word about that fact that HIAS is paid to do its ‘good works’ by the US government.
It is fine and dandy if HIAS wants to hold anti-Trump political rallies, sue the President and organize for the Tuesday midterms, but doing those things while accepting millions of taxpayer dollars every year strikes most people as fundamentally unfair!
Here is a bit from the deficient Pittsburgh Post-Gazette story:
The Jewish refugee resettlement agency in Pittsburgh remains defiant in its work despite the connection Saturday’s mass shooting at a Squirrel Hill synagogue shared with its mission.
“These [sites] are echo chambers where people just get angrier and angrier and angrier about falsehoods,” said Mark Hetfield, CEO and president of HIAS — formerly the Hebrew Immigration Aid Society. “I mean, what harm was this congregation doing by welcoming refugees in a religious service?”
Mr. Hetfield said that he’s aware of several “hate sites and hate sites masquerading as issue-oriented sites” that have attacked the work of HIAS and JFCS.
“But they’ve just been words so far, but as we see now, words lead to action.”
Mr. Hetfield said HIAS has in the past had a designated person monitor social media for threats but the organization will be “totally changing” its strategy.
“I mean we did not know about this murderer on Gab, we were not following Gab.We do not follow these hate-filled fora, but we need to,” he said. “And then we need to figure out what do we do when we see things. We see things every day against us.”
That is an example of how out of touch with most Americans these open borders leftwing groups are, they didn’t know about Gab? This is a prime example of why the Dems were so shocked at the 2016 election of Donald Trump.
Mr. Hetfield said the physical security strategy has changed as well since Saturday. Armed guards now surround HIAS offices in New York City and Silver Spring, Md. He likened the change to how he felt after 9/11.
JFCS has begun closely monitoring social media and re-evaluating security since the attack happened; it had also not known about Mr. Bowers prior to Saturday.
See if you can find one word about how HIAS is a US State Department contractor that is paid by the head to place refugees in towns and cities of their choosing (behind closed doors in conjunction with the US State Department).
If HIAS, the US State Department, and the mainstream media were transparent and honest about how refugee resettlement is carried out in America, citizen taxpayers wouldn’t get so frustrated.
So, why aren’t they more transparent?
I have a guess, but I would like to hear what they say for a change!
Endnote: I did see an AP story sometime in the last week that did mention (briefly!) that HIAS receives taxpayer dollars, but couldn’t find it again.
That UN Global Compact for Migration could crumble as more countries signal they won’t sign the document in Morocco in December.
We told you about it here recently. President Trump took us out at the very beginning and then Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban also said no way.
Sounds warm and fuzzy, so what is the problem? Those who have studied the draft say it would make migration a human right. In other words everyone would have a right to move wherever they wish. There would be no more legal migration process.
From the liberal Irish Times(so they don’t clearly mention the real crux of the problem):
Poles and Czechs follow Austria and Hungary in rejecting UN migration pact
Anti-immigration leaders in central Europe follow US lead in opposing global framework
Poland and the Czech Republic are set to join Hungary and Austria in pulling out of a United Nations pact on migration, as populist central European governments attack the deal before it is even signed.
The Global Compact For Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration was agreed in July by all UN members except the United States, and sets out norms for protecting and integrating people who migrate and ways to help them return home.
The pact is non-binding and recognises each state’s right to its own migration policy, but a growing number of anti-immigration leaders in central Europe are now rejecting it ahead of next month’s signing ceremony in Morocco.
“It is very likely that, like Austria, the Czech Republic and the United States, we will not be part of the UN global compact,” Polish prime minister Mateusz Morawiecki said on Friday.
“We believe that here our regulations, our sovereign rules on border protection and migration control are our absolute priority.”
A day earlier, Czech prime minister Andrej Babis declared that he also opposed the pact.
“It’s not clearly interpreted and it could be abused. The United States has pulled out, Hungary too, now Austria, and Poland is debating it as well,” he said.
“I don’t like the fact that it blurs the distinction between legal and illegal migration. . . I will propose to partners in the government that we should do the same as Austria and Hungary,” he added ahead of cabinet talks on the pact next week.
I would like to know exactly what was left out of Babis’s statement in that previous quote!
The United Nations is demanding that we follow international law and let those fleeing violence in their Central American countries (not a criteria for granting asylum) into the US. What happened with that supposed effort to tell Mexico to grant them asylum—that is what international law says!
The first safe country asylum seekers reach is where they must ask for asylum.
Clearly the UN is endorsing the concept of “asylum shopping” a term used around the world where migrants are on the hunt for their best deal.
But, you know all of that.
The caravan is an anti-Trump public relations stunt in the run-up to the midterm elections and it seems the whole world is in on it.
UN: Countries Must Allow People at Risk to Request Asylum
The U.N. refugee agency is urging Washington to allow people fleeing persecution and violence, including those who are traveling with the Central American caravan, to request asylum on U.S. territory.
U.S. President Donald Trump has vowed to prevent a caravan of thousands of immigrants from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador from entering the United States. The Pentagon has announced plans to send hundreds of troops to the border in what is described as a support role.
The U.N. refugee agency will not weigh in on whether it is legal for a country to close its borders to refugees and asylum seekers. But it says international law clearly states any person whose life may be in danger has the right to seek asylum and benefit from international protection.
What you see happening with gobbledygook in that previous paragraph is a strategy to make you think that every person on the move anywhere is a legitimate refugee. We aren’t there yet, but the UN is driving public opinion in that direction.
There has to be a reason for “danger,” generalized danger is not a reason for granting asylum. To be granted asylum a person must prove that he or she would be persecuted for race, religion, political views if returned to one’s home country. Running from gang violence or poor job prospects does not make someone a refugee!
“Our position globally is that the individuals who are fleeing persecution and violence need to be given access to territory and protection including refugee status and determination procedure. And, if the people who are fleeing persecution and violence enter Mexico, they need to be provided access to the Mexican asylum system and those entering the United States need to be provided access to the American asylum system,” he said.
But to get to the US they must pass through Mexico!
So that (above) tells me that any migrant caravan marchers who didn’t ask for asylum in Mexico when they crossed in to that country are admitting they aren’t asylum seekers after all.
Hence when they reach the US border they will all be illegal aliens and we can keep them out!
Mahecic keeps trying to send his message:
He said it is urgent to stabilize the situation, to provide proper reception and to improve basic conditions for people on the move. In regard to people seeking asylum, he says their international protection needs must be properly assessed before any decision is taken on their return or deportation.
Remember that Mahecic and his bosses are trying to drive public opinion world wide to their view that migration is a human right. If they succeed then obviously that spells the end of the concept of national sovereignty.
Trump’s America First! message is completely antithetical to the UN’s objective, thus their on-going effort to destroy him.
Don’t you just feel like telling the UN to shut up! Of course, using only non-violent means by cutting off their funds entirely!
I have to say: this is the newest news I’m seeing. Since the whole issue is in flux (and perhaps more so after the shooting at the synagogue in Pittsburgh where we heard the shooter may have been angry over the caravan as well as HIAS’s rolein it), things could change any minute.
But, here is what Neil Munro reported at Breitbart yesterday:
WashPo: Trump Will Announce Anti-Caravan Plan on Tuesday
President Donald Trump will announce Tuesday how he will use his extraordinary powers over legal immigration to block the caravan and other asylum-seeking economic migrants, according to the Washington Post.
“A draft of the proposal reviewed by The Washington Post says the president can use his authority under Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to declare certain migrants ineligible for asylum for national security reasons,” the Post reported.
The little-used powers are in Section 212(f) of U.S. law, at 8 U.S. Code § 1182:
Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
But pro-migration advocates say that 212(f) clause cannot stop illegal migrants from jumping over the border wall into the United States and then use U.S. and international law to apply for asylum.
These advocates say migrants — even those with invalid cases — are protected by the constitution’s Fith Amendment once they get onto U.S. territory. The clause — “No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” — allows migrants to get court hearings, despite Presidential opposition, the advocates say.
However, U.S. law does not require that asylum applicants be allowed to stay in the United States while their legal claims are considered by the courts, countered Christopher Hajec, the litigation director for the Immigration Law Reform Institute.
President Trump has the legal authority to deport classes of migrants to an outside location where they can safely live until their appeals are heard, he said. Migrants would be allowed to appeal for asylum in court cases conducted via video, he told Breitbart News. “Some might get asylum,” he added.
Remember readers that asylum is the other side of the refugee coin. The only difference is the means of getting here.
If we fly them they are called refugees, if they get here on their own steam they must apply for asylum (refugee status). Then, if the migrant is granted asylum, he/she gets the benefits that refugees we transport here receive.