Connect with us

Immigration

Operation Safe City clears nearly 500 criminal aliens from sanctuary cities

Published

on

Nearly 500 criminal aliens were nabbed from sanctuary cities across the U.S. this week in “Operation Safe City.” ICE used its own agents to sweep through Baltimore, Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, Portland Ore., San Jose, Washington D.C., and all over Massachusetts.

Good for ICE. Acting Director Tom Homan summed it up.

“Sanctuary jurisdictions that do not honor detainers or allow us access to jails and prisons are shielding criminal aliens from immigration enforcement and creating a magnet for illegal immigration,As a result, ICE is forced to dedicate more resources to conduct at-large arrests in these communities.”

Most of the people arrested were bad hombres who were likely in these sanctuary cities for the specific reason that they’d be shielded from deportation by authorities. An example of the people these sanctuaries were protecting:

“San Jose: a citizen of Mexico who entered the U.S. on a visa and overstayed that visa for more than 10 years. He was previously convicted of felony possession and purchase of narcotics, possession of a controlled substance for sale, and felony child cruelty with the possibility of injury or death. He was previously released from local custody before ICE could assume custody.”

Operation Safe City: ICE Sweep Nabs 498 Criminal Illegals In Sanctuary Cities

http://lidblog.com/operation-safe-city-ice-sweep-nabs-498-criminal-illegals-sanctuary-cities/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+YidWithLid+%28YID+With+LID%29Of the 498 individuals taken into custody during this operation for immigration violations; 317 had criminal convictions; 68 are immigration fugitives; 104 are previously deported criminal aliens; and 18 are members of gangs or their affiliates.

According to ICE, many of the of 317 illegals with criminal convictions, were convicted of violent crimes. Note: Criminals with multiple convictions were categorized based on their most serious crime

NOQ Report has new contributors being vetted, interns, and long-time contributors who want to remain anonymous. Their stories are posted on this author's account which is operated by Sal.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Guns and Crime

Why are gun control activists ignoring the case of Rolando Martinez who shot a 7-year-old with an ‘AR-style’ rifle?

Published

on

Why are gun control activists ignoring the case of Rolando Martinez who shot a 7-year-old with an AR

The case of Rolando Martinez seems like an ideal scenario that gun control advocates would use to push their agenda. A crazed man with an “AR-style” rifle allegedly terrorized over a dozen people in Austin, Texas, shooting at several and hitting four. One of the victims, a 7 year-old-girl, is in critical condition.

Here are the details:

Man charged with aggravated assault in I-35 shooting spree | KXAN.com

https://kxan.com/2017/11/06/man-charged-with-aggravated-assault-in-i-35-shooting-spree/Late Sunday night Rolando Martinez, 25, was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a 2nd-degree felony. Four people including a 7-year-old girl were hit. The child remains in critical condition as of Saturday evening.

Austin police say the shooting began about 2 a.m. Saturday and ended around 3:15 a.m. Calls to 911 came in from multiple places along I-35, stretching from south Austin at Stassney Lane up to Wells Branch Parkway.

“We have a lot of crime scenes. We have several people that were injured in this,” said Austin Police Assistant Chief Joseph Chacon on Saturday.

What followed this report was a timeline that depicted hours of terrorizing incidents allegedly perpetrated by Martinez. At one point, he allegedly followed a woman and her 4-year-old in his car, ramming hers when she stopped at a light, then pointing his gun at her.

It isn’t until you get to the very last sentence of the article that we see why liberals aren’t jumping all over this story.

Martinez’s bond is set at $1 million. According to Travis County Jail records, he has an Immigration and Naturalization Service detainer on him.

Talk about burying the lede.

Gun control advocates have their own no-go zone. If an “AR-style” rifle is used to shoot people, including a child, there must be a rapid and emotion-driven cry for gun control… unless the crime is perpetrated by an illegal immigrant. In that case, mum’s the word.

Continue Reading

Immigration

Intolerance? A DREAMer wants Americans to pay for her dream, but that’s not how it works…

Published

on

A New Jersey college student, whose goal is to become a diplomat for her homeland of Costa Rica, and whose parents came here as illegal immigrants from Costa Rica when she was a young child, made an Election Day plea as a guest op-ed writer for citizens to vote for the just-elected Democratic Governor who has pledged to make the entire state a “sanctuary state.”

The Democrat Governor-Elect, Phil Murphy, was President Obama’s appointed Ambassador to Germany, and prior to that, had a successful career at Goldman Sachs.

The student, Sara Mora, claimed in her column to have been brought here at the age of three, but a different report earlier this year wrote she was brought in at age four. She raised a few hundred dollars in a GoFundMe campaign for her United Nations internship. Her goal?

“I hope to one day serve as a diplomat for my country, Costa Rica and through programs like this I will be able to expand my knowledge and be prepared to be a great leader.”

So how did those nasty, intolerant host Americans respond?

The comments section for her guest opinion column were universally negative. Highly negative. But hardly intolerant or racist. Read them yourself.

The culture of entitlement, where the term “rights” is conflated with the actual meaning of “entitlement” to public subsidies, benefits and other direct and indirect payments, might have hit its tipping point.

The comments don’t show intolerance towards foreigners.

They show a readership — or at least the subsection of readers motivated enough to respond — which is no longer tolerant of anyone else telling them they should subsidize the dreams of the “DREAMers” whose asserted dilemma is entirely that of their parents’ doing.

Perhaps the tipping point is upon us. It’s noteworthy that New Jersey is hardly a red-state, red-meat state; it’s one of the most liberal states in the nation, where Hillary beat President Trump 54-41% last November.

The true pro-immigrant stance is the position strongly opposing amnesty, or special treatment for DREAMers, or anyone else who “cut the line” while millions of visa applicants around the world play by the rules, apply by the rules and wait their turn. And wait. And wait.

A value system which preferences illegals, no matter the reason, over rule-following applicants denigrates every prior legal immigrant, every unsuccessful applicant and the very citizenship to which most of them aspire.

Respect for the law is respect for immigrants, of whom the vast majority waited and obeyed the rules.

The DREAMers have already benefited from their parents breaking the law. They are continuing to benefit every day since. No wonder they want the gravy train to continue.

However, more and more Americans see this demand for compassion as just another emotional shakedown. Worse, they see it as something they’re paying for, both today in the form of taxes to fund government largesse, and later, in the form of increased competition for jobs, housing and really everything else.

It is this visceral unfairness, couched under a rubric of virtue, which has appalled Americans for years and fueled the electoral success of a flawed man, flawed candidate and flawed Administration.

Until the value system underpinning American culture is rebalanced, the “we’ve had enough” sentiment will be more than enough to fuel electoral victories for Trumpism and its opportunistic passengers.

Continue Reading

Immigration

True vetting is impossible. Should we close the borders altogether?

Published

on

Legal Immigration

Vetting: “make a careful and critical examination of (something).”

Things are very different now than they were just a few decades ago. America, the melting pot of the world, was once able to allow immigration into the country that was unparalleled and practically carefree. People wanted to come here for opportunity, freedom, and to escape whatever conditions they were in before. It was through this positive immigration and appropriate integration that some of our greatest strides were made as a nation.

Today, there are people who are not here for the opportunity. They despise our freedom. Rather than escaping the conditions they were in before, they want to impose the same conditions on America.

We are now in the era when vetting is absolutely necessary. The question that needs to be answered is whether or not true vetting can be accomplished. Unfortunately, it cannot be.

What about “extreme vetting”?

There are two misunderstandings being promulgated for different reasons by both political sides. On one hand, we have the Republicans talking about “extreme vetting” in a way that’s supposed to make us feel like everyone entering the nation has to go through intense psychological tests and are forced to wear tracking anklets at all times or a DHS team will swarm upon them. The Democrats want to paint “extreme vetting” as a racist roadblock that keeps the next Indra Nooyi or Shahid Khan out of the country so Caucasian males can reign supreme in the American patriarchy.

Yesterday’s Manhattan terrorist attack was perpetrated by a man, Sayfullo Saipov, who is a legal permanent resident of the United States. He came here in 2010 from Uzbekistan through the Diversity Immigrant Visa program. 50,000 people annually come from countries with low rates of immigration into the United States. They are selected via “lottery.”

Some, including the President, are calling for the program to be replaced by a merit-based system. Others are calling for it to be scrapped altogether. Neither solution addresses the bigger problem with our legal immigration system. It’s not about who comes in, how they’re selected, or their nation of origin. These elements can affect the likelihood that someone entering the country will be peaceful and productive members of American society, but they aren’t guarantees. Uzbekistan is conspicuously not on the President’s travel ban list.

Even if we’re willing to dramatically slow all forms of legal immigration and pay the tremendous cost to comprehensively vet every person attempting to come to America, we wouldn’t be able to stop all negative elements from entering. Some who pass any form of vetting will become criminals. Some will hate America. Some will become terrorists.

Do we close the borders completely?

This can actually be an initially appealing concept for those of us who are worried about terrorism or other negatives associated with legal immigration. Here’s the problem. If anyone attempted to put an end to all legal immigration, they’d be pushed out of DC faster than Harvey Weinsten was pushed out of Hollywood.

Let’s say support grew and it became feasible to call for closing the borders altogether. After all, there’s nothing that requires us as a sovereign nation to allow anyone into the country if we so choose. Could we really shut the doors completely? Yes. Shortly thereafter, the United States would crumble.

Between the intense opposition to such a move internally and the international outcry that would isolate us from the rest of the world, our entire financial and social systems would collapse rapidly. Riots would become regularities. International trade would come to a screeching halt starting a domino effect on the economy that could not be stopped until there was complete and utter chaos. America would become a third-world country in a matter of months.

Beyond concerns over the destruction that would ensue if we closed the borders completely, there’s another factor. Most legal immigrants integrate and become productive members of society. As a legal immigrant myself, I thought it necessary to point this fact out.

What then?

If there’s no way to truly vet those who enter the nation in a way that prevents attacks such as the one in New York City and there’s no way to stop immigration altogether without destroying the nation, what can be done?

I’ve read dozens of recommendations on fixing the legal immigration system. Most offer solutions that are broken down in a paragraph or two. All have major flaws that are conspicuously ignored. This brought me to the conclusion that we’re asking the wrong questions.

As I mentioned before, I’m a legal immigrant. Saying that doesn’t paint the full picture of how I became so earnestly patriotic. You see, this is all I’ve ever known. My father was in the Air Force and met my mother in the Philippines. They brought me here when I was 4-months-old, so unlike the majority of legal immigrants, I had no preexisting culture embed in me to compete with living as an American. I’ve only known what it’s like to be an American. I don’t speak Tagalog. I’ve never left the country. That’s not to say I abandoned my heritage completely, but I was never exposed to it any more than an average American who picks up a 5-pack of lumpia at a Filipino fast food joint.

Most of my family on my mother’s side now live in America. My uncle served in the U.S. Navy. One cousin is an engineer for the government. Another is a nurse. They all speak English very well, have barbecues on the weekends, and were rabid football fans until the Chargers left San Diego. None of them could be terrorists. None of them could be criminals. All of them contribute as productive tax-paying Americans.

What makes my family different from people like Sayfullo Saipov? They want to be here to experience the American dream and have always been willing to do what it takes to succeed.

In other words, my family appreciates the opportunity, freedom, and living conditions available to us in America. We need all legal immigrants to feel the same way.

Immigration as a privilege and a responsibility

As radical ideas go, this may be one of the strangest. That’s the situation we’re in, though; we can’t stop the flow of negative elements into the nation without cutting it off completely which would destroy America even faster than the negative elements. Radical ideas may be all we have left.

Currently, immigrants and their U.S.-born children number nearly 90 million. That’s over a quarter of the population. Anyone who says we haven’t done our part as a nation hasn’t looked at these numbers.

To make immigration a privilege, we have to limit it dramatically.

To make it a responsibility, we have to set criteria for proper integration.

It’s time to make “extreme vetting” a secondary notion. That’s not to say we don’t need to vet immigrants. We cannot rely on vetting alone. It can’t be done, not with the numbers that are currently coming in. America does not have a responsibility to the world to take in so many immigrants every year. 50,000 are part of the diversity program annually. How about we make that 5,000. Random lottery? How about we go with “merit-based,” though not exactly what President Trump describes.

What merits should be considered? The standard ones should definitely apply, such as an ability to support oneself and one’s family without government assistance. On the other hand, I’m less interested in bringing over the “best people” as the President often discusses. He envisions engineers, scientists, and accountants. In reality we need them to be from a wide spectrum of vocations. Why? Because we cannot allow any industries to take on an infusion of immigrant talent that prevents Americans from getting those jobs. Full-spectrum immigration means the responsible laborer is just as important as the responsible chemist. As long as they can provide for themselves and pay taxes, they cover the first merit.

The second merit is a controversial one for some reason. They need to be able to speak English. I’m not going to argue this point. Either you get it or you don’t.

The third merit is even more controversial. There can’t be a religious test, but there can be a Constitution-alignment test. There are certain ideologies within religions such as sharia law that run contrary to the Constitution. We shouldn’t prevent Muslims from immigrating, but we can prevent those who embrace sharia law because it opposes the Constitution. Every immigrant should know the Constitution, swear to defend it, and be willing to abide by all of our laws.

Lastly, there should be love for America. It’s easy to fake, impossible to test, and patriotically corny, but it’s also a necessity. Those who want to take advantage of what America has to offer need to also be willing to embrace the nation they’ve chosen as their new home. That doesn’t mean abandoning culture, but they have to be willing to embrace ours simultaneously. In other words, they need to be willing to assimilate rather than hoping to assimilate us.

If we dramatically reduce the number of immigrants and impose stricter criteria for them to enter, it’s more precious. It’s a privilege. It can be made into a responsibility. Today, the immigration system cheapens the importance of becoming an American. This has to change.

Final Thoughts

Reduce legal immigration. Improve vetting. Set standards by which immigrants are coming for opportunity, freedom, and to contribute. We cannot keep every potential criminal or terrorist from entering the country, but we can do our best to limit the potential. If we are going to continue as a thriving nation, this is absolutely essential.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.