Feds Fail to Deport 179,000 Criminal Illegal Aliens By Rick Moran

A report by the Department of Homeland Security says that more than 179,000 criminal illegal aliens eligible to be deported are still in the U.S. and immigration officials admit they don’t know where they are.

The report was delivered to the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration. As it turns out, there are nearly a million illegals who have been issued deportation orders who have not been sent home.

Washington Times:

“Not serious enough criminals…”? Since the president’s immigration reform plan would have allowed illegals convicted of drunk driving to remain in the country, that’s a pretty good indication they don’t care much if thousands of illegals every year cause traffic accidents while under the influence — some of which result in deaths.

You have to wonder what other offenses that illegals were convicted of aren’t considered “serious.” I’m sure the answer would be interesting.

If someone is slated to be deported, there ought to be some mechanism that can ensure they follow the legal order to leave the country. Instead of allowing illegals to disappear, isn’t there some way to track them while they are appealing? It’s a tough problem but short of halting deportations altogether, at least some effort besides the half-hearted PEP program that can’t work anyway because of the non-cooperation of sanctuary cities should be made.

Source: PJ Media

Levin: Admitting Syrian Refugees is ‘National Suicide,’ ‘Nothing Compassionate About It’

Quote of the Day 11/28/15

“There is no maxim in my opinion which is more liable to be misapplied, and which therefore needs elucidation than the current one that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong… . In fact it is only reestablishing under another name and a more specious form, force as the measure of right… .”
James Madison(1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President

Why Won’t We Call This Islamist Terrorism? by Victor Davis Hanson

This isn’t an attack on “humanity.” It’s a war against the West.

President Obama summed up the jihadist killing in Paris as “an attack not just on Paris.” But rather, he assured us, “This is an attack on all of humanity and the universal values we share.”

But is that assumption true?

Certainly, the president seems as unable to utter the targeted “West” and “Western” as he is the targeter “radical Islam” or “jihadist.”

Were the suicide bombers and the AK-47 shooters who slaughtered the innocent in Paris seeking to destroy the ideology of communist China?

Was their deadly message aimed at the protocols of Cuba, North Korea, or Venezuela? The Islamist terrorists — how careful were the president and the American news media to use the generic “they” and the non-specific “the terrorists” — did not seem too concerned with “all of humanity.” By the pattern of their attacks, our enemies seem not to share with the president that all of humanity embraces “universal values.”

Certainly the Vietnamese and Ecuadorians are more safe than those in Paris, New York, or Fort Hood. Communist Chinese profiteers in Africa or cartoonists in Beijing are not on the targeting list of ISIS.

Instead, radical Muslims and jihadists abroad overwhelmingly focus on Westerners. In the Middle East, when they don’t find them so ubiquitously any more, they kill and torture other religious and tribal groups who do not adhere to their particular brand of fundamentalist Sunni or Shiite Islam.

At home, the agendas of the tea party, Occupy Wall Street, anti-abortionists, Black Lives Matter, radical feminists, Christian fundamentalists and revolutionary atheists do not manifest themselves in blowing up restaurants and massacring innocents. Abroad, Christian crusaders are not desecrating mosques. Kurdish militias are not beheading civilians on videos. Jewish “militants” are not cutting off hands in religious courts, and Sufi clerics are not blowing up UN world heritage sites.

To the degree the Paris killers seek existential resonance, they are clearly attacking the expressions and manifestations of quite singular Western values of consensual government, human rights, equality of the sexes, freedom of expression and religion, and the bounty that follows from free market economics and the sanctions of private property. They hate not humanity so much as they do the West — and for an apparent variety of reasons that transcend the usual boilerplate of supporting Israel, buying oil from plutocratic sheiks and thuggish theocrats, or occasionally bombing or droning an unhinged terrorist or dictator.

* * *

The West is powerful, far more powerful than the alternatives, and its reach threatens, both insidiously and overtly, its antitheses. The treatment by radical Islamists of Christians, women, minorities, and homosexuals reminds us that inclusivity and diversity are not their creed. In fact, Islamists despise diversity as proof of our impurity and apostasy.

Yet radical Muslims, like moths to a flame, gravitate toward the affluent and leisured West — the recruiting grounds of ISIS are often in Europe and North America — as if they too want the security of civilized landscapes, but not the institutions that birth and nurture them. As nihilists, non-integrating Muslim fundamentalists in the West would turn their adopted enclaves into something similar to what they fled in the Middle East — and then move on when they found the water dangerous, medical care nonexistent, and safety for their children iffy.

The more the West welcomes in migrants from the Middle East who break immigration laws and issue demands on their hosts upon arrival, the more radical Muslims see such hospitality as weakness to be despised rather than as magnanimity to be appreciated. They see Western refinement in Thucydidean terms as endangering muscularity; like good parasites they feed off their hosts with the expectation that the meal provider will last for quite some time.

Western affluence and popular culture threaten to obliterate the 7th-century of the madrassa, and not by intent, but, far worse, by indifference. Young male Middle Easterners, in Mohamed Atta fashion, in London, Paris, and Berlin, as good addicts hate the provider of their pleasure — whether expressed benignly in Parisian soccer matches and rock concerts or in more tawdry fashion by the likes of Miley Cyrus and the Kardashians — and would hate them even more if they were to withdraw it.

Even the most clever jihadists cannot make the technology they use to destroy Westerners — from jetliners to plastic explosives to cell phones and the Internet; their religious figures damn Western technology as proof of our decadence and then see their youth hooked on it in addictive fashion. Their reaction to Western popular bounty is of course schizophrenic, true of most passive-aggressives, who alternate between bouts of inferiority and superiority. What did these weak, atheistic, and ambiguous Westerners do, they snarl to themselves, to obtain such extravagant but also decadent lifestyles? Are they wealthy and cocky, and we of the Middle East poor and miserable, because they choose Mammon over Allah, or because as imperialists and colonialists they robbed the treasures of the caliphate and have been living off our bounty ever since?

* * *

By any historical measure, radical Islamists like Al Qaeda and ISIS are weak, lacking the manpower, technology and economic power of the West. But they see willpower, zealotry, and suicidal nihilism as force multipliers in their war against the current postmodern West. And as they grow, they are dismissed by Western leaders such as Barack Obama and John Kerry with assurances that they are “contained” and “their days are numbered.”

The more our intelligence and government technocrats assure us that the Muslim Brotherhood is largely “secular” or that the Fort Hood terrorist Major Hasan’s labors represented “workplace violence,” or that a right-wing video stirred up the spontaneous “rioters” in Benghazi, the more Islamists up the ante — in part due to strategic arrogance that follows the loss of Western deterrence, but also in part due to sick curiosity over just how far one has to go to rile up these “Eloi:” blow up the finale of the Boston Marathon, shoot up soldiers at a military base, butcher cartoonists in Paris, or something akin to 9/11 and Friday’s massacre in Paris? Will all that ever earn more than campus trigger warnings about “Islamophobia”?

If the president recently announced that global warming was the world’s greatest threat, if John Kerry sees climate change as the catalyst for the implosion of the Middle East (have four years of crippling drought forced Californians to strap on suicide belts?), and if Al Gore is perched high above the fray in the Eiffel Tower tweeting about earth in the balance, the jihadists are far more earthly.

Both before September 11 and afterward, they lost fear of Western retaliation. Before 9/11 they killed hundreds, like a sheep shearer who was careful to keep his periodic sheering reasonable and profitable. After 9/11, they grasped that even when bombed, invaded, and defeated at home, their long wars eventually exhaust Westerners, who, it turns out, can live with an occasional blown-up jet or shot-up rock concert, but not with a constabulary force in Iraq.

ISIL will assume that after the Paris attack, European and American leaders will, in time, remind Westerners of the dangers of right-wing nativists and xenophobes and “overreaction.” They will focus on the need to condemn abstract terrorism and extremism, and the need to reach out and embrace our common humanity. And such Islamist cynicism will be largely spot on about our leadership and culture — in the fashion that Osama bin Laden once blamed us for global warming and the lack of campaign finance reform.

Government run amok by Bonnie Kristian

Federal agents took more money and stuff from Americans in 2014 than burglars did.

In 2014, the federal government confiscated some $4.5 billion from Americans through civil asset forfeiture, according to a recent report from the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit libertarian law and research organization.

That’s a figure which has been growing rapidly in recent years—as recently as 2008 it was “just” $1.5 billion, and there’s compelling evidence that law enforcement agencies use this license to bolster their budgets in lean years.

In the words of one officer, civil asset forfeiture funds are “kind of like pennies from heaven. It gets you a toy or something that you need is the way that we typically look at it to be perfectly honest.”

That $4.5 billion figure is shocking on its own.

But it’s even more shocking when you put it in this perspective: in that same year, FBI records show burglars took only $3.9 billion from Americans.

So in 2014, the federal government took more money and stuff from Americans than actual burglars did.

Our government is “getting really good at separating the citizen from their property — not just really good, criminally good.”

This comparison is even more appalling when you consider that many people whose money or stuff is taken through civil asset forfeiture are never charged or convicted with any crime.

That’s because it essentially allows a police officer who finds you “suspicious” to just take your stuff.

Once your property has been confiscated, the burden of proof is on you, not the police, to show that you didn’t get it from any criminal activity. Even if you personally are cleared of all charges, that may not matter. As the Philadelphia City Paper reports, “Technically, it’s the property—not its owner—that’s being accused of criminality, which means the property can be subject to forfeiture whether or not its owner is ever convicted of a crime.”

In other words, they don’t have to charge you. They don’t have to present any evidence of illegal activity. In fact, you have no right to a lawyer and won’t get a day in court. In some jurisdictions, you actually have to pay thousands of dollars just to be able to contest the seizure.

And guess what? The police conveniently happen to consider large amounts of cash very suspicious indeed—but not too suspicious to dump it right into their own department coffers.

Read more about civil asset
forfeiture here, and click here to learn how it functions in your state.

Bonnie Kristian is a columnist at Rare, a contributing writer at The Week, and a communications consultant for Young Americans for Liberty. You can find more of her work at www.bonniekristian.com or follow her on Twitter @bonniekristian

Source: Rare