Federal judges created a loophole in the law by mandating the release of “families with children” after a short period of detention. Often times, these “families,” most of whom hail from Honduras or other Central America countries, request political asylum as soon as they reach the border, despite the fact that many of them openly admit to coming to the U.S. for economic reasons. As early as 2016 government officials warned that loophole in the nation’s immigration law would incentivize the abduction of children so that would-be illegal aliens could pose as families.
Not surprisingly, the Department of Homeland Security reports that the number of family units crossing the border increased by 625 percent since last April. Moreover, the U.S. has experienced a 900 percent increase in illegal aliens abducting children as props to pose as families this year, with 400 such attempts already reported thus far. Despite Trump administration warnings that aliens illegally entering the U.S. would be prosecuted, many would-be illegal aliens, like many of the participants in the illegal alien caravan, continue to claim political asylum as a way to sidestep increased border enforcement.
Border Patrol agents tell FAIR that stories coming from Central Americans requesting political asylum are so over-rehearsed and identical that asylum officers could literally document the alien’s claim before they are even interviewed. Of course, for those who claim to be fleeing political persecution, it begs the question why they didn’t ask for asylum once they entered Mexico, as they were no longer in the country where their reported persecution was taking place.
To address this form of asylum shopping, the Trump Administration is reportedly negotiating a “first safe country” agreement with Mexico – similar to the one the U.S. currently has with Canada – that would require asylum seekers to make their political asylum request in the first safe country they enter.
That one policy would have stopped this spring’s infamous illegal alien caravan, which left Central America and spent a month crossing Mexico, in its tracks.
ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT RESPONSIBILITIES AN ELECTED OFFICIAL HAS, ON EVERY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT, IS TO PROTECT, AND REPRESENT, WE THE PEOPLE THAT ELECTED THAT OFFICIAL. IT IS YOUR RESPONIBILITY TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS OF THE CITIZENS OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA.
IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS CITY COUNCIL DOESN’T THINK THERE IS A PROBLEM OF ILLEGALS IN TUSTIN. EVEN IF THERE WERE NO ILLEGALS IN TUSTIN, WE THE PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF (SB-54).
I DO NOT KNOW ON WHAT BASIS YOU HAVE MADE THIS DECISION. AS A CITIZEN OF TUSTIN, FOR 40 YEARS, I DEMAND YOU OFFICIALLY PLACE THE ISSUE ON THE AGENDA AND LET THE CITIZENS KNOW YOUR POSITION.
IT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION IN TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA AND IN EVERY CITY AND STATE IN OUR NATION. I LOOK UPON SANCTUARY CITY LAW (SB-54), TO BE COMPARABLE TO WHEN THE SOUTHERN STATES, SUCEEDED FROM THE NATION. THE MOVE RESULTED IN THE CIVIL WAR.
ANY LAW, THAT ILLEGALY SEPARATES AND REMOVES ITSELF FROM THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, EVEN A PARTIAL ONE LIKE (SB-54), IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. SOUNDS IMPOSSIBLE? WE THE PEOPLE, WILL BE DECIDING IF WE ARE TO SPLIT CALIFORNIA INTO THREE SEPARATE STATES THIS ELECTION.
I, NOR ANY VETERAN, DID NOT SERVE IN THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES TO COME HOME, AND TO PRESERVE, ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. WE SERVED TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
I SUPPORT THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AND LEGAL IMMIGRATION. WE ARE A COUNTY OF LEGAL IMMIGRANTS. I DO NOT SUPPORT (SB-54) IN ANY WAY.
FOR THOSE WHO ARE CONCERNED ABOUT COSTS, REMEMBER, SOME OF OUR VETERANS HAVE PAID THE ULTIMATE PRICE TO PRESERVE OUR WAY OF LIFE.
WE THE PEOPLE, DEMAND YOU MAKE YOURSELF HEARD ON THIS ISSUE.
LARRY BALES, VIET NAM VETERAN,