Illegal Immigration

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Two Militia Founders Are Convicted of Plot to Kill Federal Agents

      by

      “We were going out huntin’,” one of the men said in a video before a planned trip to the Mexico border, where they intended to shoot at immigrants and officials who might stop them, prosecutors said.Two founders of a militia group who were plotting a trip to the U.S.-Mexico border to shoot at immigrants and the authorities who might try to stop them were convicted on Thursday by a federal jury in Missouri of attempting to murder federal agents, prosecutors said.A jury in Jefferson City, Mo., convicted the men, Jonathan S. O’Dell, 34, of Warsaw, Mo., and Bryan C. Perry, 39, of Clarksville, Tenn., of multiple felony counts.Most of the counts were linked to the men shooting at F.B.I. agents who arrived with a search warrant at Mr. O’Dell’s home. Among other charges, Mr. O’Dell and Mr. Perry were also convicted of conspiracy to murder officers and employees of the United States government, prosecutors said.They each face a minimum of 10 years in prison and up to a life sentence. Under federal statutes, neither would be eligible for parole. Lawyers for the men could not be immediately reached for comment on Saturday.Beginning in the summer of 2022, Mr. O’Dell and Mr. Perry tried to recruit others to join what they called the 2nd American Militia, prosecutors said.In September 2022, Mr. Perry posted a video on TikTok in which he said that the U.S. Border Patrol was committing treason by allowing illegal immigrants to enter the United States.In that same video, he said that the penalty for treason was death, court records show. In another video, he said that he was “ready to go to war against this government.”By late September, the two men stepped up their plans. They continued to recruit, acquired paramilitary gear and practiced shooting at targets, according to officials.Mr. Perry posted a video on TikTok in which he said “we’re out to shoot to kill,” and added that “our group is gonna go protect this country.” In early October, he posted another video. In that one he said that “we were going out huntin’,” and that his militia would go to the border on Oct. 8.But on Oct. 7, F.B.I. agents arrived at Mr. O’Dell’s home in an armored vehicle and identified themselves through a loudspeaker. The agents were met with gunfire, officials said, and several rounds hit the vehicle.The agents did not return fire and eventually Mr. O’Dell surrendered, officials said. Mr. Perry was also arrested at the home, but only after he brawled with agents and injured one, according to court documents.Agents found six guns and 23 magazines filled with ammunition inside Mr. O’Dell’s home, officials said. The F.B.I. recovered about 1,800 rounds of other ammunition, two sets of body armor, two gas masks, two ballistic helmets and zip ties. Agents also discovered multiple containers of liquids that would explode upon mixing. More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Is About to Face the Choice That Dooms Many Presidencies

      by

      As happens every time a new president is elected, Donald Trump is experiencing a sudden role reversal. His campaign to earn support from voters has ended abruptly and a new one has begun among donors and activists to earn his support for their priorities. The election was about tax cuts, or maybe cryptocurrency, the arguments go. What Americans really want, sir, is fewer protections on the job and a weaker safety net.This is the first moment when presidencies go wrong. Rather than prepare to govern on behalf of the electorate that put them in power — especially the independent swing voters who by definition provide the margin of victory in a two-party system — new presidents, themselves typically members of the donor and activist communities, convince themselves that their personal preferences are the people’s as well. Two years later, their political capital expended and their agendas in shambles, their parties often suffer crushing defeats in midterm elections.As he looks toward his new term, Mr. Trump could claim a mandate to lead however he wishes, huddle with his supporters at Mar-a-Lago and then see how much of their agenda he can advance before his popularity falls too far to effect further change. That is the formula that has left a nation seemingly resigned to the loss of both common purpose and institutional competence. It is not a formula for a successful presidency, let alone for making America great again.He has another option. He is an iconoclastic leader with a uniquely unfiltered relationship to the American people and a disdain for the chattering class of consultants. He is also the first president since Grover Cleveland to get a second shot at a first term. He has already experienced the bruising tax fight that helped bring his approval rating down to 36 percent a year after his inauguration, the failed attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act and the loss of more than 40 House seats and control of the chamber in a midterm election. In the early hours of Wednesday morning, he made a promise to “every citizen” that he would “fight for you, for your family and your future” and that “this will truly be the golden age of America.” Achieving that will require focusing on the challenges and respecting the values broadly shared by not only his voters, but also many others who might come to support him.Take immigration. A promise to secure the border has long been a central aspect of Mr. Trump’s appeal, and Democrats are now clambering to get on his side of the issue. A Trump administration serving American voters would stanch the flow of migrants with tough border enforcement and asylum restrictions, reverse the Biden administration’s lawlessness by removing recent arrivals and protect American workers and businesses by mandating that employers use the E-Verify program to confirm the legal status of the people who work for them. That program, which strikes at the harm that illegal immigration does to American workers, is wildly popular. A recent survey of 2,000 adults conducted by my organization, American Compass, in partnership with YouGov, found 78 percent support overall and 68 percent support even among Democrats. Law-abiding businesses tend to like it, too — they’re tired of getting undercut by competitors that get away with breaking the rules.That’s the path to solving the problem. Mr. Trump will hear a lot of counterarguments from the affluent and influential class that builds its business model on underpaid, undocumented labor, especially in industries such as construction and hospitality, where he has personal experience, as well as in agriculture. Those voices are likely to suggest that instead he condescend to the masses with border theater and hostile rhetoric, while expanding temporary worker programs. To this end, Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, who opposes the E-Verify program on libertarian grounds, has already been mentioned as a potential candidate for secretary of agriculture. Moves like that will keep the guests at Mr. Trump’s golf clubs happy but ensure growing frustration and disillusion elsewhere.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Judge Tosses Out Biden Program For Undocumented Spouses

      by

      The ruling issued by a federal judge in Texas struck down a new initiative aimed at helping undocumented spouses of U.S. citizens stay in the country.A federal judge in Texas on Thursday struck down a new Biden administration program that sought to provide a path to U.S. citizenship for hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants married to American citizens.The ruling, issued by Judge J. Campbell Barker of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, came months after 16 Republican-led states, led by Texas’ attorney general, Ken Paxton, filed a lawsuit claiming that the administration lacked the legal authority to enact the program. In August, Judge Barker temporarily blocked the initiative, just days after it had gone into place.On Thursday, in a 74-page decision, he explained that the Biden administration did not have the authority to create the program, which would have been unlikely to remain in place after President-elect Trump took office in January.The Biden administration started the initiative, known as Keeping Families Together, in August, allowing undocumented immigrants who were married to U.S. citizens and had been in the United States for 10 years or more a chance to gain a green card without leaving the country.Read the Judge’s RulingA federal judge in Texas struck down a new Biden administration program that sought to provide a path to U.S. citizenship for hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants married to American citizens.Read Document 74 pagesGenerally, immigrants who have entered the United States illegally must leave the country to complete the green card process, which can take years. The Biden program, which was in place for a week, allowed those who were married to U.S. citizens to remain in the country by granting them what the immigration system refers to as “parole,” a status that also protected them from deportation.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 50 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Read the Judge’s Ruling

      by

      Case 6:24-cv-00306-JCB Document 120 Filed 11/07/24 Page 6 of 74 PageID #: 2962
      a foreign port or place or from an outlying possession.” Id.
      § 101(a)(13), 66 Stat. at 167.³
      c. Obtaining LPR status. – As today, status as an alien law-
      fully admitted for permanent residence (LPR or “green card” sta-
      tus) enabled an alien’s eventual naturalization as a U.S. citizen. Id.
      § 318, 66 Stat. at 244 (“no person shall be naturalized unless he
      has been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent res-
      idence”), codified as amended at 8 U.S.C. § 1429. The INA of 1952
      defined two processes for obtaining LPR status.
      First, an alien could apply for an immigrant visa at a U.S. con-
      sulate or embassy abroad, wait for one to become available and to
      issue, and then travel to a U.S. port of entry and be admitted for
      permanent residence under that visa. Id. §§ 101(a)(9) (consular
      officer), 203 (numerical limits), 211 (admission), 221 (consular is-
      suance), 66 Stat. at 166-67, 178–79, 181-82, 191–92. Aliens often
      had to wait their turn for immigrant visas to become available be-
      cause of annual limits on visa issuance. See id. § 201, 66 Stat. at
      175-76, codified as amended at 8 U.S.C. § 1151.4
      Second, an alien lawfully admitted to the United States in one
      status could, while here, adjust to LPR status. Under INA
      § 245(a), an alien “lawfully admitted to the United States as a
      bona fide nonimmigrant,” and who so entered the country, could
      petition for adjustment to LPR status upon certain showings re-
      lated to immigrant visas. Id. § 245(a), 66 Stat. at 217. But an alien’s
      parole from detention pending exclusion proceedings was not “an
      admission of the alien,” id. § 212(d)(5), 66 Stat. at 188, and thus
      did not allow the alien to petition to adjust to LPR status.
      ³ One exception was made, providing that LPR aliens were not “regarded”
      as “making an entry into the United States for purposes of the immigration
      laws” if they did not intend or reasonably expect to depart from the United
      States in the first place. Id.; see Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U.S. 449 (1963) (inter-
      preting that clause). The need for that exception confirms that the term “en-
      try” itself refers to a physical movement into the country.
      4 Certain immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, however, have been ex-
      empted from immigrant-visa quotas. E.g., id. § 101(a)(27)(A), 66 Stat. at 169
      (“nonquota immigrants”); id. § 201(c), 66 Stat. at 176.
      -6- More

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      As Election Nears, Republicans Blame Child’s Rape on Immigration Crisis

      by

      Wilson Castillo Diaz was arrested in New York in connection with the rape of a 5-year-old girl. On Friday, local Republicans blamed Democratic immigration policies.A Long Island man who was charged with raping a 5-year-old girl last month was in the country illegally, the police said Friday as local Republican officials sought to connect the disturbing case to the bitter debate over immigration just days before the presidential vote.The man, Wilson Castillo Diaz, 27, is a Honduran migrant who crossed into the United States via the Rio Grande Valley in 2014 before Border Patrol agents detained him, the police said. Mr. Castillo Diaz skipped an immigration hearing and was last living in Westbury, N.Y., the authorities said.Mr. Castillo Diaz was arrested on Oct. 22, but local officials did not publicize the case until Friday, days before the end of an election season in which immigration has played a central role.Former President Donald J. Trump has sought to stir nativist sentiment from the campaign trail, and the large influx of migrants in New York City has stoked fears of a surge in crime, though that largely has not been reflected by crime statistics.At a news conference on Friday, Bruce Blakeman, the Nassau County Executive, said that the arrest of Mr. Castillo Diaz was the latest “illustration and evidence” of why authorities in his county closely watch for undocumented migrants.Mr. Blakeman, a Republican, said that the police waited more than a week to announce the arrest in order to protect the identities of the victim and her family.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 175 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Harris Came for a Fox News Interview, but Got a Debate With Bret Baier

      by

      Vice President Kamala Harris may not get another debate with former President Donald J. Trump, but on Wednesday, she got one with Bret Baier.In an interview that turned contentious almost the instant it began, Mr. Baier, Fox News’s chief political anchor, repeatedly pressed the Democratic presidential nominee on illegal immigration, taxpayer support for gender-transition surgery and other areas that closely aligned with Mr. Trump’s regular attacks against her.At one point, Mr. Baier wondered if the vice president considered Mr. Trump’s supporters “stupid.” (“I would never say that about the American people,” she replied.) At another point, he asked if she would apologize to the mother of a murdered 12-year-old Texas girl whose death is frequently invoked by Mr. Trump because two recent Venezuelan migrants were charged with the crime.Mr. Baier’s aggressive demeanor was consistent with the kind of tough coverage of Ms. Harris that blankets Fox News’s daily programming. Lots of viewers were surely eager to hear how she would respond when confronted head-on.Frequently, however, Mr. Baier did not give viewers that chance. Instead, looking frustrated, he cut off several of Ms. Harris’s answers after a few seconds. His first interruption came within the first half-minute of their exchange.“May I please finish responding?” Ms. Harris asked at one point. “I’m in the middle of responding to the point you’re making, and I’d like to finish.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 75 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      What if Trump Wins Like This?

      by

      If Donald Trump wins, the people who voted for him would have a range of reasons for putting him in office. There are a lot of potential Trump voters who don’t like him that much, or who really like only parts of his personality or platform and tolerate the rest.There are probably also those who have their own understanding of what they’re getting, possibly rooted in the way they felt about the Trump administration or feel about the Biden one. Some of this could be summarized by how Brian Kemp, the Georgia governor, pitched it recently: “Look, you may not like Donald Trump personally, but you’ll like his policies a lot better than Kamala Harris’s. It’s a business decision.”But how Mr. Trump understands that decision could be different. If he wins like this, how it’s been, how grim he’s taken things across the last two years but especially lately, his explanation for the victory — and the consequences of that reasoning — might be different and darker than even many of the people who voted for him wanted.The way he’s talked about towns like Springfield, Ohio, and the Haitians who officials have said are there legally to work resembles deeply the rhythms of the 2016 campaign: grim conflation of real and fake problems, real people caught up in the gears of awful scrutiny and abuse, the building pressure on politicians and people often in very normal and modest circumstances, and Mr. Trump weaving everything into a fable to prove that he was right.In his campaign speeches, intermixed with the jokes and riffs, Mr. Trump often talks about political retribution, the threat of World War III, the ruin that the country’s become. In just one speech, he talked about how he would “liberate” Wisconsin from an “invasion of murderers, rapists, hoodlums, drug dealers, thugs and vicious gang members,” and about how immigrant gangs had “occupied” “hundreds” of towns and cities across the Midwest, leaving law enforcement “petrified.”Mr. Trump seems to have twisted the reason that programs like Temporary Protected Status and humanitarian parole exist — for instance, Haiti has been deemed too unstable and dangerous to return to — into a reason for the programs not to exist. “So we have travel warnings,” he said. “‘Don’t go here, don’t go there, don’t go to the various countries’ and yet she’s taking in the worst of those people, the killers, the jailbirds, all of the worst of the people, she’s taking them in.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Rally in Aurora, Colo., Is Marked by Nativist Attacks

      by

      Former President Donald J. Trump escalated the nativist, anti-immigration rhetoric that has animated his political career with a speech Friday in Aurora, Colo., where he repeated false and grossly exaggerated claims about undocumented immigrants that local Republican officials have refuted.For weeks, Aurora has been fending off false rumors about the city. And its conservative Republican mayor, Mike Coffman, said in a statement on Friday that he hoped to show Mr. Trump that Aurora was “a considerably safe city.”But Mr. Trump has made debunked claims about Aurora, a Denver suburb, such a central part of his stump speech that he took a campaign detour to Colorado, which has not voted for a Republican in a presidential election since 2004, to make the case in person at a rally at the Gaylord Rockies Resort & Convention Center.And during a meandering 80-minute speech Mr. Trump repeated claims, which have been debunked by local officials, that Aurora had been “invaded and conquered,” described the United States as an “occupied state,” called for the death penalty “for any migrant that kills an American citizen” and revived a promise to use the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport suspected members of drug cartels and criminal gangs without due process.That law allows for the summary deportation of people from nations with which the United States is at war, that have invaded the United States or that have engaged in “predatory incursions.” It was far from clear whether the law could be used in the way that Mr. Trump was proposing.The false tale that Aurora, Colorado’s third-largest city, was occupied by armed Venezuelans stemmed from a dispute over housing conditions.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More