Judicial Watch • illegal immigration

illegal immigration Archives | Page 7 of 9 | Judicial Watch

In a perplexing development ignored by the mainstream media, the Obama Administration suspended tens of thousands of deportations last year and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano lied to a Senate committee to cover up the astounding figure.Napolitano told the Senate Judiciary Committee that has oversight over the Department of Homeland Security that her agency halted the deportation of only 900 illegal immigrants in fiscal year 2010. She did admit that the figure could be higher because it excludes “deferred action” granted to illegal immigrants for “humanitarian” reasons.Not surprisingly, Madame Secretary never indicated how much higher the figure could be, which may lead many to conclude that she purposely deceived federal lawmakers. It turns out that the Obama Administration halted the deportation of 34,448 illegal immigrants last year, according to Homeland Security figures obtained independently by a Senator (Charles Grassley of Iowa) who sits on the Judiciary Committee.After the Senate hearing, which took place last month in Washington D.C., Napolitano’s own staff corrected her atrocious lie, according to Senator Grassley’s press secretary, who provided Judicial Watch with the accurate number. According to Homeland Security figures provided to Senator Grassley’s staff, the combined deferred action and paroles of illegal immigrants in 2010 amounted to 34,448.This appears to be part of the administration’s secret amnesty plan in case Congress doesn’t pass legislation to legalize the nation’s 12 million illegal immigrants. Devised by political appointees at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the plan aims to enact“meaningful immigration reform absent legislative action.”This includes delaying deportation indefinitely (“deferred action”), granting green cards, allowing illegal immigrants to remain in the U.S. indefinitely while they seek legal status (known as “parole in place”) and expanding the definition of “extreme hardships” so any illegal alien could meet the criteria and remain in the country.Last summer the Obama Administration ordered authorities to stop removing illegal immigrants who are students while lawmakers craft legislation to officially shield them from expulsion. The move, which has spared an estimated 700,000 illegal aliens, came in response to nationwide rallies by defiant illegal immigrants protesting their eminent removal or that of their undocumented parents.Judicial Watch has sued the Department of Homeland Security to obtain records detailing the stealth amnesty plan because the agency has ignored a federal public records request that dates back to July 2010.

New Jersey’s largest newspaper is accusing officials at a public college in Randolph of being“cowardly” and “gutless” for reversing a controversial policy offering illegal immigrants discounted tuition after Judicial Watch challenged it.Amid strong opposition, trustees at the County College of Morris, a two-year school with an enrollment of about 9,000, voted earlier this year to give illegal aliens cheaper in-state tuition even though New Jersey’s legislature had rejected a measure that would have granted undocumented students the perk at all public institutions of higher learning.The County College of Morris passed its own policy to help an “increasing number of students” who could not be educated at the school, according to its president. The move could not have come at a worst time, in the midst of a dire financial crisis that has negatively impacted public education at every level in the Garden State.Judicial Watch quickly challenged the measure, pointing out to college trustees in a letter that illegal immigrants are ineligible for state and local public benefits such as discounted tuition under federal law. Under intense pressure, the County College of Morris responded by saying that it would “reevaluate” its new illegal alien tuition policy by this month. Last week trustees reversed the contentious measure, angering immigration advocates and New Jersey’s biggest newspaper.In a scathing editorial published this week, the Star-Ledger calls the reversal a victory for the“pitch-fork and torch brigade” that will shape immigration policy if Congress doesn’t pass amnesty legislation. The piece accuses those who oppose illegal immigration of making life as “difficult and miserable as possible” for “each and every” illegal immigrant in the United States“no matter the cost to immigrant families or the communities where they live and work.”It further points out that, by charging illegal aliens the much higher out-of-state tuition, colleges “close the door on many undocumented teenagers who aspire to better things.” After all, they were brought to this country without any say in the matter, the editorial says. “But it seems there’s not enough punishment to go around for families and their children already forced to live in the shadows.”Judicial Watch has been a frontrunner in efforts to stop the use of public funds to promote illegal immigration. Earlier this year Judicial Watch filed a taxpayer lawsuit against Maryland’sMontgomery College for unlawfully offering discounted tuition rates to illegal aliens who graduate from local high schools. The policy violates both Maryland and federal law and places a substantial financial burden on Montgomery County taxpayers, who subsidize the cost of students attending the community college.

For the third time in a few months a federal report exposes how the U.S. government prioritizes environmental preservation over national security by keeping Border Patrol agents out of wildlife refuges that are heavily transited by Mexican drug and human smugglers.Among them is a popular smugglers’ corridor, the 2,300-acre San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge, used by an illegal immigrant who murdered an Arizona rancher last spring. For years, Border Patrol agents have been prohibited by the Interior Department and the U.S. Forest Service from actively patrolling such areas because it threatens natural resources.Motorized vehicles, road construction and the installation of surveillance structures required to adequately secure the vast areas are forbidden because it could endanger the environment and its wildlife. In the meantime, Mexican drug cartels and human smugglers regularly use the sprawling, unmanned and federally protected land to enter the U.S. The areas have become the path of choice for illicit operations that endanger American lives and, ironically, cause severe environmental damage.Adding insult to injury, Interior officials charge the Department of Homeland Security millions of dollars for conducting preapproved Border Patrol operations on its land. Since 2007, Homeland Security has paid the Interior Department more than $9 million to mitigate the “environmental damage” of protecting the border.Despite two recent congressional reports (check them out here and here) documenting the obstacles Border Patrol officers face in these dangerous areas, little has been done to remedy the situation and improve security. An overwhelming majority of Border Patrol agents told congressional investigators that “land management laws” continue to limit their access to federal lands along the treacherous southwestern border.The federal officers surveyed most recently by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the investigative arm of Congress, say they continue to encounter “delays and restrictions in their patrolling and monitoring operations” on federally protected lands. In one enraging case, land managers took more than four months to conduct the required “historic property assessment” before granting the Border Patrol permission to move surveillance equipment.The situation is so dire that a group of lawmakers have introduced legislation to prohibit any federal agency—especially the Department of the Interior—from using environmental regulations to hinder the Border Patrol from securing the area. The measure would essentially ensure that Border Patrol, not federal land managers, have operational control of the nation’s borders.

In the Obama Administration’s latest move to protect illegal immigrants while an amnesty plan gets worked out, Homeland Security officials said they won’t take action against a group of outlaws arrested in Georgia last week.The illegal immigrants participated in a disruptive Atlanta demonstration to protest a state measure that bans undocumented students from attending some public colleges. The seven self-described activists, who proudly boasted about their illegal status, were arrested by local police for blocking traffic in bustling downtown Atlanta for about an hour.Local media followed up this week by inquiring about the arrested demonstrators and the Homeland Security agency responsible for removing illegal aliens, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), confirmed that it was not taking any “enforcement actions against the student demonstrators.” One ICE official pointed to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s well-documented stance on not deporting illegal immigrant students.Last summer the Obama Administration ordered authorities to stop removing illegal immigrants who are students while lawmakers craft legislation to officially shield them from expulsion. The move, which has spared an estimated 700,000 illegal aliens, came in response to nationwide rallies by defiant illegal immigrants protesting their eminent removal or that of their undocumented parents.The directive is part of Obama’s secret backdoor amnesty plan in case Congress doesn’t pass legislation to legalize the nation’s 12 million illegal immigrants. Devised by political appointees at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the plan aims to enact “meaningful immigration reform absent legislative action.”This includes “deferred action” delaying deportation indefinitely, granting green cards, allowing illegal immigrants to remain in the U.S. indefinitely while they seek legal status (known as “parole in place”) and expanding the definition of “extreme hardships” so any illegal alien could meet the criteria and remain in the country.Judicial Watch has sued the Department of Homeland Security to obtain records detailing the stealth amnesty plan because the agency has ignored a federal public records request that dates back to July 2010.

Surprise, surprise; Census Bureau data reveals that most U.S. families headed by illegal immigrants use taxpayer-funded welfare programs on behalf of their American-born anchor babies.Even before the recession, immigrant households with children used welfare programs at consistently higher rates than natives, according to the extensive census data collected and analyzed by a nonpartisanWashington D.C. group dedicated to researching legal and illegal immigration in the U.S. The results, published this month in a lengthy report, are hardly surprising.Basically, the majority of households across the country benefitting from publicly-funded welfare programs are headed by immigrants, both legal and illegal. States where immigrant households with children have the highest welfare use rates are Arizona (62%), Texas, California and New York with 61% each and Pennsylvania(59%).The study focused on eight major welfare programs that cost the government $517 billion the year they were examined. They include Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for the disabled, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), a nutritional program known as Women, Infants and Children (WIC), food stamps, free/reduced school lunch, public housing and health insurance for the poor (Medicaid).Food assistance and Medicaid are the programs most commonly used by illegal immigrants, mainly on behalf of their American-born children who get automatic citizenship. On the other hand, legal immigrant households take advantage of every available welfare program, according to the study, which attributes it to low education level and resulting low income.The highest rate of welfare recipients come from the Dominican Republic (82 %), Mexico and Guatemala (75%) and Ecuador (70%), according to the report, which says welfare use tends to be high for both new arrivals and established residents.

Although Oregon is suffering through a dire budget crisis that will drastically slash funding for public education, state lawmakers are working to give illegal immigrants discounted tuition at taxpayer-funded colleges and universities.Ten states currently offer the perk, which costs U.S. taxpayers millions of dollars annually, while several have reversed the outrageous and controversial policy in the last few years. Among states that still give illegal aliens heavily discounted in-state tuition at public institutions of higher learning are Texas, Utah, Washington, New York and California.Earlier this month California lawmakers introduced a measure to also give illegal immigrants millions of dollars in taxpayer-funded scholarships and financial aid in addition to cheaper tuition. Known as the California Dream Act, the bill is quickly making its way through the state legislature and has a great chance of becoming law because, unlike his predecessor who thrice vetoed it, Governor Jerry Brown has vowed to sign it.Oregon’s measure won’t go that far but will still offer undocumented students a huge tuition discount, currently reserved for the state’s legal residents, if they graduate from a local high school. The state’s senate approved the bill this week with a comfortable margin and it will head to the House, where it appears to have support from both Democrats and Republicans.The timing couldn’t be worse because, like many states across the nation, Oregon is suffering through a monstrous budget shortfall that will severely cut many public services including education. The difference between in-state tuition at theUniversity of Oregon is $8,190 compared to $25,000 for out-of-state or international students, including illegal aliens. Universities would therefore give up crucial revenue from students who would otherwise pay the much-higher nonresident rates.But students shouldn’t be punished because their parents brought them to the U.S.illegally, say Oregon lawmakers pushing the law. They insist kids should not be penalized for their parents’ actions and that the state should encourage all students to be productive residents after investing in years of public education through high school.Driving home the argument in a tear-jerking speech, a Republican state senator who sponsored the law, asked: “Have these children broken the law when many were carried into this country in the arms of their mother?”

Amid heated immigration debates, members of Congress are being asked to sign a pledge acknowledging the economic, civic and cultural contributions of Latinos and opposing “irresponsible and inflammatory rhetoric” that “dehumanizes” them.The contract is part of the “Pledge for Respect” campaign launched this month by the politically-connected National Council of La Raza (NCLR), which bills itself as the largest Latino civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States. The influential Mexican group receives millions of federal tax dollars annually to promote its leftist, open-borders agenda and has hundreds of branches throughout the nation.NCLR leaders regularly attend congressional hearings as well as White House meetings and President Obama hired one of the group’s top officials (Cecilia Munoz) to serve in his administration. The commander-in-chief even violated his own lobbyist ban to make Munoz director of intergovernmental affairs even though she supervised all legislative and advocacy activities on the state and local levels for the NCLR, which is headquartered in Washington D.C.With that said, this isn’t merely a publicity stunt for the powerful NCLR, which is pushing the respect campaign as part of this year’s National Latino Advocacy Days. The idea is to reinforce that the Hispanic community is an integral part of the fabric of America, according to the group, which is also using the opportunity to denounce politicians who use Latinos to exploit xenophobia for political gain.The contract also forces members of Congress to promise that they’ll meet with advocates and leaders from the Hispanic nonprofit (that would include the NCLR) and business communities to hear their perspective on the “issues.” That way they could find a common ground based on “shared values and interests.”To launch its respect campaign the NCLR enlisted a Los Angeles hip-hop band named after the Aztec astrological symbol of the monkey (Ozomatli). In a public service ad, members of the musical group claim that some candidates for public office have called for landmines on the U.S.-Mexico border and microchips to be implanted in undocumented immigrants. Others have used “stereotypical and menacing images of Latinos in their campaign ads.”The message goes on to say that elected officials and states have fashioned “extreme draconian” proposals against the immigrant and Latino communities, including the elimination of ethnic studies programs in public schools, forcing publicly-funded hospitals to ask for patients’ immigration status and stripping U.S. citizenship from children born to illegal aliens. “It’s time to tell Congress that we won’t stand for this anymore. We need to know who is with us and who is against us! “

The family of a drug-abusing illegal immigrant who died after being subdued with a stun gun is suing the U.S. government for using excessive force that led to his “wrongful death.”The illegal immigrant, Anastacio Hernandez, lived in San Diego and was twice deported to his native Mexico. He became unruly when federal agents tried to deport him at the San Ysidro border crossing in May and an officer used a stun gun to control him. Hernandez ended up dying and the San Diego County coroner ruled it a heart attack with methamphetamine abuse and hypertension as contributing factors.Mexico’s president was quick to condemn the U.S. for the incident, saying that a death “with that degree of violence is a truly unacceptable violation.” The Mexican consulate followed up with an official statement reiterating its “strongest condemnation” of the incident that led to the death of one of its citizens.This week the illegal alien’s family filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the U.S.government in San Diego, alleging that immigration agents used excessive force to detain the 42-year-old construction worker as they escorted him to Tijuana. The complaint says agents repeatedly beat Hernandez and shot him several times with the stun gun.The Mexican consulate in San Diego organized a press conference to announce the lawsuit and introduce the family’s attorney, who claims the illegal alien was “frightened” and “pleading for his life” when agents beat him. Mexican authorities have demanded a thorough investigation of the incident and the Obama Administration has vowed to oblige.Of interesting note is that the Justice Department has transferred the case to its civil rights division, which is headed by Thomas Perez, the former Maryland Labor Secretary that has long fought for the rights of illegal immigrants. Perez supports Mexican and Guatemalan-issued cards as valid identification in this country, favors discounted tuition for illegal immigrants at public colleges and universities and supports programs that advice illegal aliens how to deal with police.Perez also served on the board of a controversial, taxpayer-funded day laborer center (Casa de Maryland) that helps illegal immigrants by operating employment facilities and offering free legal services. As head of the Justice Department’s civil rights division he has wasted taxpayer resources to prevent states from enforcing immigration laws and sued an Arizona public college system for discrimination because it requires job applicants to furnish proof of residency before getting hired.Last week Perez announced the administration’s commitment to eliminating teststhat discriminate against minorities in the workplace, asserting that the racial discrimination created by written exams is especially rampant in the nation’s police and fire departments because they disproportionately screen out people of a particular race even though they “present the appearance of objective, merit-based selection.”

Sign Up for Updates!