Conflict of Interest: Criminal Global Banking Conglomerates Own the Media

Trust Me

Yesterday I pointed out that…

even when global banking conglomerates are caught red-handed, profiting from human misery (including human trafficking and sex trade) they only get fined. No one goes to jail, because the politicians are on the take…
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/outrageous-hsbc-settlement-proves-the-drug-war-is-a-joke-20121213

Well, today I would like to further point out how the media is partially owned by the big banks, so they won’t go very far to raise outrage when they get caught supporting human traffickers…

It’s just one example but it turns out that HSBC holds massive amounts of Time Warner stock. Time Warner owns Turner, Turner owns CNN. CNN pays Anderson Cooper to read whatever they tell him to.

“Hsbc Holdings PLC increased its position in shares of Time Warner (NYSE:TWX) by 24.6% in the 1st quarter, according to the company in its most recent filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The firm owned 1,984,015 shares of the media conglomerate’s stock after buying an additional 391,221 shares during the period. Hsbc Holdings PLC’s holdings in Time Warner were worth $187,648,000 at the end of the most recent reporting period.”

Read More: https://www.tickerreport.com/…/time-warner-twx-position…

Well, just one example of how an international bank that was caught profiting from Cartel money (which includes profits from human trafficking) is also a major investor in an American Media conglomerate.

Do you really think that international corporations work for the good of the people?

You really think that what they call “news” and “information” are legitimate and not pro-corporate, pro-crime propaganda? 

It’s propaganda-for-profit.

Human Trafficking is Why We Need to Deter Undocumented, Unsafe, Illegal Border Crossings…

People have the best intentions.

But undocumented children in detention was at an all time high in 2014, under Obama, but the media didn’t direct people’s attention to it because they were pro-Obama.

The outrage is sincere now, but it’s been manufactured by the media directing our attention where they want to.

My issue isn’t with intentions or people’s justified emotions, my issue is with the outcomes of encouraging more people trafficking and people smuggling. It’s big business and it’s about preying on people and children.

America can’t actually house the entire world’s population of would-be economic migrants, so we shouldn’t encourage them to live here undocumented.

If they have legitimate asylum claims, let them come legally. If they want to immigrate, let them immigrate legally and safely.

They can follow the rules just like everyone has to. If I break the law, do I not get separated from my family? Where should unaccompanied minors live? In the street? In brothels or in slave labor conditions?

Encouraging them to pay human smugglers and travel dangerously and illegally through international borders and waters to live undocumented in the shadows is not actually helping the children.

Look at this judge’s finding from 09-311 – USA V. NAVA-MARTINEZ

Federal Judge: The Obama Administration Aids and Abets Human Trafficking

Hans A. von Spakovsky   Dec 20th, 2013

“As Judge Hanen pointed out, the human-trafficking conspiracy instigated by Salmeron Santos was interrupted when Nava-Martinez was arrested, but the “goal of the conspiracy was successfully completed thanks to the actions of the United States.” Hanen expressed grave concern over the “apparent policy of [DHS] of completing the criminal mission of individuals who are violating the border security of the United States.”

After the child was taken into custody, DHS agents learned that the mother had “instigated this illegal conduct.” Yet DHS delivered the child to the mother and took no enforcement action: “It did not arrest her. It did not prosecute her. It did not even initiate deportation proceedings for her.” As the judge said, “instead of enforcing the laws of the United States, the Government took direct steps to help the individuals who violated it,” conduct for which any “private citizen would, and should, be prosecute.”

What especially angered the judge was that this was the fourth case of this nature that he “had in as many weeks.” All involved “human traffickers who smuggled minor children [and] were apprehended short of delivering the children to their ultimate destination.” In each case, the parents were in this country illegally and had initiated and funded the illegal activity. And in each instance, DHS completed the crime by delivering the child to the parents and refusing to take any action against them.”

Read More: https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/federal-judge-the-obama-administration-aids-and-abets-human-trafficking

Obama Appointee Judges Working for Open Borders, Because: Screw Main St. America

Hillary Clinton My Dream is for Open Borders

Court Rules Illegal Aliens Can Sue over “Discriminatory Employment Policy” Requiring Green Cards

APRIL 11, 2018

For the second time in a few years, a federal court has ruled that illegal immigrants can sue American employers that refuse to hire them because they require workers to be U.S. citizens or legal residents (green card holders). The latest blow to the rule of law was delivered by an Obama-appointed federal judge in south Florida, who handed a powerful open-borders group a huge victory in a case accusing a major U.S. company of discriminating against an illegal immigrant.

Though years apart, both lawsuits were filed by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), a leftist group that specializes in discrimination lawsuits on behalf of illegal immigrants and has Chicago ties to Obama. MALDEF pushes for free college tuition for illegal immigrants and lowering educational standards to accommodate new migrants. Its leadership refers to the U.S. government’s immigration enforcement effort as racist and xenophobic and says it’s racist to make English the country’s official national language and inhumane to protect the southern border with a fence. Both MALDEF victories involve plaintiffs who benefit from a special Obama amnesty known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) that shields nearly 800,000 illegal aliens under the age of 31 from deportation.

In the recent Florida case a Venezuelan immigrant, David Rodriguez, living in Miami is suing consumer goods corporation Procter & Gamble for refusing to give him a paid internship because he is not a legal resident or citizen of the United States. MALDEF filed the lawsuit last year in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Procter & Gamble requires citizenship and immigration status information on its applications and warns that candidates “must be a U.S. citizen or national, refugee, asylee or lawful permanent resident.” Rodriquez is neither and he quickly played the discrimination card after getting nixed as a candidate. In a statement MALDEFF’s president reminds that “work-authorized DACA holders are valuable contributors to our economy” and “should not have to face arbitrary and biased exclusions from employment, especially by large and sophisticated corporations like Procter & Gamble.”

Judge Kathleen M. Williams, a former public defender appointed to the federal bench by Obama in 2011, agrees, citing MALDEF’s other lawsuit in her ruling. In denying Procter & Gamble’s motion to dismiss Rodriguez’s lawsuit, Judge Williams claims the Venezuelan immigrant’s claims are “strikingly similar” to those in MALDEF’s 2014 suit against insurance company Northwestern Mutual in New York. In that complaint, a Mexican illegal alien protected by DACA alleged that Northwestern Mutual’s policy requiring him to have a green card because he’s not a U.S. citizen discriminated against him. Requiring the Mexican national, Ruben Juarez, to provide proof of legal residency imposed an additional burden that constitutes alienage discrimination, according to the complaint filed on his behalf by MALDEF.  The federal judge hearing that case in New York agreed and, in a federal courtroom more than 1,000 miles south, Williams used the decision to justify hers.

“In Juarez, the plaintiff was a DACA recipient who was denied employment based on Northwestern Mutual’s policy to only hire U.S. citizens and green card holders,” Judge Williams writes in her ruling. “There, on strikingly similar facts, the court found that Northwestern Mutual’s policy impermissibly discriminated against a subclass of Iawfully present aliens.” The ruling continues to say that Procter & Gamble’s policy could be construed to discriminate against a subset of legal aliens, which are protected. It seems to agree with the illegal alien’s assertions that Procter & Gamble has a “facially discriminatory employment policy” for requiring candidates to furnish proof that they’re in the U.S. legally.

Read More: https://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2018/04/court-rules-illegal-aliens-can-sue-discriminatory-employment-policy-requiring-green-cards/

Which is worse? Children being detained at certified detention centers, or children being sex trafficked?

Who profits from international human smuggling and sex trafficking?

If You Dont Want to be Separated From Your Children Dont Cross the Border Illegally

The reason the media wants open borders is because they’re a part of a global corporate machine that profits from drugs and weapons smuggling, and from human smuggling and sex trafficking….
https://www.theguardian.com/…/…/03/us-bank-mexico-drug-gangs

What about sex trafficking?
“Sex trafficking is a $99 billion a year industry.”
“4.5 million people are victims of sex trafficking. The average age is 15, but 20% of sex trafficking victims are children.”
https://www.army.mil/article/165364/operational_contract_support_joint_exercise_combats_human_trafficking

And what about human smuggling?
“2.5 million people were smuggled in 2016, for an estimated profit of $7 billion.”
https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/glosom/GLOSOM_2018_ExecutiveSummary_web_small.pdf

Where does all of that profit go?

Does it all stay as billions of dollars in cash?

No. It gets laundered by global banks, and is in turn funneled to complicit politicians…
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/15/hsbc-has-form-mexico-laundered-drug-money

Even when the corporations get caught, they only get fined. No one goes to jail, because the politicians are on the take…
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/outrageous-hsbc-settlement-proves-the-drug-war-is-a-joke-20121213

HSBC lobbying by year…
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000021791&year=2017

The media companies are also on the take…
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31517545

The politicians are on the take…
“Clinton Foundation recieved $81 million from clients of HSBC’s Swiss Money Laundering bank”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/10/hillary-clinton-foundation-donors-hsbc-swiss-bank

The law that separates children from smugglers was on the books since 2002. The law states how unaccompanied minors and minors being smuggled by smugglers should be detained and moved into foster parenting or kept in certified centers…
https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=614

In 2014 Obama announced that they would no longer enforce the law and would allow undocumented, illegal border crossers to not be immediately deported…
https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Volpp.Immigrants.Outisde.the_.Law_.pdf

Since the Obama executive branch stopped enforcing the law, child smuggling and illegal border crossings increased to emergency levels..
“The Obama administration last year initially blamed bad economies and growing gang violence in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala for sparking the surge, but later acknowledged that human traffickers were marketing the journey by pointing out a loophole in U.S. immigration system that requires non-Mexican children to be released into the U.S. while they await final immigration decisions. That gives them a chance to abscond and disappear into the shadows with the more than 11 million other illegal immigrants in the country.”
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/6/illegal-immigrant-children-surge-across-border-at-/

The law, if properly applied, is to NOT separate children from families that seek asylum and cross the border LEGALLY…
“Children continue to be released to their relatives or to shelters. But since the zero-tolerance policy took effect, parents as a rule are being prosecuted.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/06/19/the-facts-about-trumps-policy-of-separating-families-at-the-border/?utm_term=.868b6eee98df

But there has been a rise in people falsely claiming to be relatives of smuggled children…
“…a growing number of cases, illegal immigrants who aren’t even related to the children are showing up and fraudulently claiming to be families.Homeland Security recorded 191 cases of children having to be separated because of fraudulent family claims during the first five months of fiscal year 2018. That already eclipses the 46 cases reported for all of 2017.”
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/22/children-abducted-illegals-posing-families-us-bord/

Should people crossing the border illegally not be prosecuted?
Should children being smuggled across the border illegally be put in jail with the adults that smuggled them?

How much should we encourage illegal entries when we know that they are fueling an illegal industry of human smuggling, sex trafficking and drug and gun smuggling?
http://thefederalist.com/2018/06/18/migrant-crisis-is-about-the-drug-cartel/

The Open Borders Argument: Life Isn’t Fair, Give Us Your Stuff

… and locking your home at night just shows your privilege. 

Borders aren't fair give us your stuff

Immigration Lies and Hypocrisy

Walter E. Williams

President Donald Trump reportedly asked why the U.S. is “having all these people from shithole countries come here.” I think he could have used better language, but it’s a question that should be asked and answered. I have a few questions for my fellow Americans to consider. How many Norwegians have illegally entered our nation, committed crimes and burdened our prison and welfare systems? I might ask the same question about Finnish, Swedish, Welsh, Icelanders, Greenlanders and New Zealanders. The bulk of our immigration problem is with people who enter our country criminally from Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean, Africa and the Middle East. It’s illegal immigrants from those countries who have committed crimes and burdened our criminal justice and welfare systems. A large number of immigrants who are here illegally — perhaps the majority are law-abiding in other respects — have fled oppressive, brutal and corrupt regimes to seek a better life in America.

In the debate about illegal immigration, there are questions that are not explicitly asked but can be answered with a straight “yes” or “no”: Does everyone in the world have a right to live in the U.S.? Do Americans have a right to decide who and under what conditions a person may enter our country? Should we permit foreigners landing at our airports to ignore U.S. border control laws just as some ignore our laws at our southern border? The reason those questions are not asked is that one would be deemed an idiot for saying that everyone in the world has a right to live in our country, that Americans don’t have a right to decide who lives in our country and that foreigners landing at our airports have a right to just ignore U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents.

Immigration today, even when legal, is different from the immigration of yesteryear. People who came here in the 19th century and most of the 20th century came here to learn our language, learn our customs and become Americans. Years ago, there was a guarantee that immigrants came here to work, because there was no welfare system; they worked, begged or starved. Today, there is no such assurance. Because of our welfare state, immigrants can come here and live off taxpaying Americans.

There is another difference between today and yesteryear. Today, Americans are taught multiculturalism throughout their primary, secondary and college education. They are taught that one culture is no better or worse than another. To believe otherwise is criticized at best as Eurocentrism and at worst as racism. As a result, some immigrant groups seek to bring to our country the cultural values whose failures have led to the poverty, corruption and human rights violations in their home countries that caused them to flee. As the fallout from President Trump’s indelicate remarks demonstrates, too many Americans are afraid and unwilling to ask which immigrant groups have become a burden to our nation and which have made a contribution to the greatness of America.

Very unfortunate for our nation is that we have political groups that seek to use illegal immigration for their own benefit. They’ve created sanctuary cities and states that openly harbor criminals — people who have broken our laws. The whole concept of sanctuary cities is to give aid, comfort and sympathy to people who have broken our laws. Supporters want to prevent them from having to hide and live in fear of discovery. I’d ask whether, for the sake of equality before the law, we should apply the sanctuary concept to Americans who have broken other laws, such as robbers and tax evaders.

We should not fall prey to people who criticize our efforts to combat illegal immigration and who pompously say, “We’re a nation of immigrants!” The debate is not over immigration. The debate is over illegal immigration. My sentiments on immigrants who are here legally and who want to become Americans are expressed by the sentiments in Emma Lazarus’ poem “The New Colossus,” which is on a plaque inside the Statue of Liberty and in part says, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

Read More: https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/02/01/immigration-lies-and-hypocrisy.html

The Cost of Illegal Immigration

migrants in Germany

  • “At the federal, state, and local levels, taxpayers shell out approximately $134.9 billion to cover the costs incurred by the presence of more than 12.5 million illegal aliens, and about 4.2 million citizen children of illegal aliens.” — Matt O’Brien and Spencer Raley.
  • It is also rather more than the single payment of $25 billion that it will cost to build a wall — five and a half times more, and every year.
  • “Undocumented immigrants are at least 142% more likely to be convicted of a crime than other Arizonans. They also tend to commit more serious crimes…” — John R. Lott.
  • In 2015, included in the DEA’s drug-threat assessment was the fact that drug overdoses killed more people in the United States than car accidents or guns. Many of these drugs [were] smuggled in large volumes by drug cartels.”

In his State of the Union address on January 30, US President Donald J. Trump referred to the brutal murder of two 16-year-old girls from Long Island in December 2016 by members of the “savage MS-13 gang,” responsible for a spate of other gruesome killings in the area, as well.

Many of these gang members, he explained, had entered the United States illegally. “For decades, open borders have allowed drugs and gangs to pour into our most vulnerable communities,” he said.

Calling on Congress “to finally close the deadly loopholes that have allowed… criminal gangs to break into our country,” he listed the four pillars of his immigration-reform proposal:

  • A path to citizenship for 1.8 million illegal immigrants who were brought to America by their parents.
  • The construction of a “great wall on the southern border” and enforcement by agents patrolling and securing the border.
  • Ending the visa lottery, “a program that randomly plans out green cards without regard for skill, merit, for the safety of American people.”
  • Ending the “current, broken system” of chain migration of distant relatives, and limiting sponsorships to spouses and minor children.

Although he did not specify this in his speech, Trump reportedly is seeking $25 billion from Congress to fund the wall. Opponents of the wall have been arguing that illegal immigrants do not commit crimes at a higher rate than legal immigrants or native-born Americans; that illegal immigration has been a boon to the economy, rather than a drain on it; and that the cost both of deportation and a wall far exceeds the benefits of both. These claims are repeatedly voiced by the Trump administration’s detractors, as part of their campaign to accuse the president of racism; but what are the facts?

To set the record straight, let us take a look at a number of those that have been obscured or ignored by the media.

As far as the cost of the wall is concerned, a study released in September 2017 by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) reveals that, “At the federal, state, and local levels, taxpayers shell out approximately $134.9 billion to cover the costs incurred by the presence of more than 12.5 million illegal aliens, and about 4.2 million citizen children of illegal aliens.” This, the report says, is a nearly $3 billion increase in the cost since 2013. It is also rather more than the single payment of $25 billion that it will cost to build a wall – five and a half times more, and every year.

The same goes for the cost of deporting illegal immigrants. According to Steven A. Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies,

“…The average cost of a deportation is much smaller than the net fiscal drain created by the average illegal immigrant,” in part due to the fact that “illegal immigrants overwhelmingly have modest levels of education — most have not completed high school or have only a high school education…creating more in costs for government than they pay in taxes.”

The question of the rates of criminality among illegal aliens vs. those of legal immigrants and American-born citizens has been examined by John R. Lott, Jr., president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, using Arizona’s prison population as a microcosm for study. According to Lott, the ability to measure the crime-rate among illegal immigrants in the U.S. has been difficult, due to many factors, including the lack of a national data base and “primitive” methodology – such as “simple, cross-sectional analysis to see whether areas with higher immigrant populations have higher crime rates,” and “a purely time series approach… look at the United States as a whole and note that crime has decreased since 1990 as immigration has increased.” The advantage of the Arizona Department of Corrections study, Lott says, is that

“over our 32.5-year period, we know each prisoner who entered the prison system, their criminal convictions history, and whether he is a documented or undocumented immigrant. The only mystery is why this type of data has not been utilized until now.”

Peter Kirsanow wryly solved the mystery in National Review, writing:

“Unfortunately, almost every public official not named Jeff Sessions guards against disclosure of illegal-immigrant crime data more tenaciously than disclosure of nuclear launch codes.”

According to Lott, whose research spans 1985-2017:

“Arizona’s prison population data allow us to compare undocumented immigrants’ share of the prison population with their estimated share of the state population…For the first time, we break down the data to examine differences between US citizens, undocumented immigrants, and legal permanent residents. One advantage of using convictions rather than just reported crimes is that convictions depend on a ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ standard of evidence and thus are much less likely to count innocent people.”

The findings are unequivocal, as the following summary illustrates:

“Undocumented immigrants are at least 142% more likely to be convicted of a crime than other Arizonans. They also tend to commit more serious crimes and serve 10.5% longer sentences, more likely to be classified as dangerous, and 45% more likely to be gang members than U.S. citizens…There are dramatic differences between in the criminal histories of convicts who are U.S. citizens and undocumented immigrants…

“[Y]oung undocumented immigrants commit crime at twice the rate of young U.S. citizens. These undocumented immigrants also tend to commit more serious crimes. If undocumented immigrants committed crime nationally as they do in Arizona, in 2016 they would have been responsible for over 1,000 more murders, 5,200 rapes, 8,900 robberies, 25,300 aggravated assaults, and 26,900 burglaries.”

These numbers do not even include the cost to American taxpayers of the toll taken on America’s children by illegally imported drugs. Although available information on this is at best spotty, the key finding from the DEA’s 2017 National Drug Threat Assessment is that the “most commonly reported greatest drug threat was heroin, at 44.1 percent of law enforcement responses… This was followed by 29.8 percent of respondents indicating methamphetamine was their greatest drug threat, 9.3 percent reporting controlled prescription drugs…”

This tells us something about the extent of the problem, but not enough. The 2010 drug-threat assessment, released a year after the previous administration took office, revealed that,

“From January through November 2009, U.S. seizures of illegal drugs in transit exceeded 1,626 metric tons, indicating that DTOs succeed in moving several thousand tons of cocaine, methamphetamine, marijuana, heroin, and MDMA into the United States annually. There are unique smuggling and transportation methods…”

In 2015, included in the DEA’s drug-threat assessment was the fact that drug overdoses killed more people in the United States than car accidents or guns. As was noted by the BBC at the time, “Many of these drugs are smuggled in large volumes by drug cartels…”

The late Democrat Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” His successors in Congress would do well to remember this while debating the issue of illegal immigration. They certainly need to keep it in mind when voting on the administration’s proposed plan.

Read More: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11829/illegal-immigration-cost

Illegal Immigrants in our Country: Good for the Prison Industrial Complex

Hey wait taxpayers, where’s that  1.87 billion dollars come from?

Bombshell Report Reveals Up To 30% Of Federal Inmates Are Illegal Immigrants

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has released its findings on the immigration status of federal prison inmates, as mandated in a controversial Executive Order signed during the President Trump’s first week in the White House.  The report reveals that of the 37,557 confirmed immigrants in the federal prison system, 35,334 (94%) of them are in the United States illegally – which means out of a total of 185,507, federally incarcerated individuals, over 19% are confirmed illegal immigrants – which, in 2014, cost U.S. taxpayers $1.87 billion to house.

It should be noted that the 19% figure is based on known illegals in federal prison – while 58,766 individuals are “known or suspected” to be illegal. If we apply the 94% confirmed illegal rate to the “known or suspected” population, it brings the total number of potential incarcerated illegal immigrants to 55,240 – or 30% of federal incarcerations. 


(DHS Alien Incarceration Report , Q4 2017)

The report also points out that the federal prison population is roughly 10%, with state and local facilities containing the vast majority of incarcerated individuals in the U.S. 

“The American people deserve a lawful system of immigration that serves the national interest,” said Attorney General Jeff Sessions, adding “But at the border and in communities across America, our citizens are being victimized by illegal aliens who commit crimes. Nearly 95 percent of confirmed aliens in our federal prisons are here illegally.  We know based on sentencing data that non-citizens commit a substantially disproportionate number of drug-related offenses, which contributes to our national drug abuse crisis. The simple fact is that any offense committed by a criminal alien is ultimately preventable.”

Immigrant rights groups predictably had a major problem with the report, claiming racism and manipulated data.

“The report proves one thing only: The administration will take any opportunity possible to twist facts to demonize immigrants,” said Tom Jawetz, VP for immigration policy at the very liberal Center for American Progress, adding “The vast majority of immigrants in federal prison are there for crimes that only immigrants can be charged with – illegal entry and illegal entry after removal. When you cook the books you shouldn’t pretend to be surprised by the results.


The January 25th Executive Order, 13768; “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,” was designed to use all available resources to deport incarcerated illegals and enforce existing immigration laws. The order states “We cannot faithfully execute the immigration laws of the United States if we exempt classes or categories of removable aliens from potential enforcement. The purpose of this order is to direct executive departments and agencies (agencies) to employ all lawful means to enforce the immigration laws of the United States.”

The order calls for the hire of 10,000 additional immigration officers, allows for issuing fines and penalties to unlawful aliens, allows State and local law enforcement agencies to act as immigration officers, and yanks Federal grant money from sanctuary cities – which was later reversed nationwide by a Chicago judge and ruled unconstitutional by Santa Clara County, CA  judge William Orrick III.

What wasn’t killed by activist judges, however, was the Executive Order’s mandate to provide quarterly reports on incarcerated immigrants. The EO reads:

To promote the transparency and situational awareness of criminal aliens in the United States, the Secretary and the Attorney General are hereby directed to collect relevant data and provide quarterly reports on the following:

(a) the immigration status of all aliens incarcerated under the supervision of the Federal Bureau of Prisons;

(b) the immigration status of all aliens incarcerated as Federal pretrial detainees under the supervision of the United States Marshals Service; and

(c) the immigration status of all convicted aliens incarcerated in State prisons and local detention centers throughout the United States.

The Order also sets out enforcement actions, which “shall prioritize for removal those aliens described by the Congress… …removable aliens who: 

(a) Have been convicted of any criminal offense;

(b) Have been charged with any criminal offense, where such charge has not been resolved;

(c) Have committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense;

(d) Have engaged in fraud or willful misrepresentation in connection with any official matter or application before a governmental agency;

(e) Have abused any program related to receipt of public benefits;

(f) Are subject to a final order of removal, but who have not complied with their legal obligation to depart the United States; or

(g) In the judgment of an immigration officer, otherwise pose a risk to public safety or national security.

One oustanding question now is what will a seemingly sleepwalking Jeff Sessions do about it?

In May, Sessions announced the expansion and modernization of the Justice Department’s Institutional Hearing Program, which is responsible for deportation hearings of incarcerated individuals. The measures are intended to fast-track the deportation of illegal immigrants convicted of crimes, which according to Sessions, will speed up the process by removing the criminal immigrant as soon as their sentence is complete – as opposed to sending them to another facility to await deportation.

“We owe it to the American people to ensure that illegal aliens who have been convicted of crimes and are serving time in our federal prisons are expeditiously removed from our country as the law requires,” Sessions said in a statement.

Sessions’ May proposal established 14 federal prisons and six contract facilities for deportation proceedings, which the Attorney General says is a top priority going forward.

Read More: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-22/bombshell-dhs-report-reveals-30-federal-inmates-illegal

Asylum Seeker on ‘Teen Love’ Documentary Revealed as an Adult

If a western man who wasn’t an “asylum seeker” tried this, they’d be in jail. 

Asylum Seeker on ‘Teen Love’ Children’s Documentary Revealed as an Adult

‘Underage’ Migrant in Controversial ‘Teen Love’ Children’s Documentary Revealed as Adult

An “underage” migrant, who was presented as being in a romantic relationship with an underage girl in a controversial German children’s channel television program, has admitted he is actually an adult.

The documentary Malvina, Diaa and Love was broadcast in November on the publicly-funded German television channel Kikawhich is directed at children aged three to 13, and has been slammed by many as “propaganda” as it favorably presents a largely one-sided relationship between a 16-year-old German girl and an adult Syrian asylum seeker.

The Syrian named Diaa was said to be around the same age as 16-year-old Malvina but later admitted he is actually 19 years old and some have even alleged he could be over 20Die Welt reports.

The documentary, which portrays Malvina as madly in love with the Syrian, shows Diaa telling his girlfriend to behave more modestly, wear less revealing clothing, and even consider converting to Islam for him.

The is not the first time some have attempted to promote the idea of asylum seekers getting into relationships with German girls as a means of integration. Last year the government funded Workers’ Welfare Association (AWO) invited well-known “flirt coach” Horst Wenzel to help asylum seekers pick up German girls.

German media as a whole was seen as totally uncritical of the migrant crisis according to a study carried out by the Hamburg Media School and the University of Leipzig last year. The authors of the study alleged that many media outlets simply refused to criticize the mass migration policies of Chancellor Angela Merkel and many actively engaged in pro-migrant rhetoric.

Read More: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/01/10/migrant-controversial-teen-love-documentary-childrens-tv-channel-adult/