Asylum laws?

Where are these laws? Where is the law that says people that illegally immigrate across our border and ask for asylum must be allowed to stay? Can any of you locate and display them for us?

We have been fighting illegal immigration for 14 years and never before Trump came along has anyone pointed the finger at Congress to say they are the reason illegal aliens can freely enter the US in unlimited quantities claiming "asylum"

ALIPAC has always claimed that Catch and Release is an Executive Branch policy that acts againt the spirit of existing laws.

Refugee Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...rse%29.svg.png
Other short titles	Refugee Act of 1980
Long title	An Act to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to revise the procedures for the admission of refugees, to amend the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962 to establish a more uniform basis for the provision of assistance to refugees, and for other purposes.
Nicknames	Refugee Act of 1979
Enacted by	the 96th United States Congress
Effective	March 17, 1980
Citations
Public law	96-212
Statutes at Large	94 Stat. 102
Codification
Acts amended	Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 Migration and Refugee Assistance Act
Titles amended	8 U.S.C.: Aliens and Nationality
U.S.C. sections amended	8 U.S.C. ch. 12, subch. I § 1101 et seq. 8 U.S.C. ch. 12, subch. II §§ 1157-1159 8 U.S.C. ch. 12, subch. IV § 1521 et seq.
Legislative history
Introduced in the Senate as S. 643 by Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) on March 13, 1979 Committee consideration by Senate Judiciary, House Judiciary Passed the Senate on September 6, 1979 (85-0) Passed the House on December 20, 1979 (328-47, in lieu of H.R. 2816) Reported by the joint conference committee onFebruary 22, 1980; agreed to by the Senate onFebruary 26, 1980 (agreed) and by the House on March 4, 1980 (211-195) Signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on March 17, 1980

The

United States Refugee Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-212) is an amendment to the earlier Immigration and Nationality Act and the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act, and was created to provide a permanent and systematic procedure for the admission to the United States of refugees of special humanitarian concern to the U.S., and to provide comprehensive and uniform provisions for the effective resettlement and absorption of those refugees who are admitted.^[1] The act was completed on March 3, 1980, was signed by President Jimmy Carter on March 17, 1980 and became effective on April 1, 1980. This was the first comprehensive amendment of U.S. general immigration laws designed to face up to the realities of modern refugee situations by stating a clear-cut national policy and providing a flexible mechanism to meet the rapidly shifting developments of today's world policy.^[2] The main objectives of the act were to create a new definition of refugee based on the one created at the UN Convention and Protocol on the Status of Refugees, raise the limitation from 17,400 to 50,000 refugees admitted each fiscal year, provide emergency procedures for when that number exceeds 50,000, and to establish the Office of U.S. Coordinator for Refugee Affairs and the Office of Refugee Resettlement. Most importantly, it established explicit procedures on how to deal with refugees in the U.S. by creating a uniform and effective resettlement and absorption policy.^[3]

Contents

[hide]

• 1Purpose
  
  • 1.1Admission of refugees
  
  
• 2Summary
• 3History
• 4External links
• 5Notes
• 6References

Purpose[edit]

The Act recognizes that it has been the historic policy of the United States to respond to the urgent needs of persons subject to persecution in their homelands and to provide assistance, asylum, and resettlement opportunities to admitted refugees. The goal of the Refugee Act was to create a uniform procedure with which to provide these opportunities to refugees.^[4]
Admission of refugees[edit]

The Act amended the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 by defining a refugee as any person who is outside his or her country of residence or nationality, or without nationality, and is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.^[5]
The annual admission of refugees is set to a 50,000 cap per fiscal year, but in an emergency situation, the President may change the number for a period of twelve months. The Attorney General is also granted power to admit additional refugees and grant asylum to current aliens, but all admissions must be reported to Congress and be limited to 5,000 people.^[6]
Summary[edit]

The Act created the position of U.S. Coordinator for Refugee Affairs who was now responsible to the president for the development of overall US refugee admission and resettlement policy.
Title IV of the Immigration and Nationality Act was amended here when the Act created the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which is responsible for funding and administering federal programs for domestic resettlement and assistance to refugees. The office must make available resources for employment training and placement for refugees to be economically self-sufficient, provide opportunities for English language training, ensure cash assistance, and guarantee gender equality in all training and instruction. The Office must also create grants for these projects, consult with state and local governments about sponsorship and distribution of refugees, and develop a system to monitor the use of government funds using evaluations, auditing and data collection. To receive assistance for programs, the States must first explain how they plan to accomplish the goals of these programs, meet the director's standards, and submit a report at the end of each fiscal year.^[7]
The Secretary of State was authorized to take on the role from 1980 to 1981, and the new director worked with them to develop and implement programs for existing refugees and eventually took up the position from 1982 onward. The director must submit a congressional report at the end of each fiscal year to committees on the Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate. The reports should contain information on the geographic location, employment status, and problems of the refugees and also contain suggestions for alternative resettlement strategies. The Office was authorized $200,000,000 during 1980 and 1981, and that number is now decided at the beginning of each fiscal year based on the results received at the end of each year.^[8]
History[edit]

It was only after World War II that the United States began to differentiate the term "refugee" from "immigrant" and began creating policy that dealt specifically with refugees while working outside of immigration policy.^[9] Early action came in the form of the Displaced Persons Act of 1948, the Refugee Relief Act of 1953, and the Refugee-Escapee Act of 1957.^[10] The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which was later amended in 1965 to include policy for refugees on a case by case basis, was the first Act that consolidated U.S. immigration policy into one body of text.
The creation of the Refugee Act began with hearings by the United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security from 1965 to 1968, which recommended for Congress create a uniform system for refugees, but received little support. Edward Kennedy began writing to propose a bill to reform refugee policy in 1978 and first introduced the idea to the United States Senate in 1979. With his proposal, he hoped to address the need for a reformed policy that was not specifically designed for people from communist regimes in Eastern Europe or repressive governments in the Middle East, as it was in the past. At the time, there was an average of 200,000 refugees coming to the United States, most of which were Indochinese and Soviet Jews.^[11] The cost of resettlement was close to $4000, but most refugees eventually paid that amount in federal income taxes.
Many Americans feared a floodgate scenario with a large and sudden increase of the refugee population, but the 50,000 cap would account for only 10% of immigration flow to the U.S. and would allow one refugee for every 4000 Americans,^[12] small numbers compared to those of countries like Canada, France, and Australia. The bill was adopted by the Senate by a unanimous vote on September 6, 1979, and it remained essentially intact until it was signed in 1980.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee_Act

Migration and Refugee Assistance Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Migration and Refugee Assistance Act was passed in 1962 to deal with unexpected and urgent needs of refugees, displaced persons, conflict victims, and other persons at risk around the globe.
The Act was brought into force during the Clinton administration in 2001 to deal with the crises in the Balkans and Nepal.
The Act was cited by President Barack Obama in 2009 to authorize money up to $20.3 million related to needs of Palestinian refugees and conflict victims in Gaza.

External links[edit]

• MEMORANDUM: Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migrat...Assistance_Act

wikipedia...
Obtaining Asylum: Asylum is granted to aliens who are in the United States and are unable or unwilling to return to their homeland because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a certain social group, or political opinion.


Article from 2013 noting the changes obama made by executive fiat via The Morton Memo (catch & release and "credible fear" w/o the reasons stated in asylum laws). Would seem a memo could be undone by trump if he wanted to. Not a congress law but a big change implemented by obama admin to flood US with cheap labor.
Congressman Reveals Obama Policy That Opened Asylum Floodgates

http://media.breitbart.com/media/cdn...agents_AFP.jpg by Lee Stranahan25 Aug 2013307

Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) has sent a letter to Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano that reveals the Obama administration policy of asylum overwhelms the ability to enforce laws. This comes in the wake of a Breitbart News story about the sudden surge of “credible fear” requests at Mexico/U.S. border crossings.

The letter begins by referencing the story that Breitbart News brought to national prominence:

Dear Secretary Napolitano,
I write regarding the recent surge in foreign nationals, largely from Mexico, claiming asylum at U.S. ports of entry. This surge has been overwhelming Border Patrol agents in San Diego, California. Border Patrol agents reported that in one day 200 aliens came through the Otay Mesa, San Diego port of entry while as many as 550 overflowed the processing center there and in nearby San Ysidro claiming a “credible fear” of the drug cartels in Mexico.

Rep. Goodlatte then lays out the concern that another Breitbart News story pointed out–that the asylum process is being exploited by Mexican nationals–and highlights the surge in such claims since 2009:

Such claims have increased from 5,222 in 2009 to 23,408 in just the first three quarters of 2013. According to the most recent data available, DHS is permitting 92% of these claimants to move forward to further proceedings, despite the fact that press reports indicate that up to 91% of these claimants from Mexico are ultimately denied. In addition, most are likely being released into the U.S. pending further proceedings before Immigration Judges as opposed to being detained as required by law.

At the end of the letter, Goodlatte reveals the smoking gun: the change in immigration policy implemented by Obama officials that appears to have created the loophole that has led to the increase in asylum claims.

…this process has been changed by the current Administration via executive fiat. On December 9, 2010, Director Morton issued an ICE policy directive that is contrary to the statute and the regulations. Under this policy directive, any arriving alien who has been found to have a credible fear and can establish identity, that they are not a flight risk, or a danger to the community, should be released by ICE. The memo required ICE field offices to document the parole decisions in a “Record of Determination /Parole Determination worksheet.” This is inconsistent with the Congressional mandate in statute that requires detention.

Rep. Goodlatte is saying something very significant here; the Obama administration made a significant shift in 2009 about the way the United States deals with people asking for asylum and changed the burden of proof for detention. Prior to 2009, the policy for those requesting asylum was that they were detained unless. In the Obama era, the default is that those seeking asylum are released on their own recognizance. Just as significant, the Obama ICE did this without approval from congress.

Breitbart News is waiting for the Department of Justice to respond to a request for more details in the rates of no-shows at the immigration trials for Mexican nationals.

Below is the complete text of Rep. Goodlatte’s letter:

I write regarding the recent surge in foreign nationals, largely from Mexico, claiming asylum at U.S. ports of entry. This surge has been overwhelming Border Patrol agents in San Diego, California. Border Patrol agents reported that in one day 200 aliens came through the Otay Mesa, San Diego port of entry while as many as 550 overflowed the processing center there and in nearby San Ysidro claiming a “credible fear” of the drug cartels in Mexico.
According to testimony prepared by Joseph Langlois, Associate Director of the Refugee, Asylum, and International Operations Directorate, at United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), which was to be provided before the Subcommittee on National Security of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on June 27, 2013:
“USCIS has experienced an unprecedented surge in the credible fear workload, as credible fear requests have increased from 5,369 in fiscal year 2009 to 19,119 referrals through May of Fiscal Year 2013. If present trends continue, USCIS estimates that we will receive a total of 28,679 credible fear requests in FY 2013, a 434% increase over the last five years.”

Additionally, the House Judiciary Committee received disturbing statistics from USCIS indicating that the number of illegal immigrants intercepted at ports-of-entry and along the border claiming asylum is increasing exponentially. Such claims have increased from 5,222 in 2009 to 23,408 in just the first three quarters of 2013. According to the most recent data available, DHS is permitting 92% of these claimants to move forward to further proceedings, despite the fact that press reports indicate that up to 91% of these claimants from Mexico are ultimately denied. In addition, most are likely being released into the U.S. pending further proceedings before Immigration Judges as opposed to being detained as required by law.

I am concerned that credible fear claims are being exploited by illegal immigrants in order to enter and remain in the United States. As you know, after an alien is encountered by the Border Patrol, USCIS conducts a screening interview to determine whether the alien has a fear of returning to their home country. The finding of “credible fear” is the start of the process for certain aliens to raise an asylum claim. After such a finding, the alien is issued a notice to appear in immigration court where they must prove that their fear of return to their home country is based on persecution under a statutorily protected ground and is in fact a legitimate asylum case.

However, once these aliens receive court dates, they often fail to appear for immigration court proceedings and end up disappearing into the United States.
As reported by the press, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) sources indicate that addresses provided to authorities by aliens who claim credible fear are often fake. Those who fail to appear in court are ordered removed by an Immigration Judge in absentia. To make matters worse, according to information provided to me by ICE, there are approximately 500,000 aliens who remain in the U.S. despite final orders of removal.

The recent press accounts indicate that aliens are being coached in the asylum process and are being taught to use certain terms to ensure that they are found to have a credible fear as a threshold for an asylum case. The aliens allegedly claim that they have a credible fear of return to Mexico based on drug cartel and gang violence. According to critics, asylum claims from Mexico are highly unusual and often are an orchestrated sham. Indeed, as mentioned before, reports indicate that as many as 91 percent of asylum claims from Mexico are ultimately denied. Critics allege that the purpose is not to obtain asylum, but rather to game the system by getting a free pass into the U.S. and a court date that they do not plan to show up for.
Not only is the rise in credible fear claims concerning, but I am concerned with the inability of the Administration to follow the current law that pertains to the asylum process. Pursuant to §235(b)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), arriving aliens are subject to mandatory detention whether they are found to have credible fear or not. An “arriving alien” is a person who was stopped by U.S. officers at a port of entry while attempting to enter the U.S. Under the statute and corresponding regulations at 8 C.F.R §235.3, under limited circumstances “parole” from detention is available for arriving aliens where the applicant can show parole is required to meet a medical emergency or is necessary for a legitimate law enforcement objective. Additionally, an applicant can be paroled where there are urgent humanitarian reasons or a significant public benefit consistent with §212(d)(5) of the INA. Any such alien should also be detained pending a credible fear interview.

However, this process has been changed by the current Administration via executive fiat. On December 9, 2010, Director Morton issued an ICE policy directive that is contrary to the statute and the regulations. Under this policy directive, any arriving alien who has been found to have a credible fear and can establish identity, that they are not a flight risk, or a danger to the community, should be released by ICE. The memo required ICE field offices to document the parole decisions in a “Record of Determination/Parole Determination worksheet.” This is inconsistent with the Congressional mandate in statute that requires detention.

And not surprisingly, the timing of this memo appears to correlate with the uptick of credible fear claims in recent years. Additionally, while ICE is not detaining these aliens, Fiscal Year 2012 Executive Office of Immigration Review statistics demonstrate that 29% of released aliens failed to appear for their immigration court proceedings.

Once again the Administration has chosen to turn the
immigration enforcement switch off in a manner contrary to the intent of Congress, by simply enforcing the immigration laws when, where, and as it is deemed fit. Such actions are the primary reason why our immigration system is broken today. We plan to conduct oversight of this issue and address concerns via the House’s step-by-step approach to reforming our immigration system. Hence, we request a briefing with the relevant Department of Homeland Security components. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...um-floodgates/

Asylum Law and Procedure

Asylum

To be granted asylum, a person must demonstrate that he or she is a “refugee,” that he or she is not barred from asylum for any of the reasons listed in our immigration laws, and that the decision-maker should grant asylum as a matter of discretion.

A “refugee” is any person who is outside his or her country of nationality (or, if stateless, outside the country of last habitual residence) and is unable or unwilling to return to that country because of persecution or well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.
https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sit...47.06%20PM.png

This definition is based on international law, specifically the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. The U.S. is not a signatory to this Convention, but did sign on to its 1967 Protocol, which incorporates the Convention by reference. The Refugee Convention requires state parties to protect people living within their borders and prohibits them from sending people to other countries where they would be harmed based on their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. With the Refugee Act of 1980, the U.S. brought the refugee definition into our domestic law. The refugee definition is found at section 101(a)(42) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
A person who meets the refugee definition may be granted asylum in the United States if he or she is not barred from asylum for any of the reasons listed in section 208 of that Act and if the adjudicator decides that he or she should be granted asylum as a matter of discretion.

The bars to asylum include the one-year filing deadline, which states that a person who needs asylum should file the application within one year of the last arrival in the United States.

Otherwise, the asylum-seeker must show that he or she qualifies for an exception to the filing deadline and that he or she filed within a reasonable time given that exception. Human Rights First advocates for the elimination of the filing deadline from our asylum law. For background reading on this advocacy, see our 2010 report.

https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sit...alanddelay.JPGThe bars to asylum also include the so-called “material support bar.” Human Rights First advocates for a more reasonable version of this bar to asylum. For background reading, see our report.

Some people who need asylum will have their cases decided at the Asylum Office and others will have their cases decided at the Immigration Court. The standard for asylum is the same in both places, and Human Rights First works on cases at all levels of the system.

People apply for asylum with Form I-589. That application for asylum can also include a request for two related alternative forms of relief, which offer fewer benefits: withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the INA and protection under the UN Convention Against Torture.

Withholding of Removal

To be granted withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the INA, a person must demonstrate that if returned to the country of origin he or she is more likely than not to be persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. Some of the bars to asylum, including the one-year filing deadline, do not apply to claims for withholding of removal. There is no discretionary element. This means that if a person is more likely than not to be harmed for one of the reasons listed above, he or she must be granted withholding of removal.

U.N. Convention Against Torture

To be granted withholding of removal under the U.N. Convention Against Torture, a person must demonstrate that if returned to the country of origin he or she is more likely than not to be tortured. There is no discretionary element.

Most of the bars to asylum do not apply to requests for protection under the U.N. Convention Against Torture. The government of the United States has promised that it will not send anyone back to a country where he or she is likely to be tortured and so an immigration judge will consider eligibility for protection under the Torture Convention even if the asylum-seeker does not specifically request it.

Procedural Steps for Asylum

The asylum system has two parts: the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (which includes the Asylum Office) and the U.S. Department of Justice (which includes the Immigration Courts). Cases that are not granted at either of those levels might go to the Board of Immigration Appeals, the U.S. Courts of Appeal, or even to the U.S. Supreme Court. Human Rights First works with asylum-seekers at all levels of the system. A person who meets the definition of a refugee can apply for asylum in various ways, depending on that person’s immigration status at the time they decide to apply.

Asylum Office – When a person has entered the United States, whether or not they were inspected at the border, and our government is not taking any active steps to remove them from the U.S., they can make what is known as an “affirmative” application for asylum. This means that the person will file an I-589 application by mail with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Later they will be interviewed by an officer at the local Asylum Office. If the officer grants the application, then the person has asylum. He or she can then petition for their spouse and children to join them in the United States. They are also then on the path toward a green card and eventual U.S. citizenship. If the officer denies the asylum application, and the person has no other immigration status, then they are “referred” to the Immigration Court, where a judge will consider the asylum case.

Immigration Court – When a person has been placed in Immigration Court proceedings before they apply for asylum, the I-589 application should be filed directly with the immigration judge. This is known as a “defensive” application for asylum because the person is requesting asylum as a defense to the government’s charge that they should be removed from the United States. Whether the case starts in the Asylum Office or in the Immigration Court, the judge considers the case from the beginning. If the immigration judge grants the application, then the person has asylum. He or she is then eligible for the same family-reunification and other benefits that a person would be eligible for if granted at the Asylum Office level. If the immigration judge grants only withholding of removal or protection under the U.N. Convention Against Torture, then the person may not petition for relatives but will be permitted to remain in the U.S. and to work to support himself or herself.

Asylum applications filed by unaccompanied children (those who are under age 18) are heard at the Asylum Office, even if the child is otherwise in proceedings in the Immigration Court. This is the result of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) that went into effect March 23, 2009 and it applies to asylum applications filed on or after that date.

Cases which are denied in the Immigration Court may be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals. If the case is not granted at that level, the asylum-seeker may file a petition for review which brings it to the U.S. Court of Appeals in the circuit where the immigration judge denied the case. When asylum cases of genuine refugees are granted at the lower levels, the system works most effectively. Judges at the appellate courts are then available to spend their time on the many other types of cases that they have to decide.

Pro bono representation of asylum-seekers can help to ensure that cases are well-prepared and properly decided in the first instance.

How to Seek Asylum While in Immigration Detention

https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sit...-detention.pngThe process for seeking asylum is the same for people who are in the Immigration Court whether or not they are detained. The I-589 (asylum application) will be filed with the immigration judge and there will be an opportunity to testify and present evidence in support of the asylum case. However, it is much more difficult to prepare an asylum case from inside an immigration detention center because of limited access to supporting witnesses and documentation, and because detained cases move more quickly. Pro bono legal assistance can make a tremendous difference in these cases. In addition to helping with the asylum case, a pro bono lawyer can help a detained asylum-seeker to request release from detention on bond or parole.

Please see here for an infographic: The “Ins” & “Outs” of Immigration Detention.

Biometrics

For cases at the Asylum Office level, the filing of the I-589 will prompt the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to send a biometrics appointment notice to the asylum-seeker, who will then go to have his or her fingerprints and photograph taken. This will make it possible for DHS to run a background check. The asylum-seeker will be fingerprinted again on the morning of the interview at the Asylum Office.

For cases at the Immigration Court level, the asylum-seeker must send a copy of the first three pages of the completed I-589 (asylum application) with a copy of the instruction sheet to the Nebraska Service Center. This will prompt DHS to send a biometrics appointment notice to the asylum-seeker, who will then go to have his or her fingerprints and photograph taken. These steps must be completed before the immigration judge can grant asylum. See 70 FR 19, 4743-4754. Once the biometrics have been processed, they remain valid for 15 months. Asylum-seekers in proceedings with merits hearings that are scheduled more than 15 months from the biometrics appointment may need to ask DHS to run the fingerprints through their system again to make sure that the biometrics are up-to-date at the time of the merits hearing. This is the responsibility of the asylum-seeker and his or her attorney. Please contact someone in the Refugee Representation program at Human Rights First if you need further guidance on how to ensure that the biometrics are updated before the merits hearing in your case or in the case of an asylum-seeker who you represent.

Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS)

Children who are in the United States without the support and care of their parents may be eligible for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS). This provides them with a green card, authorization to work legally in the U.S., eligibility for financial aid that makes it possible to seek a college education, and it puts them on a path toward eventual U.S. citizenship.

According to 8 CFR § 204.11(c) and INA § 101(a)(27)(J), a child is eligible for SIJS if he or she:

1. Is under twenty-one years of age;
2. Is unmarried;
3. Has been declared dependent upon a juvenile court located in the United States… while the alien was in the United States and under the jurisdiction of the court;
4. Has been deemed eligible by the juvenile court for long-term foster care;
5. Continues to be dependent upon the juvenile court and eligible for long-term foster care…; and
6. Has been the subject of judicial proceedings or administrative proceedings authorized or recognized by the juvenile court in which it has been determined that it would not be in the alien’s best interest to be returned to the country of nationality or last habitual residence of the beneficiary or his or her parent or parents.

These cases are complicated and many children who are eligible will never be granted because they do not know how to navigate the system alone. Pro bono counsel makes a tremendous difference in SIJS cases, as in asylum cases, making it possible for a vulnerable person who cannot safely return to his or her country of origin to find safety in the United States.

The first step in a SIJS case is to go to the Family Court or Surrogate’s Court to request an “order of special findings.” This is a decision by the family court judge that the child meets the definition above and that it is not in the child’s best interest to return to his or her home country. Proceedings in the Family Court or Surrogate’s Court may involve multiple hearings, fingerprinting and background checks on adults in the household, the service of papers on biological parents who may be living outside the country, testimony from the child or others, and a visit by someone sent by the judge to inspect the home and ensure that it’s a safe place for the child to live.

The second step in a SIJS case is to request that the immigration authorities grant a green card based on those “special findings.” For children who are in Immigration Court proceedings, this requires that an I-360 petition be filed with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the immigration judge may or may not retain jurisdiction over the application that is filed last, which is the I-485 application for adjustment of status to lawful permanent residence. For children who are not in Immigration Court proceedings when the order of “special findings” is issued, the rest of the steps in the case all happen with USCIS.

The immigration case will require fingerprinting and background checks. It may also require the child to be interviewed by an officer from USCIS and it may require the child to testify in Immigration Court.

When a SIJS case is granted, the child becomes a lawful permanent resident and will receive a “green card.” This will make him eligible for work authorization and will put him on a path toward eventual U.S. citizenship.

Temporary Protected Status (TPS)

The U.S. government may designate a foreign country for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) due to conditions in that country which temporarily prevent its citizens from returning safely, or when the country is unable to handle the return of its citizens. A person from a TPS-designated country who is in the United States may apply for this temporary form of protection by filing a Form I-821. Countries may be designated for TPS due to various short-term conditions, including ongoing armed conflict (civil war), environmental disaster (such as earthquake or hurricane), or an epidemic. A person who is granted TPS may not be detained or removed from the United States, can work legally in this country, and may be granted a travel document to leave the U.S. and return. TPS is a temporary benefit and does not lead to lawful permanent residence or any kind of permanent immigration status. However, a person who is granted TPS may also apply for asylum or any other form of more lasting immigration status if eligible for those forms of relief. The list of TPS-designated countries is available on this part of the USCIS website.

https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/asy...-and-procedure

The other part of this is the act that pertains to the non-mexican, central americans, which says we have to take them in when they present themselves at US border.

The Wilberforce Act is tied in with the Trafficking Act TPVA that gets reauthorized believe every year as trump did in Sept 17. Why didn't he straighten it out before he signed for the monies to be spent or at least change it appropo to the current overload due to obama's decrees of catch & release and "credible fear" not based on religious or political beliefs with the Morton Memo executive fiat. trump is not being advised smartly or maybe so on purpose to continue this deluge and $$ burden for cheap labor.

Done very sneakily with the cover of trafficking victims protection as a way to open the border wide along with catch & release for all. gw re-authorized it before leaving office then of course obama made things even easier for them to migrate and be paid to live, have jobs and anchor baby for free. It is a fiasco now & we will never get them out.

U.S. Laws on Trafficking in Persons

The Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, as amended provides the tools to combat trafficking in persons both worldwide and domestically. The Act authorized the establishment of the State Department’s Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons and the President’s Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons to assist in the coordination of anti-trafficking efforts.
05/28/15 Survivors of Human Trafficking Empowerment Act (Section 115 of the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015)
03/07/13 Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2013 (Title XII of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013)
01/01/08 William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008
01/10/06 Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005 [https://www.state.gov/images/pdf.gif PDF version ]
01/07/03 Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools To End the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (PROTECT Act) [https://www.state.gov/images/pdf.gif PDF version ]
01/07/03 Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003 [https://www.state.gov/images/pdf.gif PDF version ]
01/07/03 U.S. Leadership on HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003
10/28/00 Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 [https://www.state.gov/images/pdf.gif PDF version ]

https://www.state.gov/j/tip/laws/

8 U.S. Code § 1158 - Asylum

US Code
Notes
Authorities (CFR)

prev | next

(a) Authority to apply for asylum

(1) In general

Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.
(2) Exceptions

(A) Safe third country

Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien if the Attorney General determines that the alien may be removed, pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement, to a country (other than the country of the alien’s nationality or, in the case of an alien having no nationality, the country of the alien’s last habitual residence) in which the alien’s life or freedom would not be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, and where the alien would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection, unless the Attorney General finds that it is in the public interest for the alien to receive asylum in the United States.

(B) Time limit

Subject to subparagraph (D), paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien unless the alien demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the application has been filed within 1 year after the date of the alien’s arrival in the United States.

(C) Previous asylum applications

Subject to subparagraph (D), paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien if the alien has previously applied for asylum and had such application denied.

(D) Changed circumstances

An application for asylum of an alien may be considered, notwithstanding subparagraphs (B) and (C), if the alien demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Attorney General either the existence of changed circumstances which materially affect the applicant’s eligibility for asylum or extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing an application within the period specified in subparagraph (B).

(E) Applicability

Subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall not apply to an unaccompanied alienchild (as defined in section 279(g) of title 6).

(3) Limitation on judicial review

No court shall have jurisdiction to review any determination of the Attorney General under paragraph (2).

(b) Conditions for granting asylum

(1) In general

(A) Eligibility

The Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General may grant asylum to an alien who has applied for asylum in accordance with the requirements and procedures established by the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General under this section if the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General determines that such alien is a refugee within the meaning of section 1101(a)(42)(A) of this title.

(B) Burden of proof

(i) In general

The burden of proof is on the applicant to establish that the applicant is a refugee, within the meaning of section 1101(a)(42)(A) of this title. To establish that the applicant is a refugee within the meaning of such section, the applicant must establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.

(ii) Sustaining burden

The testimony of the applicant may be sufficient to sustain the applicant’s burden without corroboration, but only if the applicant satisfies the trier of fact that the applicant’s testimony is credible, is persuasive, and refers to specific facts sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant is a refugee. In determining whether the applicant has met the applicant’s burden, the trier of fact may weigh the credible testimony along with other evidence of record. Where the trier of fact determines that the applicant should provide evidence that corroborates otherwise credible testimony, such evidence must be provided unless the applicant does not have the evidence and cannot reasonably obtain the evidence.

(iii) Credibility determination

Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or witness, the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s or witness’s account, the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements (whenever made and whether or not under oath, and considering the circumstances under which the statements were made), the internal consistency of each such statement, the consistency of such statements with other evidence of record (including the reports of the Department of State on country conditions), and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements, without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim, or any other relevant factor. There is no presumption of credibility, however, if no adverse credibility determination is explicitly made, the applicant or witness shall have a rebuttable presumption of credibility on appeal.

(2) Exceptions

(A) In generalParagraph (1) shall not apply to an alien if the Attorney General determines that—

(i) the alien ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion;

(ii) the alien, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of the United States;

(iii) there are serious reasons for believing that the alien has committed a serious nonpolitical crime outside the United States prior to the arrival of the alien in the United States;

(iv) there are reasonable grounds for regarding the alien as a danger to the security of the United States;

(v) the alien is described in subclause (I), (II), (III), (IV), or (VI) of section 1182(a)(3)(B)(i) of this title or section 1227(a)(4)(B) of this title (relating to terrorist activity), unless, in the case only of an alien described in subclause (IV) of section 1182(a)(3)(B)(i) of this title, the Attorney General determines, in the Attorney General’s discretion, that there are not reasonable grounds for regarding the alien as a danger to the security of the United States; or

(vi) the alien was firmly resettled in another country prior to arriving in the United States.

(B) Special rules

(i) Conviction of aggravated felony

For purposes of clause (ii) of subparagraph (A), an alien who has been convicted of an aggravated felony shall be considered to have been convicted of a particularly serious crime.

(ii) Offenses

The Attorney General may designate by regulation offenses that will be considered to be a crime described in clause (ii) or (iii) of subparagraph (A).

(C) Additional limitations

The Attorney General may by regulation establish additional limitations and conditions, consistent with this section, under which an alien shall be ineligible for asylum under paragraph (1).

(D) No judicial review

There shall be no judicial review of a determination of the Attorney General under subparagraph (A)(v).

(3) Treatment of spouse and children

(A) In general

A spouse or child (as defined in section 1101(b)(1)(A), (B), (C), (D), or (E) of this title) of an alien who is granted asylum under this subsection may, if not otherwise eligible for asylum under this section, be granted the same status as the alien if accompanying, or following to join, such alien.

(B) Continued classification of certain aliens as children

An unmarried alien who seeks to accompany, or follow to join, a parent granted asylum under this subsection, and who was under 21 years of age on the date on which such parent applied for asylum under this section, shall continue to be classified as a child for purposes of this paragraph and section 1159(b)(3) of this title, if the alien attained 21 years of age after such application was filed but while it was pending.

(C) Initial jurisdiction

An asylum officer (as defined in section 1225(b)(1)(E) of this title) shall have initial jurisdiction over any asylum application filed by an unaccompanied alien child (as defined in section 279(g) of title 6), regardless of whether filed in accordance with this section or section 1225(b) of this title.

(c) Asylum status

(1) In generalIn the case of an alien granted asylum under subsection (b), the Attorney General—

(A) shall not remove or return the alien to the alien’s country of nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, the country of the alien’s last habitual residence;

(B) shall authorize the alien to engage in employment in the United States and provide the alien with appropriate endorsement of that authorization; and

(C) may allow the alien to travel abroad with the prior consent of the Attorney General.

(2) Termination of asylumAsylum granted under subsection (b) does not convey a right to remain permanently in the United States, and may be terminated if the Attorney General determines that—

(A) the alien no longer meets the conditions described in subsection (b)(1) owing to a fundamental change in circumstances;

(B) the alien meets a condition described in subsection (b)(2);

(C) the alien may be removed, pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement, to a country (other than the country of the alien’s nationality or, in the case of an alien having no nationality, the country of the alien’s last habitual residence) in which the alien’s life or freedom would not be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, and where the alien is eligible to receive asylum or equivalent temporary protection;

(D) the alien has voluntarily availed himself or herself of the protection of the alien’s country of nationality or, in the case of an alien having no nationality, the alien’s country of last habitual residence, by returning to such country with permanent resident status or the reasonable possibility of obtaining such status with the same rights and obligations pertaining to other permanent residents of that country; or

(E) the alien has acquired a new nationality and enjoys the protection of the country of his or her new nationality.

(3) Removal when asylum is terminated

An alien described in paragraph (2) is subject to any applicable grounds of inadmissibility or deportability under section [1] 1182(a) and 1227(a) of this title, and the alien’s removal or return shall be directed by the Attorney General in accordance with sections 1229a and 1231 of this title.

(d) Asylum procedure

(1) Applications

The Attorney General shall establish a procedure for the consideration of asylum applications filed under subsection (a). The Attorney General may require applicants to submit fingerprints and a photograph at such time and in such manner to be determined by regulation by the Attorney General.

(2) Employment

An applicant for asylum is not entitled to employment authorization, but such authorization may be provided under regulation by the Attorney General. An applicant who is not otherwise eligible for employment authorization shall not be granted such authorization prior to 180 days after the date of filing of the application for asylum.

(3) Fees

The Attorney General may impose fees for the consideration of an application for asylum, for employment authorization under this section, and for adjustment of status under section 1159(b) of this title. Such fees shall not exceed the Attorney General’s costs in adjudicating the applications. The Attorney General may provide for the assessment and payment of such fees over a period of time or by installments. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to require the Attorney General to charge fees for adjudication services provided to asylum applicants, or to limit the authority of the Attorney General to set adjudication and naturalization fees in accordance with section 1356(m) of this title.

(4) Notice of privilege of counsel and consequences of frivolous applicationAt the time of filing an application for asylum, the Attorney General shall—

(A) advise the alien of the privilege of being represented by counsel and of the consequences, under paragraph (6), of knowingly filing a frivolous application for asylum; and

(B) provide the alien a list of persons (updated not less often than quarterly) who have indicated their availability to represent aliens in asylum proceedings on a pro bono basis.

(5) Consideration of asylum applications

(A) ProceduresThe procedure established under paragraph (1) shall provide that—

(i) asylum cannot be granted until the identity of the applicant has been checked against all appropriate records or databases maintained by the Attorney General and by the Secretary of State, including the Automated Visa Lookout System, to determine any grounds on which the alien may be inadmissible to or deportable from the United States, or ineligible to apply for or be granted asylum;

(ii) in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the initial interview or hearing on the asylum application shall commence not later than 45 days after the date an application is filed;

(iii) in the absence of exceptional circumstances, final administrative adjudication of the asylum application, not including administrative appeal, shall be completed within 180 days after the date an application is filed;

(iv) any administrative appeal shall be filed within 30 days of a decision granting or denying asylum, or within 30 days of the completion of removal proceedings before an immigration judge under section 1229a of this title, whichever is later; and

(v) in the case of an applicant for asylum who fails without prior authorization or in the absence of exceptional circumstances to appear for an interview or hearing, including a hearing under section 1229a of this title, the application may be dismissed or the applicant may be otherwise sanctioned for such failure.

(B) Additional regulatory conditions

The Attorney General may provide by regulation for any other conditions or limitations on the consideration of an application for asylum not inconsistent with this chapter.

(6) Frivolous applications

If the Attorney General determines that an alien has knowingly made a frivolous application for asylum and the alien has received the notice under paragraph (4)(A), the alien shall be permanently ineligible for any benefits under this chapter, effective as of the date of a final determination on such application.

(7) No private right of action

Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to create any substantive or procedural right or benefit that is legally enforceable by any party against the United States or its agencies or officers or any other person.
(e) Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

The provisions of this section and section 1159(b) of this title shall apply to persons physically present in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands or arriving in the Commonwealth (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including persons who are brought to the Commonwealth after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) only on or after January 1, 2014.

(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title II, ch. 1, § 208, as added Pub. L. 96–212, title II, § 201(b), Mar. 17, 1980, 94 Stat. 105; amended Pub. L. 101–649, title V, § 515(a)(1), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 5053; Pub. L. 103–322, title XIII, § 130005(b), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2028; Pub. L. 104–132, title IV, § 421(a), Apr. 24, 1996, 110 Stat. 1270; Pub. L. 104–208, div. C, title VI, § 604(a), Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–690; Pub. L. 107–56, title IV, § 411(b)(2), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 348; Pub. L. 107–208, § 4, Aug. 6, 2002, 116 Stat. 928; Pub. L. 109–13, div. B, title I, § 101(a), (b), May 11, 2005, 119 Stat. 302, 303; Pub. L. 110–229, title VII, § 702(j)(4), May 8, 2008, 122 Stat. 866; Pub. L. 110–457, title II, § 235(d)(7), Dec. 23, 2008, 122 Stat. 5080.)

[1]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ALIPAC

Where are these laws? Where is the law that says people that illegally immigrate across our border and ask for asylum must be allowed to stay? Can any of you locate and display them for us?

We have been fighting illegal immigration for 14 years and never before Trump came along has anyone pointed the finger at Congress to say they are the reason illegal aliens can freely enter the US in unlimited quantities claiming "asylum"

ALIPAC has always claimed that Catch and Release is an Executive Branch policy that acts againt the spirit of existing laws.

---

There are multiple types of Catch and Release. There are the illegal alien releases that could be blamed on the Executive Branch, the ones where they are detained, assigned a court hearing, but due to no space in detention and no knowledge of prior records that pose a threat to human safety, ICE releases them. Even then, if there's no detention space, is that Executive Branch liability or Congress for failure to fund adequate detention space?

Then there's the ones who can't get a hearing in 6 months, and courts have ruled holding people longer than that waiting for a hearing is wrong and they should be released. Not clear on all the details. Then there's the the ones who are women and children and there's some 20 day court ruling for them and they're released. Then there's the BP releases where they know when they catch them there's no detention space so they get a hearing date with a release order and just release them. Then there's the asylum seekers, refugees and unaccompanied children who are detained but hearing dates so far into the future that they are also released. Then there's the ones who are Mexicans that BP can release back into Mexico without hearings, but they often just come back in another day. Then there's the OTM, other than Mexicans, BP can't release back into Mexico, can't get a speedy hearing, so get a hearing date and a release order, and release them.

Catch and Release isn't a legal term, it's a phrase to describe the releases that occur for a variety of reasons because of laws, court rulings, lack of detention space and the total failure of the US Department of Justice to provide a speedy deportation hearing.

All hearings need to be moved out of DOJ back to DHS where they used to be. INS/DHS used to issue deportation orders, then the laws were changed and deportation hearings were moved to DOJ. That's when this huge back-log started to develop. DOJ is not the suitable agency to handle this type of logistics processing to issue deportation orders, DHS should be the one to do that. You don't need lawyers or judges to do this, any experienced senior BP or ICE agent or knowledgeable DHS employee can do this. Even local people can be hired to do this.

Congress also needs to repeal the TPS status and work permits. No one here without formal legal status should have the right to work in the United States.

. . . Q: Do I have the right to a hearing before an immigration judge to defend myself against deportation charges?


A: Yes. In most cases only an immigration judge can order you deported.


But if you waive (give up) your rights or take "voluntary departure" (agree to leave) you could be deported without a hearing.


If you have criminal convictions, were arrested at the border, or have been ordered deported in the past, you could be deported without a hearing . . .


http://www.weareoneamerica.org/homeland-security


http://www.alipac.us/f12/illegal-ali...1990-a-305859/

Catch and release (U.S. immigration policy)

Catch and release is the unofficial name of a protocol that has been followed by immigration enforcement agencies in the United States^[when?] (specifically, by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection), under which people caught in unlawful immigration status are released while they wait for a hearing with an immigration judge. The "catch and release" nickname came into use during the George W. Bush administration, with alternative advocated approaches described as "catch and return" or "catch and detain".^{[citation needed]}

Due to the lack of resources available to immigration enforcement officials to detain larger numbers of people, as well as the lengthy time period between apprehension and being ordered deported, catch-and-release has been a de facto policy followed by ICE and its predecessor agencies – those believed to be in violation of immigration status have been released and given a date when they are ordered to appear before an immigration judge for a deportation hearing. Knowing that coming to a hearing could lead to them being deported, many of these people fail to turn up to their hearings.

Contents

[hide]

• 1History
  
  • 1.1Under George W. Bush
  • 1.2Under Barack Obama
  • 1.3Under Donald Trump
  
  
• 2References

History[edit]

Under George W. Bush[edit]

The need to release detainees that could otherwise be deported is primarily a practical matter – U.S. immigration officials simply do not have sufficient facilities (and the funding to operate them) to detain all the people they discover in apparent violation of immigration laws and process them for deportation.

The authority of the U.S. to detain immigrants indefinitely is also limited, even if the facilities are available. In June 2001, in the Zadvydas v. Davis decision, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling prohibiting exceptionally lengthy detentions in the absence of strong justification. In that case, other countries had refused to accept some individuals that the U.S. wanted to deport. The court ruled that such people could not be detained for longer than six months unless the government could show that the deportation was expected to be completed in the foreseeable future or that some special circumstances applied, such as a danger to the public or a substantial flight risk.

In October 2005, DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff told a hearing of the United States Senate that he intended to end the catch-and-release policy soon, so as to reduce illegal immigration to the United States and the security threat posed by it.^[1] In late July 2006, Chertoff announced that the United States had ended the catch-and-release policy a few months earlier, and the recent infusion of funding for border security had been helpful with implementing the policy. In response, many lawmakers expressed skepticism.^[2] In August 2006, Chertoff provided more details, saying that the change had led to a drop of 20,000 in the number of border-crossers. According to the new policy, those caught in immigration violation would generally be detained until their hearing, with the possible exception of Mexicans who had recently arrived, who could be subject to expedited removal. While not everybody would be detained, detention would become the default option.^[3][4] In a February 2007 statement before the United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, Chertoff confirmed that the policy had ended completely starting August 2006, and reported the changes observed to the number of apprehensions as a result.^[5]

David Mulhausen of the Heritage Foundation said that the end of the policy was a positive development but still did not address the problem of the large number of border-crossers from Mexico who were immediately turned back but could keep re-attempting entry.^[4]

Under Barack Obama[edit]

In January 2015, Brandon Darby, writing for Breitbart.com, published leaked internal training documents of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection that provided guidelines advising catch-and-release practices. The leaked documents were a result of the November 2014 executive action on immigration undertaken by Barack Obama's administration (and would also form the basis for the Priority Enforcement Program, revealed in mid-2015):^[6] The documents identified three priority categories for those believed to be in violation of authorized status:

1. Aliens who "pose a threat to national security, border security, or public safety"
2. Aliens who are "misdemeanants and new immigration violators"
3. All other immigration violators

The instructions to CBP noted that those in category 3 would not be detained and deported, and therefore CBP agents were advised to not waste resources arresting them but rather focus on priority one and priority two offenders.^[6] The Associated Press reported on a similar set of guidelines.^[7]

Reporting about the guidelines for Vox.com, Dara Lind noted that, while Breitbart.com was claiming that this policy was "catch and release 2.0", ICE agents said that the guidance they received had always been similar, suggesting that, as far as internal guidance went, the original catch-and-release policies had never actually ended. However, because ICE and CBP officials often rounded up low-priority offenders despite them being low-priority, the Obama administration had to provide more explicit guidance and also introduce the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans programs to explicitly protect people in low-priority categories from deportation.^[8]
On a similar note, in a backgrounder for the Center for Immigration Studies, Jessica Vaughan used ICE memos from 2013 as well as deportation numbers to argue that catch and release was the de facto immigration enforcement policy for a sizable fraction of people caught for being in violation of immigration law.^[9]

In 2014, Chuck Grassley and other Republican senators introduced legislation to close what they called a "catch-and-release loophole", namely the judicial ban on detaining certain aliens that was established by the Zadvydas v. Davis decision (described above). ^[10]

Under Donald Trump[edit]

Immigration being one of the biggest issues of Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, candidate Trump spoke of catch and release in a major speech on immigration policy some months before the election, stating that then-President Obama and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton supported it and that he (Trump) would end it.^[11]

In February 2017, DHS Secretary John Kelly, pursuant to executive orders by President Trump, ordered an end to catch-and-release.^[12] But Reuters reported the following June that "immigration attorneys, government statistics and even some officials from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ... suggest that ... there has been no clear change to the catch-and-release policy."

The article indicated that ending catch and release was impracticable due to a shortage of detention facilities and a court ruling limiting the stay of women and children to 21 days in custody.^[13]

In April 2018, Trump signed another executive memorandum calling for an end to the practice.^[14][15]

The memo ordered government officials to produce reports on progress to end the practice and ordering the preparation of a list of facilities, including military facilities, where additional detainees could be held.

However, it did not provide a way to fund additional detentions, and the practice was continuing with no discernible effect, since mandating detention without release would greatly expand the number of people being held and would be costly.^[16]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch_...ration_policy)

References[edit]

• Jump up^ "Chertoff: End 'Catch and Release' at Borders". Associated Press via Fox News. October 18, 2005. Retrieved July 18, 2015.
• Jump up^ "Chertoff hails end of let-go policy". Washington Times. July 28, 2006. Retrieved July 18,2015.
• Jump up^ Jordan, Lara Jakes (August 23, 2006). "U.S. Ends 'Catch-And-Release' at Border". Retrieved June 17, 2015.
• ^ Jump up to:^{a b} "U.S. announces end of 'catch and release'. Chertoff says new 'detain' policy means". WorldNetDaily. August 23, 2006. Retrieved June 17, 2015.
• Jump up^ "Testimony of The Honorable Michael Chertoff" (PDF). February 28, 2007. Retrieved July 18, 2015.
• ^ Jump up to:^{a b} Darby, Brandon (January 11, 2015). "Catch and Release 2.0 — Leaks Highlight Teardown of Immigration Enforcement". Breitbart.com. Retrieved July 18, 2015.
• Jump up^ Caldwell, Alicia (January 28, 2015). "Obama Administration Tells Agents to ID Which Immigrants Not to Deport". Associated Press via realclearpolitics.com. Retrieved April 2,2018.
• Jump up^ Lind, Dara (January 29, 2015). "Obama just picked a fight with border agents". Vox.com. Retrieved July 18, 2015.
• Jump up^ Vaughan, Jessica (March 1, 2014). "Catch and Release. Interior immigration enforcement in 2013". Center for Immigration Studies. Retrieved July 18, 2015.
• Jump up^ "Senators Introduce Bill to Close Catch-and-Release Loophole". Senator Chuck Grassley's Senate website. June 11, 2014. Retrieved July 18, 2015.
• Jump up^ Bump, Philip (August 31, 2016). "Here's what Donald Trump said in his big immigration speech, annotated". www.washingtonpost.com. Retrieved April 2, 2018.
• Jump up^ Berger, Judson (February 21, 2017). "DHS secretary orders immigration agent hiring surge, end to 'catch-and-release'". www.foxnews.com. Retrieved April 1, 2018.
• Jump up^ Julia Edwards Ainsley (June 6, 2017). "Despite Trump vow to end catch and release, he is still freeing thousands of migrants". www.reuters.com. Retrieved April 2, 2018.
• Jump up^ https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/06/u...on-policy.html
• Jump up^ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1HD31Q
• Jump up^ http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...206-story.html

Federal Court Rules Illegal Alien Detainees Must Be Given Bond Hearings

Catch and Release: Caravan Asylum Seekers Closer to Living Freely In U.S.

GIVE ME A BREAK WITH THIS GIBBERISH - EXECUTIVE FIAT NOW! STAND UP FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS AND BY RIGHT!

So these are memorandums and protocols in place, not actual laws demanding we catch and release illegal aliens.

Yes - Indee-dee!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ALIPAC

So these are memorandums and protocols in place, not actual laws demanding we catch and release illegal aliens.

---

Yes, that is correct. There is no law demanding we catch an illegal alien and no law requiring we release one we caught unless they are an asylum seeker, refugeee, UAC, women with children (court ruling), in custody for more than 6 months awaiting a deportation or other type of hearing (court ruling), posted a bond (court ruling) or have an order of release pending a hearing from the US Department of Justice (law).

These are laws.

Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962
Refugee Act of 1980
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952
Migration and Refugee Assistance Act
8 U.S.C.: Aliens and Nationality
8 U.S.C. ch. 12, subch. I § 1101 et seq.
8 U.S.C. ch. 12, subch. II §§ 1157-1159
8 U.S.C. ch. 12, subch. IV § 1521 et seq.
United States Refugee Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-212) is an amendment to the earlier Immigration and Nationality Act and the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act

The United States Refugee Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-212) is an amendment to the earlier Immigration and Nationality Act and the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act, and was created to provide a permanent and systematic procedure for the admission to the United States of refugees of special humanitarian concern to the ...

Refugee Act - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee_Act

Oh - pa-leeze - have posted several articles about all this regarding let in everyone nonsense - ARE YOU STUPID OR WISH TO BE BRAINWASHED? HAVE NO REASON FOR EITHER HERE AND AM SURE ALL ACROSS AMERICA FEELS THE SAME. WE ARE DONE WITH OBAMA'S EXECUTIVE FIATS AND WE EXPECT THE TRUMP ADMIN TO RESPOND ACCORDINGLY.

Don't you trust Sessions to handle asylum and deportation cases properly? You know that DOJ not DHS is responsible for asylum case reviews and deportation orders, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

Don't you trust Sessions to handle asylum and deportation cases properly? You know that DOJ not DHS is responsible for asylum case reviews and deportation orders, right?

---

Sessions has not performed on illegal immigration and Amnesty issues as well as we had hoped when we fought so hard to support his confirmation as AG.

I feel like Jeff Sessions let me down, he let American's down.

I thought he was going to be a PIT BULL against illegal aliens, asylum, TPS and stopping this invasion of OUR country.

I thought he would counsel Trump on going full speed ahead with ANY means possible to stop this.

All Trump has talked about is DACA, DACA, DACA and amnesty for the last 16 months. I am furious! All this talk has encouraged MORE to come here.

It has been almost a year and a half and there has been NO progress in stopping this train wreck!

Sessions would have been better to stay in Alabama as we have now lost that seat :(



TRUMP...GET OUT YOUR PEN AND PHONE AND STOP ALL ASYLUM, STOP THEM ALL AT THE BORDER AND SHUT THIS DOWN.

HAND ALL UAC'S OVER INTO THE CARE AND CUSTODY OF THEIR CONSULATE OR EMBASSY FOR DEPORTION!

FIRE KELLY AND KIRSTEN...THEY ARE NOT ADVISING YOU WELL ON WHAT WE VOTED FOR YOU TO DO! DEPORT THEM ALL.

START BY DEEMING ALL DRIVER'S LICENSES ISSUED TO ILLEGAL ALIENS NULL & VOID

START BY CUTTING OFF ALL TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO ILLEGAL ALIENS

START BY NOT EXTENDING ANY MORE TPS...AND THAT MEANS GIVE THEM 90 DAYS TO DEPORT THEMSELVES!

START BY REMEMBERING THE ANGEL MOM'S...YOU USED THEM!

START BY TERMINATING THE ONE BILLION TO CHURCHES, OF OUR MONEY, FACILITATING THEIR HUMAN TRAFFICKING!

YOU HAVE PUT ILLEGAL ALIENS AND THESE LYING ASYLUM INVADERS FIRST BY DUMPING THEM ON OUR BACKS TO PAY FOR!

I think Sessions is trying his best, it's just a very tough issue to try to solve through the AG's office and US DOJ. This issue needs to be solved on the ground through DHS instead of through court houses. The "hearings" and "orders" process needs to be moved from DOJ back to immigration enforcement in DHS where it used to be. Trump needs to put that legislative change on his list of things to fix.

Klukowski: Sessions Is Trump’s Warrior on Immigration, Supreme Court, Rule of Law

http://media.breitbart.com/media/201...eq-640x427.jpgThe Associated Press

by KEN KLUKOWSKI26 Jan 2018Washington, DC625

Attorney General Jeff Sessions begins 2018 with a series of wins for President Donald Trump, delivering on several issues in a way that few others could, to the applause of the president’s base.

First is immigration. The fact that January has seen not one, but two historic immigration cases head toward the Supreme Court can be explained by one simple fact: In Sessions, President Trump picked an immigration warrior.
Two blockbuster cases are likely to be taken up and decided by the Supreme Court in the same week this year. One is Trump v. Hawaii, the legal challenge to the president’s authority to fulfill his campaign promise of “extreme vetting” for immigration. The Court granted review in Hawaii on January 19.

The other case is Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of University of California, the legal challenge to the Trump administration’s decision to end an amnesty program for 800,000 illegal aliens called DACA. When a leftwing federal judge in California declared that decision unlawful, Sessions not only filed an immediate appeal with the Ninth Circuit appeals court, he also took the extraordinarily rare and aggressive step of petitioning the Supreme Court to take the case immediately, before the Ninth Circuit rules on the case or even hears arguments on it.

On Sessions’ behalf, Solicitor General Noel Francisco asked the justices to decide Regents of UC before the end of the Court’s term. The Court has accelerated the schedule, voting on February 16 whether to take the case. If the Court grants review, it will need to issue an expedited briefing schedule, then hear both immigration cases the last week of April, and will likely hand down both decisions in the last week of June.

The attorney general showcased his conservative bona fides on immigration in a speech on Friday. Conservative Republicans are raving about his unapologetic defense of defending America’s borders and the rule of law.
Second is draining the swamp. Millions of Americans who were already unhappy with the level of bias manifested in the text messages of FBI deep-staters Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were then outraged when told that five months of the illicit couple’s text messages had disappeared – months covering a critical time period in this scandal.

Sessions vowed to find those texts by any means possible. On Friday, the Justice Department’s inspector general announced that his team successfully recovered the texts. This becomes the latest development in the attorney general’s proliferating investigations into potential wrongdoing concerning a number of scandals from the past several years.

All this comes on the heels of a third issue for which the GOP base gives its highest marks for the president: Judges. Sessions successfully led the Justice Department’s part of confirming Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, setting an all-time record for first-year appointments to the federal appeals courts, with many more to come in 2018.

Every president has multiple constituencies to keep in view in America’s democratic form of government. For President Trump, no one in the Cabinet is doing more than Sessions to solidify support among the president’s base.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...t-rule-of-law/

I'm extremely pleased with Attorney General Jeff Sessions and think he is doing everything that is within his power to fight excessive immigration and illegal immigration!

He has legal constraints and it will take an act of congress to lift those constraints.

Session should be telling TRUMP to do an Executive Order to stop this invasion of our country.

If Obama and every other President issued these "memos" and "EO's"...then Trump can too!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beezer

Session should be telling TRUMP to do an Executive Order to stop this invasion of our country. . .

---

Maybe he is and Trump just isn't doing it. We have no way of knowing.

A flash to the past on some of the things Jeff Sessions has done for us and our efforts:

The Senate's anti-immigration warrior

Jeff Sessions was agitator-in-chief during the DHS fight. Now, he's moving to the next battle.

By SEUNG MIN KIM
03/05/2015 05:35 AM EST
Updated 03/05/2015 06:48 AM EST

https://static.politico.com/dims4/de..._2_ap_1160.jpg

The Homeland Security crisis might be over, but Sen. Jeff Sessions is just getting started.

The rosy-cheeked, conservative Alabaman with a distinct Southern drawl became Capitol Hill’s agitator-in-chief during the impasse over President Barack Obama’s immigration actions and the Department of Homeland Security. Mocked by the left, beloved by the hard-right and at times bothersome to fellow Republicans, Sessions rallied his party in the weeks-long standoff that ended with GOP capitulation.

But the fourth-term senator is quickly moving on from defeat to his next crusade: attacking high-skilled immigration.

Using his new gavel on the Senate immigration panel, Sessions said he plans to hold oversight hearings on H-1B visas that benefit high-skilled immigrants — one of the tech industry’s top priorities in Washington. Sessions has been in touch with tech employees who say they’ve been laid off in favor of foreign workers. And his office recently conducted a staff briefing for Senate aides, outlining what they say are abuses to the H-1B system.

“We’ve got to ask — which hasn’t been asked — what does all this do to the ability of a college graduate who’s living at home with his parents because he can’t find a job?” Sessions said in a recent interview outlining his plans. “One thing that’s accepted almost without debate is that we need more of those workers, and that’s not accurate. And we’re going to prove that’s not accurate.”

Sessions has long been a critic not just of legalizing undocumented immigrants but also of allowing more immigrants into the United States at all — a view to which many in the GOP take exception. And though Republicans largely agreed early on to use DHS funding as leverage over Obama on immigration, GOP support for that position waned as the impasse continued, and Sessions ultimately relented, too.

The former federal prosecutor and Alabama attorney general has gravitated to immigration issues since he arrived in Congress in 1997. But his interest grew into an obsession in 2006 and 2007, when Sessions helped scuttle comprehensive reform in the Senate during President George W. Bush’s tenure.

Since then, he’s been working to stop immigration ideas from the left and right. When the Senate took up a sweeping immigration overhaul from the Gang of Eight in 2013, Sessions methodically went about trying to kill the bill with amendments viewed as poison pills and by driving up public opposition with a drumbeat of floor speeches and statements. The legislation passed the Senate but went nowhere in the House, where Sessions worked to gin up opposition among Republican hard-liners.

More recently, he strategized with House conservatives to devise a response to last summer’s border crisis, when unaccompanied migrant children from Central America were being apprehended at the southern border in record numbers. And this year, he lobbied against a border-security bill written by House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mike McCaul (R-Texas). That legislation was pulled from the House floor and has not been back since. “I am in a minority in the U.S. Senate … in questioning whether we should reward people who came into the country illegally with jobs that Americans would like to do,” Sessions said. “But with the American people, I am in a distinct majority.”

Now Sessions is moving to line up opposition against H-1B visas in case Senate Republicans move forward on legislation. Building a more robust high-tech workforce through immigration has been a rare area of agreement between the two parties, even as the H-1B issue itself has stalled over the years.

Earlier this year, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) introduced the so-called Immigration Innovation — or “I-Squared” — which would boost the number of H-1B visas issued each year to as high as 195,000. Currently, the H-1B cap is set at 65,000 annually, though an extra 20,000 visas are set aside for immigrants with a master’s degree or higher from a U.S. school. The measure is backed by a handful of Senate Democrats and key Republicans, including Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida, John McCain of Arizona and Jeff Flake of Arizona.

But it’s unclear how far that legislation will go. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said Wednesday he has no plans “at this point” to take up Hatch’s bill.

“I want to get his advice first,” Grassley said of Sessions before moving forward with the measure.

Sessions is now in a position to wield more influence on immigration policy as the newly installed chairman of the Senate panel that oversees the issue. The gavel of the subcommittee was seen as a consolation prize of sorts, after he bowed out of the race to lead the Senate Budget Committee.

In his long fight against immigration, Sessions has rallied support from leading conservative voices such as Rich Lowry of National Review and talk show host Laura Ingraham, who regularly praises Sessions for his immigration stance and has even said he should run for president in 2016.

“Overall, Sen. Jeff Sessions has probably done the best work on behalf of the American people in the fight to protect American jobs from illegal aliens of every person in Washington, D.C.,” Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) said. “There has not been a close second.”

His popularity in Alabama is unparalleled, the state’s lawmakers say, and notably, Sessions was the only Republican senator up for reelection last year who did not have a primary or a general election challenger.

But his public life has some dark patches. In 1986, he was chosen by President Ronald Reagan to be a federal judge, but his nomination was rejected in the Senate amid allegations that he was racially insensitive as a U.S. attorney — accusations that Sessions dismissed at the time.

And immigration reform advocates have long cast him as anti-immigrant.

“The people he talks to represent a sliver of the American people, a portion of the Republican base and not the changing America that is transforming the electorate,” said Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, who has battled Sessions for years. “You go, Jeff. Hasten the demise of your party so we can pass immigration reform.”

Sessions’ willingness to fight fellow Republicans was clear during the DHS battle, particularly when he stood up in a private party lunch and castigated a plan from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to split off must-pass DHS funding from provisions blocking Obama’s actions on immigration. Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) countered that the leader’s strategy was the only way out that wouldn’t hamper local law enforcement agencies that rely on DHS grants.

In the POLITICO interview, Sessions said the confrontation during the closed-door meeting was “absolutely” worth it. “I told my colleagues the truth as I saw it. I think everybody knew I was telling the truth,” he added. “The leadership had made a decision how they wanted to handle it, and people tend to follow the leader. And so I don’t regret [it], and I don’t think anybody should have hard feelings about what I said then.”

When asked whether Sessions and his crusade made it difficult for Republicans in the DHS battle, Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas replied: “Not really.”

“He cares a lot about the Constitution and the rule of law, and I think he is understandably outraged at what the president has done,” Cornyn said of Sessions recently. “So he’s been perhaps the most vocal member of our conference, although I think a number of us have tried to do our fair share.”

https://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/jeff-sessions-dhs-immigration-115777

Jeff Sessions has been our advocate for over two decades and nothing has changed since he moved to his job as Attorney General.

27 Times Jeff Sessions Fought for Americans Against DACA, Amnesty and Open Borders

http://media.breitbart.com/media/201...ns-640x480.jpgMark Wilson/Getty

by JOHN BINDER5 Sep 2017Washington, D.C.293

Perhaps no politician has been more influential in shaping the populist-nationalist revolt against President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program for illegal aliens and nationwide amnesty than Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

While DACA – which gives temporary protected status to more than 800,000 illegal aliens – continues to be supported by the open borders lobby, corporate interests and Silicon Valley elites, Sessions has for years pushed back against the often times Democratic and Republican consensus on immigration and amnesty.

Here’s a look through Sessions’ heroic immigration patriotism against all odds:

1. Jeff Sessions: America Not an Oligarchy Where Masters of the Universe Decide Immigration Law

“I’m sure this will make the activists, the politicians, and certain billionaire executives who enjoy dinner parties at the White House very happy that the president is doing these things,” Sessions said in September 2014, as Breitbart News reported. “But what about what’s good for America? What about what’s the interest of the American people? America is not an oligarchy. The masters of the universe, they don’t get to meet at the White House and decide how to run this country. When the American people learned what was in the Senate amnesty bill and guest worker bill that doubled the number of guest workers, for which every single Senate Democrat voted, the people said no, no, no.”

2. Jeff Sessions: Now Is the ‘Time to Stand Strong’ Against Obama’s Illegal Amnesty to Protect American Workers and Their Families

“President Obama’s executive amnesty violates the laws Congress has passed in order to create and implement laws Congress has refused to pass,” Sessions said of DACA in November of 2014, as Breitbart News reported. “The President is providing an estimated five million illegal immigrants with social security numbers, photo IDs, and work permits–allowing them to now take jobs directly from struggling Americans during a time of record immigration, low wages, and high joblessness.”

3. Sen. Sessions Releases Lengthy Timeline of Obama Administration’s Dismantling of Immigration

“Most recently, the President announced he would do what he once said only an ’emperor’ could do – grant unilateral amnesty, work permits, and access to government benefits to more than five million illegal immigrants,” Sessions wrote in his timeline, as Breitbart News reported. “This unprecedented action, combined with new ‘enforcement priorities’ for Department of Homeland Security personnel that exempt the vast majority of illegal immigrants from the threat of removal, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals directive, the ‘Morton’ memos, and numerous other lesser-reported but far-reaching Executive actions, has threatened not only our constitutional system, but our national sovereignty. Indeed, the idea of national, sovereign borders is being daily eviscerated by the President’s determination to write his own immigration rules in defiance of Congress and the American people.”

4. Jeff Sessions: ‘This Election Is the People’s Chance to Put a Stake’ in the ‘Heart’ of the Gang of Eight Bill

“People are not happy with their government,” Sessions said to Breitbart News in 2016. “They have asked and been promised for 30 years that they’d have a lawful system of immigration. The politicians just promise and don’t deliver. And they promised that we’re going to do better about trade, and here we have another now 5,000 page Obamatrade bill that politicians are advocating – Republicans too – and it ought not to pass.”

5. Jeff Sessions: Next President Must Commit to Lower Immigration Levels, Eliminate Amnesty

“The illegal 2012 amnesty helped spark our current border crisis by giving jobs and benefits to younger illegal immigrants. This benefits program continues to operate, although it violates the law in all the same ways as the court identified for the 2014 amnesty,” Sessions wrote in November of 2015, as Breitbart News reported.

6. Jeff Sessions: Melt Congress’ Phone Lines, Stop Obama’s Planned Executive Amnesty

“The American people have begged and pleaded for years for our laws to be enforced,” Sessions in 2014, as Breitbart News reported. “We have people in our own country living in violence, fear and poverty every single day. They have demanded an immigration policy that puts their jobs, wages and communities first. Every citizen should pick up the phone and ask of their congressional representative: where do you stand?”

7. Jeff Sessions: Obama’s Immigration Policies Hammer Black Workers

“A nation owes its first obligation to its own citizens,” Sessions said in October of 2014, as Breitbart News reported. “But our current immigration policy advantages the citizens of other countries over our own. Undeniably, one of the groups most hurt economically by unjust immigration policies are African-American citizens.”

8. Jeff Sessions: Corporate Media Wants to Silence Talk of Immigration and Trade in GOP Primary

“Immigration and trade are issues that are critical to the average American working person,” Sessions said in November of 2015, as Breitbart News reported. “If we don’t get this right, they’re going to be hammered. And I believe we’re heading in that direction, and our candidates are going to have to be forced to talk about it, and the American people are going to have to know where they stand on trade and immigration before the election.”

9. Jeff Sessions: ‘National Security Imperative’ to Stop Exec Amnesty

“It is a national security imperative to stop this executive amnesty,” Sessions said on the Senate floor in January of 2015, as Breitbart News reported.

10. Sen. Jeff Sessions: Obama ‘Committed to Escalating’ Lawlessness at Border

“There is now an unprecedented crisis unfolding at the border,” Sessions wrote for Breitbart News in June of 2014. “The flow of illegal immigrant youth across the southern border is on track to reach 130,000 next year–a projected increase of more than 2,000% from 2011. The White House estimates the cost of ‘resettling’ these illegal immigrants in the United States will reach $2.3 billion in a single year.”

11. Sen. Jeff Sessions: Congress Can ‘Never Acquiesce’ to Providing Tax Dollars to Obama’s Illegal Executive Amnesty

“The Court’s ruling is yet further affirmation that the President’s action – as the President himself admitted many times – is illegal,” Sessions said in February of 2015, as Breitbart News reported. “President Obama has suspended some 500 pages of existing immigration law passed by the representatives of the American people, and replaced it with the very measures those representatives have repeatedly rejected. The President’s action violates our laws, our Constitution, and the centuries of legal heritage that yielded our Republic.”

12. Jeff Sessions: Obama Exec Amnesty ‘Kick in the Teeth’ to American Workers

“The president’s plan will be a further kick in the teeth to down and struggling American workers,” Sessions declared in February of 2015, as Breitbart News reported.

13. Jeff Sessions: The GOP Must Back Reince’s Promise to Block Obama’s Executive Amnesty

“Before the election, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said: ‘We can’t allow it to happen and we won’t let it happen… I’m telling you, everything we can do to stop it we will,’” Sessions said in a statement provided exclusively to Breitbart News. “We must now follow through on that commitment.”

14. Jeff Sessions: New Media Leading Way to Defeat Establishment’s Amnesty

“I don’t have any doubt that the new media organizations shifted the momentum as we were heading into this August recess,” Sessions told Breitbart News in August of 2014. “There’s just no doubt about it. I guess it goes back to the Virginia seat, the influence it had there, then it built in the weeks to come and provided the only real source of consistently good information. The reason I think that the message was so strong in the House in the final hours was because it was based on almost indisputable logic and sound principle.”

“A lawless immigration system cannot be acceptable–and the new media helped drive the message that that’s exactly what we have,” Sessions added. “What we have, in reality, that’s [what] we have today–lawlessness. So, the House could not go home without having spoken on how to make the border lawful and without having addressed the astounding threat by the president that he would unilaterally by executive order legalize as many as five to six million people and give them permission to work.”

15. Jeff Sessions: Congress Must Not Cave on Exec Amnesty and Hope Courts Will Intervene

In a speech on the Senate floor in February 2015, Sessions slammed Republicans who are afraid the GOP will get blamed if the Homeland Security Department is shut down and said that Congress cannot and “must not fund an illegal action in hopes that another branch of government will intervene,” as Breitbart News reported.

16. Jeff Sessions: No Senator Should Vote for Holder Replacement Who Doesn’t ‘Firmly Reject’ Executive Amnesty

“The Attorney General is the top law enforcement position in government,” Session said in September of 2014, as Breitbart News reported. “But Mr. Holder’s DOJ has taken numerous actions that have weakened the rule of law in America, and none more dramatically than his political actions that have undermined the immigration laws of the United States.”

17. Jeff Sessions: Melt Down Senate’s Phone Lines, Force Reid to Allow Vote on Executive Amnesty

“House Democrat Leader Pelosi – clearly one of the White House’s closest allies – has just urged the President to issue ‘the broadest possible’ executive actions,” Sessions said in 2014, as Breitbart News reported. “Open borders groups have grown bolder and louder in their unlawful demands, launching a campaign for the President to ‘go big,’ and demanding that he ‘stand up’ to Congress and ‘expand DACA.'”

18. Jeff Sessions: Obama Displacing American Military Personnel by Allowing Some Illegals to Serve

Sessions said that Obama is “launching a new effort to recruit illegal immigrants and visa overstays for the military at a time when thousands of career military personnel are facing layoffs–meaning that the President’s recruitment program will directly displace American military personnel,” as Breitbart News reported.“Military service is a high calling, and a noble career, and is most certainly not a job Americans won’t do,” Sessions said.

19. Jeff Sessions Pens 25-Page Roadmap for New Republican Majority

“‘Immigration reform’ may be the single most abused phrase in the English language. It has become a legislative honorific almost exclusively reserved for proposals which benefit everyone but actual American citizens,” Sessions wrote in January 2015, as Breitbart Newsreported.

20. Jeff Sessions Exposes Obama Plans for Amnesty Processing Facility with 1,000 New Immigration Agents in Northern Virginia

“It has just been discovered today that the Obama Administration is now opening a new USCIS facility in Crystal City, Virginia for the purpose of immediately implementing the President’s imperial immigration decree,” Sessions said in December of 2014, as Breitbart News reported. “They are in the process of hiring 1,000 full-time staff to quickly approve applications for the President’s illegal amnesty, which will provide work permits, photo IDs, Social Security, and Medicare to illegal immigrants–all benefits rejected by Congress. This action will mean that American workers, their sons, their daughters, their parents, will now have to compete directly for jobs, wages, and benefits with millions of illegal immigrants.”

21. Jeff Sessions: Senate Dems Willing Accomplices in Obama’s ‘Lawless’ Executive Amnesty

“President Obama has openly reaffirmed his unconstitutional plan to nullify our nation’s sovereign laws, issuing executive amnesty and work permits to millions of illegal immigrants,” Session said in September of 2014, as Breitbart News reported. “In so doing, he will wipe away American workers’ lawful immigration protections. Illegal workers will be instantly allowed to take precious jobs directly from struggling Americans in every occupation in America. Countless more unlawful workers will pour across the border and overstay their visas. These executive actions will incentivise a tsunami of illegality.”

22. Sen. Jeff Sessions to Rebut Jeb Bush’s Amnesty Support During Surprise CPAC Meet-and-Greet

“No party can win without working and middle class voters. The path forward for the GOP is to become the party of the American worker. The party of higher wages. The party of full employment,” Sessions said in February of 2015, as Breitbart News reported.

23. Jeff Sessions on Obama’s Executive Amnesty: Congress Faces ‘Time of Choosing’ at ‘Perilous Hour’

“No lawmaker should support any border bill that does not expressly prohibit these planned executive actions by the president and that prohibits any expenditure of funds to implement them,” Sessions said on the Senate floor in 2014, as Breitbart News reported.

24. Jeff Sessions: Obama Wants Exec Amnesty Implemented Before Americans Discover ‘Grave’ Consequences

“Despite the election, despite the wishes of the American people, they want their policies, and they’re going to ram it through this Congress if they possibly can, no matter what we think, no matter what the people think,” Sessions said in December of 2014, as Breitbart News reported. “That is a threat to representative democracy. It is a threat to the laws of this country. And the Congress needs to say no.”

25. Sessions Praises House for Standing Strong, Warns Senate Democrats: You Will All ‘Be Held to Account’ on Amnesty

“Most importantly, the House has taken a firm vote today to block the President’s plan to provide unlawful executive amnesty and work permits to 5-6 million illegal immigrants,” Sessions said told Breitbart News in August of 2014. “They have again acted to protect U.S. workers. President Obama’s suspension of immigration law created this crisis and his new plan, if implemented, would escalate that crisis to an unimaginable degree.”

26. Sessions DOJ Blocks Sanctuary Cities from Police Assistance Program

“By protecting criminals from immigration enforcement, cities and states with so-called ‘sanctuary’ policies make all of us less safe,” Sessions said in August of 2017, as Breitbart News reported. “We saw that just last week, when an illegal alien who had been deported twenty times and was wanted by immigration authorities allegedly sexually assaulted an elderly woman in Portland, a city that refuses to cooperate with immigration enforcement.”

27. Sessions on Booted DREAMer: ‘Everyone Is Subject to Being Deported’

“DACA enrollees are not being targeted, I don’t know why this individual was picked up,” Sessions said in April of 2017, as Breitbart News reported. “Everybody in the country illegally is subject to being deported, so people come here and they stay here a few years and somehow they think they are not subject to being deported – well, they are.”“Our priority is to end the lawlessness at the border, stop the additional flow of illegals into the country, then to prioritize those who have gotten in trouble with the law, recent arrivals, people who have been deported previously, drug dealers and other criminal activists,” Sessions said. “They need to be deported first.”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...-open-borders/

It's important that we not forget exactly who Jeff Sessions is. His dedication to fighting illegal immigration, excessive immigration and weak border security has never been in question before and it shouldn't now. His move from the Senate to the job of Attorney General has not changed who is and what he believes. I think some folks have forgotten that. I have complete faith that he is still fighting for us in every way he can in his job as Attorney General.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beezer

Session should be telling TRUMP to do an Executive Order to stop this invasion of our country.

If Obama and every other President issued these "memos" and "EO's"...then Trump can too!

---

Trump issued the EO on immigration on January 25, 2017, 5 days after he was inaugurated. John Kelly, Director of DHS, issued two Implementation Memos on February 20, 2017, 1 was for border security improvements and enhancements, and the 2 was for immigration and the national interest. Both memos by their terms rescinded all other prior memos that conflicted with the February 20, 2017 memos.

https://www.dhs.gov/executive-orders...cting-homeland

It appears the Judy is an unrelenting supporter of President Trump and MW is an unrelenting supporter of AG Sessions. I can find criticism for both. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jtdc

It appears the Judy is an unrelenting supporter of President Trump and MW is an unrelenting supporter of AG Sessions. I can find criticism for both. ;)

---

BOTH? Judy and MW or both Trump and Sessions? :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

BOTH? Judy and MW or both Trump and Sessions? :cool:

---

Well, actually, everybody! ;) I guess I'm just a disagreeable cuss! :D