By SUA Staff – In the Obama Administration, ethics and the rule-of-law only matters when it serves their political purposes. What matters most to each and every one of his leadership team is implementing liberal ideas without playing by the rules because they would never pass in the way our system was designed.
Ignore the courts, end-runs around Congress, or when Harry Reid was in charge, lock it down are so common now, it is hard to believe there is not more ire then is currently visible in our society.
As Abraham Lincoln famously said, “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” Obama and team are succeeding in proving him correct.
The ‘transformation’ of our once great nation is on ‘warp drive’ and each day another example of the lawlessness of the Obama Administration is exposed.
The latest example involves the Department of Homeland Security, at the highest levels, disobeying a court order and misleadin a judge about it.
Now that is juxtaposed in this setting with an interesting twist, U.S. District Judge Hanen is now threatening high level officials with contempt-of-court. He is not happy; we are not happy.
When EPA Chief McCarthy blithely waves off a SCOTUS decision, who is there to stop her? Blatant contempt of our highest court, but what does it matter when that court has contempt of our constitution?
Would it not be grand to finally see someone like Jeh Johnson in hand-cuffs as he is whisked off for booking? Not to mention a few DOJ lawyers who already misled and lied to the judge prior?
Finally we would get to see at least one ‘perp-walk’ of the many who desperately deserve the same. This administration has stretched just about everything to its limit; by hook or crook; soon we will be destroyed from within – so cavalierly. Contempt for ‘we the people’ is clear!
Judge orders Jeh Johnson, Homeland Security chief, others to court
HOUSTON (AP) — A federal judge in Texas has threatened to hold Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and other top immigration enforcement officials in contempt of court for not fixing problems that led to work permits being mistakenly awarded under President Barack Obama’s executive immigration action after the judge had put the plan on hold.
The Justice Department had said about 2,000 individuals had been sent three-year work authorizations after U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen in Brownsville, Texas, temporarily blocked the immigration action on Feb. 16.
In a court order Tuesday, Hanen said government officials have yet to fix the problem. The judge also requested Johnson and four other officials attend an Aug. 19 hearing to explain why the issue hasn’t been fixed and to “be prepared to show why he or she should not be held in contempt of court.”
“This court has expressed its willingness to believe that these actions were accidental and not done purposefully to violate this court’s order. Nevertheless, it is shocked and surprised at the cavalier attitude the government has taken with regard to its ‘efforts’ to rectify this situation,” Hanen wrote.
The other officials are: R. Gil Kerlikowske, commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection; Ronald Vitiello, deputy chief of the U.S. Border Patrol; Sarah Saldaña, director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and Leon Rodriguez, director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
In court documents filed in May, Rodríguez had said his agency had implemented “immediate corrective measures,” including revoking the permits and modifying computer systems to prevent issuing such permits in the future.
Hanen said in his order that if the federal government fixes the problem by July 31, he will cancel the Aug. 19 hearing.
Obama proposed in November expanding a program that protects young immigrants from deportation if they were brought to the U.S. illegally as children and adding another that extends deportation protections to parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents who have been in the country for some years.
He said lack of action by Congress forced him to make sweeping changes to immigration rules on his own, but Republicans said Obama overstepped his authority.
The judge had issued the injunction at the request of a coalition of 26 states, led by Texas, which have filed a lawsuit to stop Obama’s action, saying it is unconstitutional.
An appeal of Hanen’s ruling is set to be argued Friday before the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.
Hanen has previously criticized the federal government’s actions in the lawsuit, saying the government had been “misleading” after officials revealed that more than 108,000 people had already received three-year reprieves from deportation as well as work permits when the judge had believed that no action would be taken before he issued a ruling on the injunction.
Justice Department attorneys apologized for any confusion regarding the 108,000 reprieves but insisted they were granted under a 2012 program that wasn’t affected by the injunction.
Along with Texas, the states seeking to block Obama’s action are: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.
Editor’s Note – Recently, I had the great displeasure to fly across the country for a family event. The displeasure certainly was not with the event, rather, it was an abysmal airline experience.
It should never take over 24 hours from the time one leaves their home to arrive at their destination in 2015.
Of course, many have had similar experiences due to weather issues, mechanical issues, or a host of other reasons, but in this age of packed flights, tighter quarters, fees charged for everything, rude fellow travelers, and surly employees, the last thing we need is to know we are not at all safe.
During the same week when I crossed the country, the massive failure that is the TSA in detecting nefarious devices was revealed, and even more mind-boggling are the holes in our security communications at DHS between its own agencies.
Senator Ben Sasse R-Nebraska wrote about the first problem uncovered:
Last week, a classified inspector general investigation was leaked, delivering the shocking news that the Transportation Security Administration failed to stop weapons and explosives from passing airport checkpoints 96% of the time.
As a member of the Senate’s Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and — more important — as a dad who frequently flies with my kids and wife, I am appalled by this inexcusable national security lapse. But outrage is not enough.
Before they board another flight, the American people deserve the truth. Without giving our enemies specific technological or strategic information that would expose new vulnerabilities, President Obama has an obligation to declassify the inspector general’s investigation and to publicly release everything else the administration knows about TSA’s failures.
Here is what the public already knows: TSA failed to stop undercover individuals from smuggling weapons and explosives past checkpoints 67 times out of 70 attempts. Our families are only as safe as our weakest TSA checkpoint. After 9/11, it became inescapably clear that, although we have to be right every time, terrorists need to succeed only once. What happens when we are wrong 96% of the time?
Here is what keeps me up at night: The publicly available facts are disturbing, but the classified details are even worse. Millions of families will soon fly to summer vacations, but if moms knew what members of Congress have learned behind closed doors, they would march on Washington demanding an urgent, top-to-bottom reevaluation of airport security. (USA Today)
Then we learn today that the TSA was kept out of the loop regarding 73 airline employees with ties to terrorism that should have been on their no-fly list. The DHS does not trust the TSA, why should we?
Feeling safe and comfy in that tiny seat? Don’t complain, you may get kicked off as well and end up on that list.
TSA Fails to Identify 73 Employees With Links to Terrorism
A new Government Accountability Office report found that the Transportation Security Administration failed to identify 73 aviation employees with active clearance badges with links to terrorism.
The people, who were employed by major airlines, airport vendors and other employers, were not identified because TSA is not authorized to receive all terrorism-related information under current inter-agency policies, the report said.
The agency’s “multi-layered process to vet aviation workers for potential links to terrorism was generally effective. In addition to initially vetting every application for new credentials, TSA recurrently vetted aviation workers with access to secured areas of commercial airports every time the Consolidated Terrorist Watchlist was updated,” the report found.
“However, our testing showed that TSA did not identify 73 individuals with terrorism-related category codes because TSA is not authorized to receive all terrorism-related information under current interagency watchlisting policy.”
Further, the thousands of records used to vet employees contained such incomplete or inaccurate data as lacking a full first name or missing social security numbers. TSA ran into particular problems in the vetting process when potential aviation employees has not committed crimes and were legal resident or citizens.
“Without complete and accurate information, TSA risks credentialing and providing unescorted access to secure airport areas for workers with potential to harm the nation’s air transportation system,” the report found.
The GAO recommended that TSA “request additional watchlist data, require that airports improve verification of applicants’ right to work, revoke credentials when the right to work expires, and improve the quality of vetting data.”
A judge in Texas has put the brakes on the implementation of Obama’s unilateral orders which were set to begin tomorrow to aid states that are challenging that action in court. People like Cass Sunstein are furious.
This could effectively stall Obama for a while and Andy C. McCarthy explains why below. We only hope the appeals court does the right thing about this ruling.
But first, on Sunday, Chris Wallace interviewed John Boehner and it got heated. The subject of the interviewed centered on the possible closing of the DHS, despite recently elevated fears we all rightly have concerning terrorism in general, and ISIS in particular. We say bunk, and agree with McCarthy.
But once again, Wallace, like his more liberal counter-parts at other news outlets, he kept accusing the Republicans, the Tea Party Caucus, and Boehner of once again shutting down government. The knee-jerk reaction to blame the Republicans for employing their only real weapon against Obama’s unconstitutional edicts simply misses the point on so many levels and Wallace just does not get it, nor does George Will.
It’s about the purse-strings all, not politics from the right, they are only representing the people’s views and votes – what Obama did was not only illegal, it was just another case of politics over policy, over reach, and a petulant Democratic Party and President not getting their way.
The President and the Democrats know this all too well and despite the legislative process, they politicize this immediately and cast the usual aspersions that the Republicans are controlled by the Tea Party and they hate immigrants. Instead of assailing the President for his illegal and unconstitutional moves, they all castigate the only ones operating under ‘normal order,’ Constitutional, balance of power, order.
To his credit, Boehner repeatedly reminded Wallace that the House was doing its constitutional duties, had already done its work, and that it was now up to the Senate. At one point, he even had to reiterate that he is the Speaker-of-the-House and had no control over the White House or the Senate.
Of course that does not matter to the beltway boys, he is the “leader” of the Republican party and should get his people in order – but again, ‘we the people’ have no say in it, even if we voted that way on purpose. Obama is not King, and the Congress is a co-equal branch Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Obama, et al.
Once again, it is the Democrats in the Senate mucking up the works and politicizing an issue because they did not get their way at the polls. They are filibustering the bill the House passed, even though the Majority Leader, Sen. McConnell has brought back ‘normal order,’ something the Democrats had ‘nuked’ in the last Congress under Sen. Harry Reid – the real “do-nothing” hack.
Even though McConnell invited amendments and proper discussion as is the Senate’s duty, something Harry Reid never allowed, now its those dastardly, cold-hearted Republicans again. So now we have two wrongs and one right – Obama is wrong on his edict, and the Democrats in the Senate are, and have been wrong for a long time on procedure and now again they throw a temper tantrum.
Then there are people like George Will take exception to Boehner and what the House sent to the Senate, a bill sure to be vetoed by the President. Talk about belt-way mentality Mr. Will, you sound like Nancy Pelosi. He thinks they are wasting time, placing further threat on America, and being political – all over the President not getting his way.
Heard of ‘statesmanship’ Mr. Will? If it gets vetoed, is it not the President’s fault shutting things down Mr. Will? He was the reason the last time, but that did not matter, it had to be the Tea Party that last time so now it is again! ‘Same mantra, different day’…or is it the other one; SSDD?
The problem people like Will and the MSM is that the House and Senate are filled by representatives of the people and the States, not appointees of the President. They are doing what they ran for office to do, and the people spoke clearly. But that does not matter to the belt-way types – the people never really matter to them and George Will, though we often agree with him on other subjects, is just flat wrong, and this will by no means endanger the USA further – talking points Mr. Will?
Elections have consequences, remember that mantra when the left was winning? Please read Andy’s great piece:
Obama’s Amnesty Hits a Legal Roadblock
If a Texas judge’s temporary stay against it is upheld, it could be headed to the Supreme Court.
Late Monday, a federal district judge in Texas issued a temporary injunction that bars the Obama administration from proceeding with the president’s unilateral decree of effective amnesty for millions of illegal aliens.
To be clear, the order issued by Judge Andrew Hanen of the U.S. court for the southern district of Texas in Brownsville is a temporary stay. It is not a ruling on the merits of the lawsuit brought by 26 states that claim they will suffer profound financial and other damage from the president’s lawless executive action — an action that Obama himself many times conceded would be lawless before he finally took it late last year.
Today, the Justice Department will seek an emergency order from the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to block Judge Hanen’s injunction. There is a good chance the Justice Department will succeed, at least temporarily. If the Fifth Circuit blocks the injunction, that, too, would not be a ruling on the merits of the case. It would just mean a return to the status quo that allows Obama to proceed with the implementation of his amnesty decree.
I imagine we will know by late this afternoon whether the Fifth Circuit will set aside the district court’s injunction.
Judge Hanen’s order would temporarily prevent the Obama administration from implementing the executive action — in particular, the issuance of positive legal benefits, like work permits, for illegal aliens despite the lack of statutory authorization. The stay would also allow Judge Hanen a chance to issue a final ruling on the merits of the case. Again, he has not at this point conclusively ruled that Obama’s executive amnesty violates the Constitution or other federal law.
To justify issuing the stay, however, he had to decide that the states that brought the lawsuit had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. That is, in Hanen’s judgment, they have shown that they probably:
have standing to sue,
will show that Obama violated the law, and
will suffer concrete harm from the violation (particularly economic harm).
The big question in the case is standing: Is the case properly brought by the states? If the Fifth Circuit, on an emergency appeal of the stay by the Justice Department, decides there is a likelihood that the states do not have standing, then it will vacate Judge Hanen’s stay.
The appellate court could find a probability that standing is lacking because, for example, federal jurisprudence holds that immigration is mainly a federal responsibility, or because the harm the states say they will suffer from the executive amnesty is too speculative. (Again, note that we are talking about “likelihood” and “probability” here because these are preliminary, predictive determinations. The case has not been fully presented and ruled upon at this point.)
If the Fifth Circuit were to vacate the stay, that, again, would not be a ruling on the merits of the case. It would simply revert matters to where they stood before Judge Hanen’s order on Monday, meaning the administration could move ahead with its plans while we await a final ruling on the merits from Judge Hanen.
If, on the Justice Department’s emergency appeal, the Fifth Circuit were to decline to disturb Judge Hanen’s stay, there are at least three possibilities:
the Justice Department could appeal Judge Hanen’s stay to the Supreme Court;
the administration could accept the decision and hold off implementation of the executive order while waiting for Judge Hanen to issue a final ruling (which, all signs indicate, will go against the president); or
the president could do what he often does with statutes and court decisions that interfere with his agenda: simply ignore the judicial stay and begin implementing his amnesty decree.
I would bet on (1), an appeal to the Supreme Court. I do believe that Obama is inclined to (3), the lawless route, if all else fails. Obviously, however, the president would rather win in court if he can. That necessitates moving ahead with the judicial process while there are still rounds to play. The administration has a decent chance of getting the stay vacated in either the Fifth Circuit or the Supreme Court.
Even if that fails, and Judge Hanen, as expected, renders a final decision against the president, the administration has a decent shot at getting such a ruling reversed by the Fifth Circuit or the Supreme Court. I expect the president to play this out. It may take many months, at least, and during that time there is a reasonable chance that some tribunal will lift the stay and allow him to begin implementing the amnesty pending a final appellate ruling on the merits.
This underscores what I have been arguing for sometime. The courts are a very unlikely avenue for checking presidential lawlessness. The proper constitutional way to check the president’s executive order is for Congress to deny the funding needed to implement it. That is what Republicans in the House have done, by fully funding the lawful activities of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) but denying the funding for the unlawful executive amnesty.
Democrats are blocking that legislation in the Senate, in the hope that, as the budget deadline approaches, the pro-Obama press (with regrettable help from George Will and Senator John McCain, among others) will convince the country that it is somehow the Republicans who are “shutting down” DHS.
On that score, I will briefly repeat what I’ve contended before:
The fact that politicians hang a sign that says “Homeland Security” on a dysfunctional bureaucratic sprawl does not mean that denying funds to that bureaucracy would harm actual homeland security in any material way.
We have a DHS only because of typical Beltway overreaction to a crisis — the need to be seen as “doing something” in response to public anger over the government’s misfeasance prior to the 9/11 attacks.
Homeland security in the United States is more than adequately provided for by the hundreds of billions of dollars that continue to be spent each year — and that Congress has already approved for this year — on the Justice Department, the FBI, the 17-agency intelligence community, the armed forces, and state and local police forces.
We did not have a DHS before 2003, and if it disappeared tomorrow, no one would miss it.
The agencies in DHS that actually contribute to protection of the homeland could easily be absorbed by other government departments (where they were housed before DHS’s creation).
Under Obama, the immigration law-enforcement components of DHS are not enforcing the immigration laws. Why should taxpayers expend billions of dollars on agencies that do not fulfill, and under this president have no intention of fulfilling, the mission that is the rationale for the funding?
In any event, as we await the next round in the courts, the speedy and certain way to stop a lawless president is to deny him the money he needs to carry out his designs.
Editor’s Note – Obama said he wanted to fundamentally change America, and we see he has – for the worse, but he is looking to leave his mark long after he leaves. He is therefore hiring uber-liberals by the truckload into permanent employment. “Faithfully execute the laws…?”
These are not people who will be changed under new management; they are in for life. This time its lawyers for DHS and the methods for hiring were highly suspect. Read the details here:
Despite the sequester, the Department of Homeland Security has just completed a hiring blitz of attorneys to oversee and manage immigration litigation. Almost all of these new civil service attorney hires hail from an activist pro-amnesty and pro-asylum background. Sources within the Department of Homeland Security report that the process for hiring these new career civil service lawyers was unconventional and was conducted by an Obama political appointee within DHS.
The new attorneys have activist backgrounds with a variety of pro-amnesty groups such as the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), the Advancement Project, and open borders groups funded by the Tides Foundation.
PJ Media previously reported on attorney hires within the Justice Department Civil Rights Division in the Every Single Oneseries. That series demonstrated that every single attorney hire had a leftist or Democrat activist pedigree. The Department of Justice Inspector General criticized those DOJ hiring procedures as producing ideological outcomes. PJ Media only obtained the resumes of DOJ hires after this publication was forced to sue Eric Holder in federal court under the Freedom of Information Act.
Now, sources inside DHS have provided PJ Media with the employment history and pro-amnesty backgrounds of the newly hired lawyers who will be enforcing federal immigration laws.
The ideological histories of these new DHS lawyers undermine confidence that the federal government will vigorously enforce federal laws, notwithstanding any congressional “mandates” to do so.
These lawyers were hired through unconventional means by former DHS chief counsel for Citizen and Immigration Services Stephen Legomsky. Sources at DHS report that when Legomsky was hired by Secretary Janet Napalitano’s Department, he was not even an active member of any bar association. After resigning in October 2013, Legomsky is now a professor of law at Washington University. His scholarship is most notable for its hostility toward barriers to entry for foreigners coming to the United States.
Here are the backgrounds of the new lawyers hired at the DHS in the recent hiring blitz:
Kristy Blumeyer-Martinez is a new attorney in the DHS Office of the Chief Counsel. Prior to joining OCC, Kristy served as law clerk to the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund in San Antonio, Texas, and RAICES in San Antonio, Texas. In law school, she also clerked with the UC Davis Immigration Law Clinic and Sacramento Child Advocates/Children’s Law Center. She also worked at American Gateways, Refugee Services of Texas, and Caritas of Austin.
Esther Cantor was hired into the refugee and asylum law division as an associate counsel at DHS headquarters in Washington, D.C.. She participated in the Immigration Clinic and volunteered with the Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights Coalition, an open borders organization.
Nicole Flores is a new DHS lawyer in Chicago. She graduated from Harvard Law School, where she worked at the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic and served as the co-president of the Harvard Immigration Project, an organization dedicated to ensuring foreigners get to stay in the United States. She was also a legal intern at the leftist open borders organization LatinoJustice-PRLDEF. According to DHS sources, there she worked on project to badger businesses who implemented English-only rules in the work place. Before law school, she was a volunteer activist at a “workers’ rights” organization in Madison, Wisconsin.
Erin Fricker is a new DHS lawyer formerly employed by Lutheran Social Services of New England, where she was a staff attorney representing detained foreigners attempting to stay in the United States. While in law school, Erin participated in the Boston College Immigration and Asylum Project as an immigration clinic student.
New DHS lawyer Elizabeth Grossman established her Obama-era ideological bona fides by serving on the executive board for the University of Michigan Law School chapter of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, a leftist law school student group.
Elizabeth Gunter’s resume includes a stint in the Obama-era DOJ Attorney General’s Honor Program after graduating from Washington University, the same law school where Legomsky, the person doing the hiring at DHS, was a professor while Gunter was a student.
Cindy Heidelberg comes from the same Holder-era Attorney General’s Honor Program, after a long activist background with open borders groups. Cynthia graduated from Georgetown Law in 2011, earning a J.D. with a certificate in “Refugees and Humanitarian Emergencies.” During law school, she interned at the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Immigrant Justice Project, the ACLU National Prison Project, and the AARP Litigation Foundation.
Celia Hicks is a new lawyer with the Litigation and National Security Coordination Division in Washington, DC. She served as Protection Fellow for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and previously worked for the Legal Action Center of the American Immigration Council, an organization notoriously hostile to Border Patrol agents.
New DHS lawyer Leila Higgins previously worked as a student attorney in the Immigrant Justice Clinic at her law school. This organization, according to its website, represents “immigrants on cutting-edge asylum claims based on gender and sexual orientation.”
Lawyer Stephanie Hummel previously worked at the ABA Center for Human Rights in Washington, as well as the pro-amnestyImmigration Law Project, and Legal Services of Eastern Missouri in St. Louis, Missouri. In 2008, she spent time in Cairo studying Arabic. In law school, Hummel won a CALI Award for “Representation of Non-US Citizens in Immigration Court Proceedings.”
Before joining DHS, attorney Jennifer Lee was an advocate for illegal aliens obtaining in-state tuition at public universities, though she naturally called them “undocumented immigrants.” Lee also worked at the Legal Aid Justice Center, a organization which advised illegals “what to do in the event of a raid.”
Katelyn Love is now a DHS lawyer in Washington, D.C. She once worked at Lutheran Family Services, where she represented foreigners in their attempts to stay in the United States. Katelyn spent her junior year of college in Morocco studying “formal and colloquial” Arabic.
New DHS lawyer Maura Ooi previously worked in militantly activist roles with militantly activist open borders organizations such as the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project. Also, prior to joining DHS, Ooi penned a report for the leftist National Immigration Law Center bashing DHS. Titled “DHS Proposes Fantasy Remedies to Cure Fundamental Flaws in the Secure Communities Program” (emphasis mine), Ooi complained about efforts to fingerprint captured illegal aliens. Without collecting biometric data such as fingerprints, deported illegal aliens may repeatedly return to the United States and their prior illegal entries would remain unknown.
If you were starting to think that Stephen Legomsky only hired young women to be DHS lawyers, meet new DHS lawyer Steven Plastrik. What Plastrik lacks in femininity, he makes up for with a deep commitment to making sure foreigners get to stay in the United States. He prepared asylum applications at Freedom House and on behalf of other organizations.
New DHS lawyer Liza Shah just completed a stint with the George Soros-funded Advancement Project working to ensure felons get the right to vote in Virginia (with the tragic and politically suicidal aid of Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell). As a law student, Shah naturally helped in litigation to keep foreigners in the United States.
Before becoming a DHS lawyer, Connie Yao worked at the Tides Foundation-funded East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, where she assisted individuals with asylum applications. At Cornell Law, she participated in the Advocacy for LGBT Communities Clinic.
Amisha Sharma is on the board of directors of her local Planned Parenthood when she isn’t busy as a newly hired DHS lawyer. She also worked at the ACLU. She received a dual degree in religious studies and women’s and gender studies from Louisiana State University. At Fordham Law, she was on the board of “Law Students for Reproductive Justice,” worked at the “Center for Reproductive Rights” and volunteered for the “Planned Parenthood of New York City’s Activist Council.”
Lindsay Smith is a graduate of Smith College and Michigan Law, where she was “a Jenny Runkles scholar” for her commitment to public interest law and “diversity.” She also worked at the open borders, pro-amnesty group Americans for Immigrant Justice.
DHS lawyer Bria DeSalvo graduated from Georgetown University Law Center “with a certificate in Refugees and Humanitarian Emergencies. ” In law school, DeSalvo volunteered for the CAIR coalition.
DHS lawyer Jessika Croizat served as a union organizer for AFSCME before deciding to attend law school.
Before his job as an attorney at DHS, Michael Celone was a Hill staffer for Democrats. He worked with Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) helping prepare research to attack the Bush Justice Department regarding the firing of political appointees who were serving as United States attorneys. He also worked for Democrat Rep. Jim Langevin from Rhode Island. He also authored an article revealingly titled “Undocumented and Unprotected: Solutions for Protecting the Health of America’s Undocumented Mexican Migrant Workers.”
If you are an attorney with a background in enforcing immigration law as opposed to representing foreigners attempting to stay in the United States, don’t expect to be hired by DHS during the Obama administration. And based on this recent batch of hires, if you are a male with a background in immigration enforcement, forget about it.
Editor’s Note – The insurgency of illegal immigrants continues and their supporting political activist groups are physically attacking US officials inside the United States.
Washington D.C. just witnessed a very large rally last weekend sponsored by La Raza and Camino Americano which had the additional support of unions, especially the SEIU, that the U.S. Parks Service in D.C. approved for a permit including a band and a stage when other patriot groups were refused permits. In this rally of the illegals, where they were demanding approval of the Immigration Bill authored by the Senate, seven lawmakers stood with the protesters and some were arrested.
Now, physical attacks are taking place in Arizona where illegals are angry at the detention of those who do in fact break the law. The Border Patrol is doing what it is charged to do and they are following the law. The shame continues across our country where lawbreakers are given a pass at the behest of the Department of Homeland Security while their agents are being accosted and veterans are blocked from their memorials.
Border Agents: Illegal Activists Assaulting Officers, No Charges Brought
A border patrol agent in Tuscon, Arizona condemned the federal government for ignoring and not prosecuting illegal immigrants and protesters who violate federal laws by impeding or assaulting agents while they are on the job, saying the federal government’s lack of enforcement was “shameful” and a “running joke” that encourages more lawlessness.
Last week, dozens of protesters in Arizona impeded officers from detaining “three suspected illegal immigrants,” and the agents used pepper spray to control the “raucous” protesters.
“Another truly despicable example of agents being handcuffed, having to fear doing our jobs and having nobody standing in the gap to help protect us from the illegal alien cheerleaders and the anarchists,” the border patrol agent from Local 2544 wrote. “Shameful.”
The agent continued by writing that “since these ‘protesters’ can be easily identified, charges should be filed on them as soon as possible.”
In reference to the incident in Arizona, the agent asked, “When dozens of ‘protesters’ impede, resist and otherwise interfere with Border Patrol agents and the carrying out of our duties, what happens?”
“Nothing,” the agent wrote. “They get a little pepper spray, they act like they have pulled off some heroic deed, they are attended to by the fire department, they get their picture in the paper and they walk away with no citations and no criminal charges.
“And does that encourage further lawlessness and put us in a bad position as we try to do our job? Absolutely. It emboldens these types of people and puts us in danger. Impeding law enforcement should be a serious no-no. Protest some other way, but not by interfering with an active enforcement operation and creating a dangerous atmosphere where someone could be badly injured or killed. Why weren’t these people arrested and charged?”
The border patrol agent cites 18 USC 111, which states that whoever “forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes” with an agent “while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties” can be fined and imprisoned for up to a year. If there is “physical contact with the victim of that assault or the intent to commit another felony,” the perpetrator can be fined and imprisoned for up to eight years.
“Apparently 18 USC 111 still only applies if an agent sustains serious injuries. How many times has the AUSA asked ‘How badly is the agent injured?’ when presented with a case of impeding or assault on a federal officer?” the border patrol agent wrote. “No serious injury sustained by an agent almost always = no prosecution. That has been a running joke for many years (along with the ridiculous threshold amounts of dope to trigger a prosecution).”
Breitbart News has previously reported on the rising number of incidents along the U.S.-Mexico border in which illegal immigrants are assaulting border patrol agents.
Please support our non-profit work at SUA
JOIN/SUBSCRIBE: Please join our team and receive periodic newsletters and announcements securely. (Your information will never be sold or transferred – Opt-out anytime.)
VOLUNTEER: If you are unable to donate your money, your time is just as valuable.
DONATIONS: Please consider a recurring monthly or a one-time donation.