During the crossing, which happened near Yuma, Arizona, on Monday, the migrants climbed over a 18-foot, bollard-style border fence using a ladder you can see a smuggler running away with at the end of the video.
“It shows how brazen these smugglers are and the fact that they’re unafraid,”said Jose Garibay, the Border Patrol’s Yuma Sector spokesman. “They know that we’re not gonna go into Mexico to apprehend them.”
“So once he puts up that ladder, gets his commodity — in which he looks at these humans — in the United States, then he takes down his ladder, and as you saw in the video, just walks back to wherever he hid the ladder and continues on with his day.”
“It’s presumable that this individual has done it more than once,” he added.
Last week, Customs and Border Patrol also apprehended around 375 migrants who dug short, shallow holes under barriers that were not concrete reinforced at several spots east of San Luis, Ariz., which is near Yuma.
“The area became a major corridor for illegal crossings in the mid-2000s, prompting the federal government to weld steel plates to a barrier made of steel bollards that had been designed to stop people in vehicles, not on foot, Border Patrol spokesman Jose Garibay III said,” reported KTLA. “In those spots, there is no concrete footing to prevent digging.”
The Democrats are pushing the narrative that securing the border should not be a priority. Alex Jones has a message for the president about using his authority to do the right thing.
A fascinating report from News Australia published Jan. 20 reveals a startling fact about some of Mexico’s most notorious drug cartels: they rip out the hearts of their murder victims and eat them.
“But some barbaric factions of the gangs are believed to have even turned cannibal and actually eaten parts of their rivals,”the report said. “And in a particularly twisted initiation ritual, young members of the Jalisco New Generation cartel were forced to eat the hearts of murder victims. Local prosecutors claimed two teenagers, aged 16 and 17, remained unrepentant after they were drugged with crack then forced to eat human flesh by senior cartel bosses.”
Even with hundreds of stories about illegal aliens brutally killing Americans, (here) raping children, (here and here) and selling drugs en masse, (here) some Americans still support open borders.
Is a culture that cannibalizes its murder victims a bridge too far? Likely not for the Democrats, who will oppose President Donald J. Trump and his border wall at all costs.
“A similar event took place in 2015 when hopefuls of La Familia Michoacana were forced to eat their rivals after torturing them and cutting them up while alive,” the report continued.
The report continued:EL BLOG DEL NARCO,LO
Los Zetas cocaine kingpin Heriberto Lazcano, who was killed in a shootout with Mexican Marines in 2012, was notorious for feeding victims to the lions and tigers he kept on his ranch.
But it was his practice of eating human flesh that thrust him into international headlines two years ago.
A reporter who spent time with him told El Blog del Narco, “After sentencing him (the victim) to death, he orders him to bathe, and even to shave his whole body and let him de-stress for two or three hours, even better sometimes he gave them a bottle of whisky to relax, then he ordered a very quick death so there is no adrenaline in the meat to prevent it getting bitter or hard.”
He would then devour the man’s buttock flesh in tamales after it had been cooked in lemon and served on toast.
The Senate on Thursday rejected both the Democratic and GOP proposals to end theongoing partial federal government shutdown, with both measures falling far short of the 60-vote threshold needed to pass.
Although each of the dueling measures was expected to fail even before Thursday, it was hoped twin defeats might spur the two sides into a more serious effort to strike a compromise. Almost every proposal needs 60 votes to advance in the Senate, which is under 53-47 Republican control.
The final vote on the GOP bill was 50-47. West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin was the lone Democrat to cross over and support the GOP package, which would have provided $5.7 billion for President Trump’s proposed border wall while also offering several immigration-related concessions and tightening asylum rules. GOP Sens. Tom Cotton and Mike Lee voted against the Republican measure.
“If this had been a vote to begin debate on a deal to end the shutdown, I would have happily voted yes,”Lee told Fox News. “But this was a vote to end debate on a bill that I believe is fundamentally flawed. In fact, after specifically asking for assurances that we would be allowed to offer amendments, no assurances were given. This bill as is simply does not do enough to reform our immigration system or address the crisis at our southern border.”
The Democrats’ plan would have reopened agency doors through Feb. 8 while bargainers seek a budget accord, but included no wall funding. The vote was 52-44 on the Democratic bill, with all Democrats voting yes and several Republicans crossing over, including Utah Sen. Mitt Romney, Maine Sen. Susan Collins, Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Colorado Sen. Cory Gardner, Georgia Sen. Johnny Isakson, and Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander. Not voting on the bill were Sens. Richard Burr, Rand Paul, James Risch, and Jacky Rosen.
Both the GOP and Democratic measures would have reopened federal agencies and pay 800,000 federal workers who are about to miss yet another paycheck amid the shutdown, now in its 34th day.
In the wake of the failed votes, a bipartisan colloquy was underway on the Senate floor between senators trying to forge a bipartisan solution to reopen the government.
Several House Democratic representatives, including Reps. John Lewis, Bobby Scott, Gregory Meeks, and Jamie Raskin, were gathered in the back of the Senate chamber during the vote, apparently to protest the Senate’s failure to consider several bills to end the shutdown that passed the Democratic-controlled House.
Border Patrol agents in Yuma, Arizona apprehend a group of over 100 Central Americans who illegally scaled the border wall.
Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a moderate, told Fox News before the votes that she would support both of the proposals, and that Congress has an obligation to work on further negotiations through the weekend.
“I personally think both of them are flawed, but having said that, I’m going to vote for both of them,” Murkowski said. “We’re going to have two show votes, and my hope is that after that, it will allow us to really get down to work.”
Murkowski continued: “So to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if you don’t like the provisions that have been laid down, then let’s let’s work them through. Let’s get to yes here. I don’t like the asylum provision, quite honestly, that the president laid out there. So let’s talk about it. Let’s talk about this. But if we do these two votes this afternoon and then everybody skedaddles for the weekend –Wow. What kind of a message is that?”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said the Democratic plan was a “down the middle (to) reopen government and has received overwhelming support from both sides before President Trump said he wouldn’t do it.”
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., countered that the GOP proposal was “a compromise package the president will actually sign,” calling Schumer’s alternative a “dead-end proposal that stands no chance.”
“It’s hard to imagine 60 votes developing for either one,” said Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo. GOP moderates such as Murkowski and Susan Collins of Maine are expected to vote for the Democratic plan, as is Cory Gardner of Colorado, one of the few Republicans representing a state carried by Hillary Clinton in 2016.
The White House was eagerly watching Thursday’s votes. Officials think it will be harder for Democrats to keep sticking together amid Trump’s offers, according to a person familiar with White House thinking who was not authorized to speak publicly. They are hopeful for defections by Democrats who may cross party lines to vote with the president.
At a panel discussion held by House Democrats on the effects of the shutdown, union leaders and former Homeland Security officials said they worried about the long-term effects. “I fear we are rolling the dice,” said Tim Manning, a former Federal Emergency Management Agency official. “We will be lucky to get everybody back on the job without a crisis to respond to.”
The partial shutdown began just before Christmas after Trump indicated that he wouldn’t sign a stopgap spending bill backed by top Republicans like McConnell, who shepherded a bill through the Senate that would have funded the government up to Feb. 8. The House passed a plan with money for the wall as one of the last gasps of the eight-year GOP majority.
On Thursday, almost five weeks later, House Democrats continued work on a package that would ignore Trump’s demand for $5.7 billion for a wall with Mexico and would instead pay for other ideas aimed at protecting the border.
How do past border proposals stack up to President Trump’s? GOP strategist Lauren Claffey explains.
Details of Democrats’ border security plan and its cost remained a work in progress. Party leaders said it would include money for scanning devices and other technological tools for improving security at ports of entry and along the border, plus money for more border agents and immigration judges.
A poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research was the latest indicator that the shutdown is hurting Trump with the general public. While his approval among Republicans remains strong, just 34 percent of Americans like his performance as president and 6 in 10 assign a great deal of responsibility to him for the shutdown, about double the share blaming Democrats, according to the poll out Wednesday.
SpeakerNancy Pelosi(D-Calif.) said Thursday that House Democrats are not working behind the scenes to craft a counteroffer toPresident Trump’s border wall demands as a strategy for ending the history-making partial shutdown.
“That’s not true. That’s not true. That’s not true,” Pelosi said during a press briefing in the Capitol.
Instead, the Speaker asserted that Democrats’ strategic blueprint remains unchanged: The House will continue to pass spending bills already authored and endorsed by Republicans, while insisting that Trump reopen the government as the prerequisite for bringing Democrats to the negotiating table on his border wall.
“We are doing what we have been doing all along: working on our congressional responsibility to write bills, appropriations bills, to keep government open,” she said.
The remarks arrive as Democratic leaders are expected to release their own plan to bolster border security, to include enhanced surveillance technologies and reinforcement of existing physical barriers — but no new wall construction.
House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Wednesday that the Democrats are prepared to match Trump’s figure of $5.7 billion for border security — with two stipulations: it can’t be used for new wall construction, and the negotiations must happen after the shutdown has ended.
“Using the figure that the president has put on the table, if his $5.7 billion is about border security then we see ourselves fulfilling that request, only doing what I like to call using a smart wall,” Clyburn told reporters after a Democratic caucus meeting. “These are the types of things that we are going to be putting forward.”
Pelosi on Thursday framed the Democrats’ emerging border security proposal — expected to be released as early as Thursday afternoon — as a standard part of the appropriations process.
“Many of those bills have come to the floor again and again, just this week. The Homeland Security Bill was not finished. Hopefully it will be finished soon, and out of that you will see our commitment to border security,” she said. “That’s not any negotiation behind the scenes, or anything like that.”
Pelosi declined to put a figure on the border security provisions to be included in the Department of Homeland Security bill, being spearheaded by Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), who heads the Homeland Security Committee. But she emphasized that it will come in addition to other border-related funding already included in House-passed bills to to fund other agencies with a hand in security, including the Treasury, Justice and State departments.
“Within our $49 billion Homeland Security bill there will be some provisions,” she said.
Pelosi’s remarks highlight the disagreement at the crux of the shutdown standoff: Democrats are insisting the government be reopened as a condition of negotiating on the border wall; Republicans are demanding negotiations on the border wall as a condition of reopening the government.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Wednesday that the Democrats “are prepared to spend a very substantial sum of money because we share the view that the borders need to be secure.”
But Hoyer, speaking for most Democrats, said there’s no “crisis” at the southern border, as Trump has insisted, and he amplified the party’s position that the Democrats will start negotiating new border security spending only after the government has been reopened, even if only temporarily.
“The letter is not a negotiation,” Hoyer said. “The letter is going to articulate what we believe is an effective investment to accomplish border security.”
Amid the standoff, Pelosi on Wednesday postponed Trump’s State of the Union address, initially scheduled for Jan. 29, citing the injustice of requiring federal law enforcement officials to secure the Capitol while they aren’t getting paid.
Trump late Wednesday acquiesced to the postponement.
“This is her prerogative,” he tweeted. “I will do the Address when the Shutdown is over.”
Pelosi on Thursday thanked Trump for assent, saying the fight over the speech was an unneeded distraction that’s “so unimportant in the lives of the American people.”
“Thank goodness we’ve put that matter to rest and that we can get on to the subject at hand: open up government, so we can negotiate how best to protect our borders,” she said.
While about two percent of Finland‘s rejected asylum seekers have been found to pose a security threat, the authorities are having trouble in locating them, as some have already left the country.
An intelligence risk assessment of 9,000 asylum seekers who have received negative asylum decisions since the autumn of 2017 has established that over 200 of them pose a potential danger, national broadcaster Yle reported.
The aim of the risk assessment carried out by the National Bureau of Investigation was to identify “individuals who have the potential to commit crimes in Finland,” who later will be prioritised for deportation. The list includes those who have been suspected of committing a crime at some point or those suspected of posing a threat to national security.
“It is determined by the whole picture, although attempted murder and assault on its own can also lead to prioritisation,”NBI crime inspector Ritva Elomaa told Yle.
The actual number of rejected asylum seekers who made the list and are still in the country may be much smaller than that the NBI assessment, though, as many are believed to have left the country.
The National Police Board admitted that the list of priority deportations will be subject to daily changes.
Western culture has been under attack on multiple fronts and now is in crisis after years of demoralization.
“We have to go through the names on the list one by one and see who has already been deported”, police inspector Mia Poutanen told Yle.
The authorities’ campaign to identify and deport dangerous asylum seekers has been further complicated by the fact that the police are seldom informed about rejected asylum seekers that choose to leave the country of their own accord.
Furthermore, some individuals with criminal records may have reapplied for asylum, while international laws say they cannot be deported as long as their application is pending.
The Finnish police are trying to prevent their “disappearance” by interning rejected asylum seekers in detention centres until they can be deported.
“People who have committed serious crimes are usually in prison, and deportation takes place once their prison sentence has been served,” Poutanen explained.
However, this system doesn’t always work as intended, as the authorities identified as many as 5,000 “missing” asylum seekers in 2017.
The risk assessment for rejected asylum seekers was commissioned by the government of Finland after the Turku stabbing on 18 August 2017, when rejected Moroccan asylum seeker Abderrahman Bouanane killed two and left eight injured in Finland’s first-ever terrorist attack. Bouanane was later given a life sentence.
In the past few weeks, a grooming gang scandal involving migrants and asylum seekers assaulting underage schoolgirls as young as 10 has left Finland deeply shaken.
Apart from drawing the condemnation of high-ranking Finnish politicians including Prime Minister Juha Sipilä and President Sauli Niinistö, it also sparked a citizens’ petition demanding the deportation of migrant sex offenders.
The initiativee, backed by over 100,000 Finns, has been supported by the right-wing Blue Reform party, whose leader Sampo Terho expressed himself in favour of “speedy deportations.”
You can read this article as it originally appears at Sputnik here.
A Swedish political leader is calling on his government to establish a limit on incoming refugees.
Various political parties, specifically the Social Democrats, are abusing migration policies for short-sighted political gain, according to Moderate party chairman Christian Sonesson.
“I believe that Sweden must introduce a total refugee [limit], and many other moderates consider it too,” said Sonesson. “The Social Democrats are now selling out our common welfare by introducing an even more generous migration policy.”
“[The Social Democrats] use migration policy to bring together [government support] in Parliament. Apparently, power is more important than the country’s well-being.”
An agreement entitling 20,000 migrants to be reunited with their families is reportedly the “generous” migration policy Sonesson is referring to.
Sonesson goes on to stress the significance of migration policies by saying they impact almost everything else a government is capable of doing.
He ultimately wants to bring all parties to the negotiation table for objective cooperation to solve the crises stemming from the nation’s migration policies.
Correspondingly, another Swedish politician slammed Sweden’s policies as the most “disturbed” in the Western world.
“It’s probably one of the most disturbed countries in the West. And it’s not just about immigration,”said Alternative for Sweden’s Gustav Kasselstrand. “It is about all the authorities we have today where most of them are taken over by left interests.”
“So it is clear that it will take time. It has taken decades to make Sweden what it is today, thus in a negative way. So it will take decades to fix the problems.”
“I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of America- one nation, invisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
American kids accustomed to beginning their days at school with a recitation of the timeless Pledge of Allegiance may soon have to adapt to some changes, if an illegal immigrant dissatisfied with its content get his way.
Cesar Vargas, an illegal immigrant who has become a practicing attorney in spite of his legal status, authored an op-ed in The Hill on Tuesday calling for the nearly 150-year old pledge to be altered, as apparently it failed to suit his political preferences.
The original pledge was a creation of former Union Army officer George Thatcher Balch, who created it as a means to popularize American patriotism in New York City schools, which were at the time tasked with educating and assimilating the children of many recent Irish and Italian immigrants.
According to Vargas, the pledge is a product of “the fear of a white native-born Protestant culture,”and must “updated”so that it “takes pride in our immigrant heritage and the equality of all Americans.”
The central contraction of the pledge of allegiance to the United States being something that belonged to Americans- not foreign nationals like Vargas- seemed to escape the author throughout the op-ed, treating a venerated tradition of the United States as something which he had the right to impose upon.
An “upgraded” version of the pledge was floated later in the piece:
“I pledge allegiance and love to our indigenous and immigrant heritage, rooted in the United States of America, to our civil rights for which we strive, one voice, one nation, for equality and justice for all.”
Truly touching. Now, instead of pledging allegiance to their country, Americans have the chance to make a daily affirmation in support of immigration, should Vargas get his way.
US President Donald Trump has informed Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi that he will show up on January 29 to deliver the State of the Union. She replied that it cannot happen until the government shutdown ends.
In a letter sent to Pelosi (D-California) on Day 33 of the shutdown, Trump said that he had already accepted her “kind invitation” when he got another letter about security concerns, on January 16. However, both the Secret Service and Homeland Security assured him “there would be absolutely no problem regarding security” and even said so publicly.
“Therefore, I will be honoring your invitation, and fulfilling my Constitutional duty, to deliver important information to the people and Congress the United States of America regarding the State of our Union,” the president wrote on Wednesday.
“It would be so very sad for our Country if the State of the Union were not delivered on time, on schedule, and very importantly, on location!” he added at the end, in a typical Trumpian flourish.
Pelosi responded within a couple hours, telling Trump that the House will “not consider a concurrent resolution” authorizing the president’s speech in the House chamber until the government has reopened, in effect rescinding her invitation.
The letter exchange is just the latest twist in the war of words between Trump, a Republican, and the congressional Democrats. At the end of last year, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) blocked the approval of a bill passed by the Republican-majority House giving $5.6 billion to Trump’s proposed border wall, triggering a government shutdown. Pelosi, who became Speaker on January 3, after a new Democrat-majority House was sworn in, has flat-out refused any funding for the wall, ever, calling it “immoral.”
About a quarter of the government has been shuttered as a result, with some 800,000 federal workers either sent home or made to work without pay until the impasse is resolved.
Attempting to leverage Trump into surrendering, Pelosi sent the January 16 letter about security concerns, bringing up the fact that Trump’s Secret Service security detail and indeed the entire Department of Homeland Security are among the furloughed feds.
Both DHS and the Secret Service immediately chimed in to say that this mission was critical and would not be affected. Trump also fired back the following day, denying Pelosi the use of US military assets for congressional travel – including a trip she and a delegation of House Democrats have already embarked on, to Belgium and and Afghanistan. Pelosi fumed, but did not take the final step of dis-inviting the president at the time.
Under Article II, Section 3 of the US Constitution, the president “shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” It was traditionally delivered in writing until President Woodrow Wilson appeared in person before the joint session of Congress in 1913.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
A 17-year-old girl was seriously injured in Minden, Germany after a drunk Afghan refugee dragged her off a bus by her hair, causing her to be run over by the bus while trying to escape the man.
According to a police statement, the girl was repeatedly harassed by the 22-year-old man while she waited at a bus terminal in Minden, near Hanover, with her 14-year-old friend just before 9pm local time on Saturday.
The girl and her friend sought safety from the man, and his 21-year-old friend, by running to a nearby bus, where the bus driver, 41, let them on. However, the persistent pair also got onboard and the 22-year-old dragged the girl from the bus by her hair – after it had started to move.
In the attack, the girl slipped and fell beneath the bus, causing it to run over her legs and leaving her with “severe injuries,” police said. As bystanders rushed to help the teen, the bus driver chased the men hoping to get a picture of them. He was reportedly slapped in the face by the 21-year-old.
Police and ambulance crews were called to the scene and the girl was transported to hospital. The aggressor and his companion were both found drunk by police a short time later and arrested.
The 22-year-old was charged with assault and brought before a district court the following day where he was ordered to remain in jail until his trial. His friend was released without charge on Sunday after sobering up.
A grooming gang in Britain has received over 1 million pounds in taxpayer funds to fight their deportation.
The Rochdale grooming gang, so loving referred to as “Asian” by the British government, has been charged with grooming and raping girls as young as 13 years old. All four men come from Pakistan.
Since Britain is still a part of the EU, the “Asian” gang gets to use Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 8 is used to protect families against traumatic experiences such as separation.
David Spencer of the Crime Prevention Think Tank weighed in on the matter: “These men have been convicted of some truly shocking offenses, and it beggars belief that they are now able to run up even bigger taxpayer-funded bills making spurious appeals to extend their stay in the UK.”
Their taxpayer funded lawyers are working very hard to stop their eminent deportations and most of them are already out of prison for these heinous crimes.
This event outlines the extreme detriment of the EU laws that Britain has to live under because Prime Minister May can’t seem to get her act together and deliver on the referendum vote.
Tom's Blog 