An illegal alien living in Texas is accused of beating his two-week-old son to death last week.
“Luis Angel Pacheco, 27, is charged with injury to a child, but that is expected to be upgraded due to the child’s death,”according to KTRK. “Pacheco is accused of causing severe injuries to his son’s skull, stomach and groin area.”
Pacheco reportedly told authorities that he had accidentally dropped his son on a concrete floor while changing his diaper. He said that he had not told his wife what happened, and waited hours – until his son’s breathing became heavy and labored – to call 911.
Authorities spoke with the child’s doctor, who said that the trauma sustained by the child was not consistent with Pacheco’s claim that he accidentally dropped his son.
The child died on Thursday, after spending several days in the hospital on life support.
Pacheco was released on a $250,000 bond, but also has an Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer.
Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA) compared federal U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents to Nazis “back in Germany” on Tuesday during a hearing on the border in the House Judiciary Committee.
“As I’ve been listening here, I’ve been struck a couple times by the denial of humanity of many of these families and children,” Scanlon said. “When the issue is framed as an invasion by aliens and when we refer to children as UACs, it’s easier to pretend that they’re not human and worthy of compassion.”
“When you say that the cause of migration is legal loopholes or bad judicial decisions, rather than the dire conditions of violence and poverty in these people’s home countries that’s literally driving them from home, I think it’s easier to slam the door against these kids and these families,” Scanlon continued. “This hearing is a recognition and an insistence that on that humanity…a recognition that just following orders is no more an excuse today than it was back in Germany.”
WATCH:
This is not the first time that Democratic lawmakers have demonized federal law enforcement officials to push their open-borders agenda.
In November, The Daily Wire reported that “Democratic California Senator Kamala Harris compared Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) during a Senate hearing” and “appeared to suggest that they act like a terrorist organization toward foreign nationals who are illegally in the United States.”
“Harris made the comparison during a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing to consider the nomination of Ronald Vitello to be the new director of ICE,” The Daily Wire added. “Harris asked Vitiello about comments he previously made in which he referred to the Democratic Party as ‘liberalcratic’ or ‘NeoKlanist,’ in an attempt to publicly shame him. Harris repeatedly pressed him to explain why he made the remark and why the remark was wrong for him to make.”
“The Klan was what we could call today a domestic terrorist group,” said Vitiello.
“Why?” Harris asked. “Why would we call them a domestic terrorist group?”
“Because they tried to use fear and force to change the political environment,” Vitiello responded.
“And what was the motivation for the use of fear and force?” Harris continued.
“It was based on race and ethnicity, “ Vitiello answered.
“Right, and are you aware of the perception of many about how the power and discretion at ICE is being used to enforce the law and do you see any parallels?” Harris asked.
“I do not see any parallels between sworn officers and agents —”Vitiello said before he was cut off.
“I’m talking about perception,” Harris fired back.
“I do not see a parallel between what is constitutionally mandated as it related to enforcing the law,” Vitiello replied. “I see no perception that puts ICE in the same category as the KKK.”
WATCH:
Other Democratic lawmakers, like Sen. Mazie Hirono (HI), have at times been unaware of basic immigration terminology policy and have had to be educated by federal officials during hearings.
In July, The Daily Wire reported that “Matthew T. Albence, Executive Associate Director for Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) at ICE had to inform Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) that illegal aliens face prosecution because they have broken the law.”
“Mr. Albence, would you send your children to FRCs?” Hirono asked.
“Again, I think we’re missing the point,” Albence responded. “These individuals are there because they have broken a law. There has to be a process.”
“They have broken a law but only as deemed so by the president with his —” Hirono replied before being cut off.
“No ma’am,”Albence shot back. “They are there for violation of Title 8 of the U.S. Nationality Act. Okay. U.S.C. 1325. That’s illegal entry is both a criminal and civil violation. They are in those FRCs pending the outcome of that civil immigration process. They have broken the law.”
Police said Rosiane Santos walked by Bryton Turner as he was eating dinner at Casa Vallarta and knocked the hat off his head. She then allegedly confronted him verbally.
Turner recorded video showing some of the confrontation.
Falmouth Police charged Santos with disorderly conduct following the incident earlier this month. On Tuesday, ICE took her into custody.
“Deportation officers with ICE’s Fugitive Operations Team arrested Rosiane Santos, an unlawfully present citizen of Brazil, today near Falmouth, Massachusetts,” said ICE spokesman John Mohan.
Turner said he was just trying to eat a nice meal when Santos grabbed his hat supporting President Trump.
“It’s just a hat at the end of the day,” Turner told WBZ after the incident. “I don’t really understand why people can’t just express themselves anymore, everybody has to get mad.”
Santos was later released from ICE custody. She has been ordered to appear before an immigration judge for removal proceedings.
The reporter was banned without explanation after reporting on PayPal’s morally ambiguous enforcement decisions.
PayPal banned Big League Politics reporter Luke Rohlfing from its platform mere months after he exposed the online payment processor’s funding of an illegal immigration group that has provided services to those that encourage illegal immigration.
Rohlfing says he did not use his PayPal account to receive donations, receive payments, or otherwise conduct business as a reporter, but simply used it to expedite payments and increase security on various websites. Still, PayPal said in its email to Rohlfing notifying him of his account’s termination that the decision was based on his “activities” and relating to his “usage of PayPal services.”
The email also instructed him to remove all mention of PayPal as a payment processor from his website, even though Rohlfing has no website.
As Rohlfing continued to press her for information, the representative identified only as Elaine responded “For more details regarding the WHY [sic] of this action that PayPal took regarding your account, you may submit a subpoena to our corporate address.”
Rohlfing has already begun communicating with a lawyer, and says he plans to pursue legal action against PayPal.
This action comes only months after Rohlfing exposed PayPal for allowing an organization that openly encourages and provides material support to migrant caravans seeking to enter the United States illegally to use its platform.
In the past month, President Donald Trump has been faced with the challenge of dealing with a caravan of illegal immigrants storming the border. The caravan, mostly coming from Central America, is being organized by a group called Pueblo Sin Fronteras, translated to “People Without Borders.”
While there is no surefire way to track the exact funding of the group, it clearly has support with at least good media coverage from media outlets with ties to George Soros. But it is clear who is facilitating the transactions from supporters, and that is PayPal.
Big League Politics informed PayPal about the group hosting a link to a PayPal account accepting donations to support the caravans.
PayPal promised to contact Rohlfing via email to discuss their decision to allow a group that advocates breaking the law to exist on its platform, but never did. Instead, Rohlfing was summarily banned from the payment processor months later.
Speaking to his compatriots at Big League Politics, Rohlfing explained that in his view, “PayPal is demonstrating yet again that they are left-wing authoritarians with an axe to grind,” expanding that, “First they banned users from purchasing legal firearms, and now they are shutting down anyone who reports news they don’t like.”
“Make Peter Thiel in charge of PayPal again,” Rohlfing concluded.
The State of California and fifteen other states sued President Donald Trump on Monday over his declaration Friday of a national emergency and his plans to redirect federal funds to the construction of a wall on the southern border.
The lawsuit, as expected, was filed by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, and was joined by attorneys general from “Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Virginia — all of which have Democratic attorneys general and all but one of which are led by Democratic governors,” the Wall Street Journalnoted Monday.
However, ten of the 26 Democrat attorneys general have not joined the lawsuit — at least not yet, as of Tuesday.
The complaint, filed in federal court in the Northern District of California, decries what it calls “President Donald J. Trump’s flagrant disregard of fundamental separation of powers principles engrained in the United States Constitution.” It adds:
Contrary to the will of Congress, the President has used the pretext of a manufactured “crisis” of unlawful immigration to declare a national emergency and redirect federal dollars appropriated for drug interdiction, military construction, and law enforcement initiatives toward building a wall on the United States-Mexico border. This includes the diversion of funding that each of the Plaintiff States receive.
The complaint continues through several familiar talking points from the Democratic Party:
The federal government’s own data prove there is no national emergency at the southern border that warrants construction of a wall. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) data show that unlawful entries are near 45-year lows. The State Department recognizes there is a lack of credible evidence that terrorists are using the southern border to enter the United States. Federal data confirm that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than are native-born Americans. CBP data demonstrate that dangerous drugs are much more likely to be smuggled through, not between, official ports of entry—rendering a border wall ineffectual at preventing their entry into this country.
Later in the complaint, the states claim that the border wall is not only unnecessary, but that it will also cause environmental damage. The complaint also claims a border barrier will not block “drug smuggling corridors.”
President Trump said Friday that, following earlier patterns, he expected a legal challenge in California, to lose there and in the liberal Ninth Circuit, and then to prevail at the Supreme Court, where conservatives hold a 5-4 majority.
Unlike President Barack Obama’s invocation of executive powers to declare the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) programs, Trump’s use of emergency powers is arguably within the powers assigned to him by the Constitution and delegated to him by Congress under the National Emergencies Act of 1976, according to analysis by Breitbart News legal editor Ken Klukowski.
Many experts agree. The Journal notes that “courts have been reluctant to second-guess the president on national-security matters,” and quotes liberal constitutional law professor Mark Tushnet of Harvard as saying that the case is “not a slam dunk” for the states, though he added he believes there is a “decent chance” that they could prevail.
The case is State of California et al v. Trumpet al, number 3:19-cv-00872, Northern District of California.
American taxpayers are continuing to fund border security measures and border walls in Pakistan,Afghanistan, Egypt, and Lebanon with President Trump’s signing of a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spending bill.
While the United States-Mexico border received only $1.3 billion for construction of a border wall at the overwhelmed southern border with soaring illegal immigration, foreign countries are getting help from American taxpayers to secure their borders.
The Republican-Democrat spending bill signed by Trump last week provides Pakistan with at least $15 million in U.S. taxpayer money for “border security programs” as well as funding for “cross border stabilization” between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
In total, the spending bill provides about $6 billion in American taxpayer money to finance foreign militaries, some of which can be used by Lebanon to “strengthen border security and combat terrorism.”
The spending bill provides about $112.5 million in U.S. taxpayer money for economic support for Egypt, including $10 million for scholarships for Egyptian students. Egypt’s military receives about $1.3 billion in the spending bill, some of which can be for border security programs.
Meanwhile, illegal immigration at the U.S.-Mexico borderhas swelled in recent months. In December 2018, the last month for illegal border crossing totals, there were close to 51,000 border crossings. The month before, there were nearly 52,000 border crossings. Experts project there to be at least 606,000 crossings this year at the southern border, a level of illegal immigration that surpasses nearly every year of illegal immigration under President Obama.
Friday morning, President Donald Trumpdeclared a national emergencyin order to unilaterally fund more miles of border fencing than this week’s omnibus compromise “deal” otherwise permits. The Daily Wirereported:
President Trump on Friday announced that he is declaring a national emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border, and he will redirect up to $8 billion in federal money to build a border barrier to keep foreigners from illegally entering the country.
While Democrats are expected to fight the move — and likely will seek to halt the plan via court or congressional action — Trump declared that, as president, he has unilateral authority to redirect federal funds in order to stem a crisis.
The National Emergencies Act of 1976 says the president “has available certain powers that may be exercised in the event that the nation is threatened by crisis, exigency, or emergency circumstances (other than natural disasters, war, or near-war situations),” the Congressional Research Service says.
Following Trump’s Rose Garden announcement, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) wasted little time in announcing its plan to sue the Trump Administration. The ACLU press release reads, in relevant part:
The ACLU will argue that President Trump’s use of emergency powers to evade Congressional funding restrictions is unprecedented and that 10 U.S.C. § 2808, the emergency power that Trump has invoked, cannot be used to build a border wall. Congress restricted the use of that power to military construction projects, like overseas military airfields in wartime, that “are necessary to support” the emergency use of armed forces.
Many conservative legal scholars disagree with the ACLU’s analysis. In particular, John Eastman of the Claremont Institute and John Yoo of Berkeley Law and the American Enterprise Institute, each of whom formerly clerked on the U.S. Supreme Court for Justice Clarence Thomas, have bothexpressed their belief that President Trump’s national emergency is being enacted declared pursuant to Congress’s delegated statutory authority. There is also the separate threshold question as to whether the ACLU would even have proper standing to sue, under Article III of the U.S. Constitution.
The Washington Examiner reports that Trump’s national emergency declaration will allow him to potentially fund 234 more miles of border fencing. The declaration, per the Examiner, opens up an additional $6.6 billion in funding that may be used for the wall — far more than the $1.375 billion that the omnibus compromise “deal” provided.
The ACLU has recently come under fire for its opposition to S. 1, the pro-Israel piece of legislation that recently passed the U.S. Senate by a 77-23 margin. The bill allows for state and local governmental entities to refuse to contract with entities whose commercial conduct is intertwined with the anti-Semitic “boycott, divest, and sanctions” movement against Israel. Yesterday, Jonathan Tobin had the following to say about the ACLU, at Jewish News Syndicate:
The ACLU claims this is a defense of the First Amendment. The Constitution protects the right of those who advocate for Israel’s destructions or for boycotts of it to express their opinions. But there is no constitutional right to engage in commercial conduct that discriminates against a class of persons or those associated with the only Jewish state on the planet. To the contrary, the states and the federal government are on firm constitutional ground to deem such discrimination illegal, as is the case when it comes to similar actions directed at African-Americans or other ethnic or religious groups. …
That the ACLU would weigh in on behalf of BDS is deeply troubling. BDS is a movement steeped in anti-Semitism, as its supporters’ statements and actions have repeatedly proved. The struggle against it has nothing to do with free speech — and everything to do with anti-Semitism — since it is a concept based on the notion that Israel, alone of all countries in the world, deserves to be eliminated.
Jim Acosta, a reporter for CNN and a hero of the anti-Trump #Resistance, suggested Friday that President Donald Trump was manufacturing a fake crisis at our southern border in order to build an apparently unnecessary wall. President Trump redirected Mr. Acosta to the so-called “Angel Moms” — women whose children have been murdered at the hands of illegal immigrants — joining him at the press conference.
“What do you say to your critics who say you are creating a national emergency? That you’re concocting a national emergency here in order to get your wall?” asked Acosta.
“Ask the ‘Angel Moms,'” Trump shot back. “What do you think? You think I’m ‘creating’ something?” the president asked the mothers.
One ‘Angel Mom,’ according to USA Today reporter Christal Hayes, stood up and yelled to Acosta: “This is real!”
“Ask these incredible women who lost their daughters and their sons,”Trump continued. “Your question is a very political question, because you have an agenda. You’re CNN. You’re fake news. You have an agenda.”
“Take a look at our federal prison population,” the president told Acosta. “See how many of them, percentage-wise, are illegal aliens. Just see.”
“Angel Mom” Sabine Durben, whose 30-year-old son Dominic was tragically killed by an illegal immigrant who had two prior DUI charges, confronted Acosta to challenge his comments about a “manufactured” crisis, reported Jon Miller, a White House correspondent for The Blaze.
The Daily Wire reported Thursday evening that President Donald Trump was being shielded from “Angel Moms” requesting to meet with him by two of his own staffers, according to two White House sources speaking to One American News Network correspondent Ryan Girdusky.
“I don’t know exactly what is going on and why we can’t see our President,” Durben told The Daily Wire. “We’ve been scheduled to come here for over a week. Everything is just so strange. I don’t know who would shield him from us. I just know that if he sees pictures of our dead children, he wouldn’t sign that bill.”
Durbin added that she will not stop her activism until the border is secure. “I’m not going to stop,” she said. “I owe this to my son. He would do the same for me and more.”
Acosta, painted into a corner, reportedly had the “Angel Moms” on a CNN segment following the confrontation.
“Jim Acosta convinced by ‘Angel Moms’ to do a live shot with them behind him. They’re telling their story on [CNN] now. Finally the network airs [real news],” wrote Miller.
At the press conference, Trump further addressed the Angel Moms and others effected by illegal immigration.
“I have such respect for these people: ‘Angel Moms,’ ‘Angel Dads,’ ‘Angel Families,'” said the president. “These are brave people. They don’t have to be here, they don’t have to be doing this. They’re doing it for other people. So I just want to thank all of you for being here.”
Angel Moms have been vocal in the opposition to the Department of Homeland Security funding bill, begging the president not to sign it. As outlined by The Daily Wire’s Josh Hammer, the bill “is the exact boondoggle Trump ran against.”
Tom's Blog 