Showing posts with label #Border #invasion #soros. Show all posts
Showing posts with label #Border #invasion #soros. Show all posts

Friday, November 30, 2018

The Lessons of the Failed Armistice of 1918


COMMENTARY BY




The First World War ended 100 years ago this month on Nov. 11, 1918, at 11 a.m. Nearly 20 million people had perished since the war began on July 28, 1914.
In early 1918, it looked as if the Central Powers—Austria-Hungary, Germany, Bulgaria, and the Ottoman Empire—would win.
Czarist Russia gave up in December 1917. Tens of thousands of German and Austrian soldiers were freed to redeploy to the Western Front and finish off the exhausted French and British armies.
The late-entering United States did not declare war on Germany and Austria-Hungary until April 1917. Six months later, America had still not begun to deploy troops in any great number.
Then, suddenly, everything changed. By summer 1918, hordes of American soldiers began arriving in France in unimaginable numbers of up to 10,000 doughboys a day. Anglo-American convoys began devastating German submarines. The German high command’s tactical blunders stalled the German offensives of spring 1918—the last chance before growing Allied numbers overran German lines.
>>> Watch Victor Davis Hanson’s talk at The Heritage Foundation on the lessons of World War I.
Nonetheless, World War I strangely ended with an armistice—with German troops still well inside France and Belgium. Revolution was brewing in German cities back home.
The three major Allied victors squabbled over peace terms. America’s idealist president, Woodrow Wilson, opposed an Allied invasion of German and Austria to occupy both countries and enforce their surrenders.
By the time the formal Versailles Peace Conference began in January 1919, millions of soldiers had gone home. German politicians and veterans were already blaming their capitulation on “stab-in-the-back” traitors and spreading the lie that their armies lost only because they ran out of supplies while on the verge of victory in enemy territory.
The Allied victors were in disarray. Wilson was idolized when he arrived in France for peace talks in December 1918—and was hated for being self-righteous when he left six months later.
The Treaty of Versailles proved a disaster, at once too harsh and too soft. Its terms were far less punitive than those the victorious Allies would later dictate to Germany after World War II. Earlier, Germany itself had demanded tougher concessions from a defeated France in 1871 and Russia in 1918.
In the end, the Allies proved unforgiving to a defeated Germany in the abstract, but not tough enough in the concrete.
One ironic result was that the victorious but exhausted Allies announced to the world that they never wished to go to war again. Meanwhile, the defeated and humiliated Germans seemed all too eager to fight again soon to overturn the verdict of 1918.
The consequence was a far bloodier war that followed just two decades later. Eventually, “the war to end all wars” was re-branded “World War I” after World War II engulfed the planet and wiped out some 60 million lives.
What can we learn from the failed armistice of 1918?
Keeping the peace is sometimes even more difficult than winning a war.
For an enemy to accept defeat, it must be forced to understand why it lost, suffer the consequences of its aggressions—and only then be shown magnanimity and given help to rebuild.
Losers of a war cannot pick and choose when to quit fighting in enemy territory.
Had the Allies continued their offensives in the fall of 1918 and invaded Germany, the peace that followed might have more closely resembled the unconditional surrender and agreements that ended World War II, leading to far more than just 20 years of subsequent European calm.
Deterrence prevents war.
Germany invaded Belgium in 1914 because it was convinced that Britain would not send enough troops to aid its overwhelmed ally, France. Germany also assumed that isolationist America would not intervene.
Unfortunately, the Allies of 1939 later repeated the errors of 1914, and the result was World War II.
Germany currently dominates Europe, just as it did in 1871, 1914, and 1939. European peace is maintained only when Germany channels its enormous energy and talents into economic, not military, dominance. Yet even today, on matters such as illegal immigration, overdue loans, Brexit, and trade surpluses, Germany tends to agitate its allies.
It is also always unwise to underestimate a peaceful America. The U.S. possesses an uncanny ability to mobilize, arm, and deploy. By the time America’s brief 19-month foray into war ended in November 1918, it had sent 2 million soldiers to Europe.
Had the armistice of November 1918 and the ensuing peace worked, perhaps we would still refer to a single “Great War” that put an end to world wars.
But because the peace failed, we now use Roman numerals to count world wars. And few believe that when the shooting stops, the war is necessarily over.

Monday, November 19, 2018

Judicial Watch EXCLUSIVE Interview w/ Caravan Member in Guatemala



Judicial Watch EXCLUSIVE Interview w/ Caravan Member in Guatemala

October 23, 2018
A 40-year-old Honduran who previously lived in the United States for decades and got deported is part of the Central American caravan making its way north. Judicial Watch is covering the crisis live from the Guatemala-Honduras border this week.
This interview occurred around 35 miles from the Honduran border near the Guatemalan town of Chiquimula where a group of around 600 men, ages 17 to 40, marched demanding that the U.S. take them in.


A 40-year-old Honduran who previously lived in the United States for decades and got deported is part of the Central American caravan making its way north. Judicial Watch is covering the crisis live from the Guatemala-Honduras border this week.

Sunday, November 18, 2018

Planning for the Invasion



Planning for the Invasion

Originally published at Fox News   By Newt gingrich
Planning for the Invasion
As of Tuesday, the caravan of now more than 7,000 Central American invaders trekking through Mexico toward the United States was roughly 1,000 miles from the nearest point of entry. A second group of roughly 1,000 is also seeking to join them.
They may still be weeks away from our border, but this leaves little time for President Trump, Congress, and all Americans who care about our national sovereignty and the rule of law to solve three incredibly pressing challenges. I discussed these on Monday on Facebook.
First, we must determine – and do – what we can right now to end this invasion before it reaches our doorstep. Second, we must develop and execute a cohesive, efficient, effective plan for preventing these invaders from illegally crossing our border and swiftly deporting those who are successful. Finally, we must fix the debilitatingly stupid amalgam of immigration laws, policies, and court rulings that enable and encourage migrants to band together and stage these types of illegal invasions.
Should we fail to solve any of these problems, our already dysfunctional immigration system will be further crippled, our relationships with Mexico and our Central American neighbors could be severely damaged, our border will be overwhelmed by droves of new migrants, and America will become significantly less safe.
If this caravan is allowed to get through, the next caravan will be even bigger – and the one following that will be enormous. According the Gallup World Poll, 29 percent of people who want to migrate from Latin America and the Caribbean want to make the United States their permanent homes. That is 37 million people who want to come here. We must demand and ensure that they do so legally.
The clearest answer to alleviating this issue while the caravan is still in Mexico, is for Mexico to stop it. President Trump has already made clear that securing the border is more important than our recent trade agreement with our southern neighbor, and Mexico should take him seriously. Many of the members of this caravan forced their way through the Guatemala-Mexico border. They are already in violation of Mexican law, and Mexican law enforcement should take action.
Furthermore, we should not underestimate the degree to which human traffickers and transnational criminal gangs, such as MS-13 and other cartels, are involved with this invasion force. Mexican authorities should also be seeking to weed these elements out of this migrant army – and dealing with those who may have legitimate asylum claims through the Mexican system.
Our neighbors must understand that while they did not assertively deal with this problem at their southern border, they will own the problem if it gets to their northern border.
This relates to what we must do if or when the caravan is allowed to arrive at the U.S. border.
President Trump should instruct the Attorney General to issue a clarification to define the qualifications for asylum. Asylum is meant to provide protection for people who are fleeing real persecution and human rights abuses, such as genocide. Simply being from a poor country that lacks opportunities does not qualify someone for asylum.
We already have approximately 750,000 backlogged asylum cases, and some of those cases date back to 2014. These invaders should be screened (preferably in Mexico) so they never enter the U.S. system.
The federal government should also immediately begin coordinating with local and state governments along the border to develop an organized, completely nonviolent system that can deter these migrants from crossing into the United States and process and return those who do within a matter of days – not weeks, months, or years. I know Texas already works with federal officials to prepare for mass migration events. Other border states should follow suit (if they don’t already) and begin preparing now for this caravan’s potential arrival.
If we are serious about preventing this caravan invasion from being imitated, we must overwhelm them, stop them in their tracks, and quickly return them to their home countries. By my estimate, we should have four to five U.S. forces for every member of the caravan. If we want to protect our country, our border, and our rule of law, we must mobilize so much force that we don’t have to use it.
The news media should be allowed to cover the preparation and the overwhelming response to the caravan, so the members of the caravan – and every potential caravanner across Central and South America – will see that their plan will not work.
These first two problems are urgent and difficult. The third problem is just as urgent – but it is an order of magnitude more challenging. That is figuring out how we must fix our failing immigration system so that this type of situation doesn’t arise again.
Our immigration system has been completely broken by Democrat-backed laws that make it easier for immigrants to flood our system and stay in our country while their cases take years to process. It has been further hobbled by activist judicial rulings that have tied the hands of border enforcement officials and prevented them from keeping track of those who cross the border illegally.
Once we deal with the immediate problem of this invasion caravan, Republicans and the White House must work to fix our broken immigration system once and for all.

Saturday, November 17, 2018

Judge Accuses State Department of Making ‘False Statements’ on Clinton Emails





From the Daily Signal  by

Kevin Mooney 
State Department officials opposed to disclosing more of Hillary Clinton’s emails as secretary of state made “false statements” and filed “false affidavits” in a related lawsuit, a federal judge said during a court hearing in Washington earlier this month.
U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth ordered the hearing after a legal watchdog asked the court to obtain testimony under oath from current and former State Department officials, including Clinton and former aide Cheryl Mills.
If Lamberth agrees with Judicial Watch, Clinton and others would have to testify under oath and answer questions about how the department processed the organization’s Freedom of Information Act requests, and how it conducted its search for emails Clinton sent and received over a private email server.
Mills was Clinton’s chief of staff and counselor when she was secretary of state from Jan. 21, 2009, to Jan. 31, 2013, and worked on her presidential campaigns.
The State Department had asked Lamberth to issue a summary judgment that would have closed the case and ended any more inquiries into Clinton emails that have not been disclosed.
The judge refused and explained during the Oct. 12 hearing why he had granted limited discovery of relevant facts in March 2016:
The case started with a motion for summary judgment here and which I denied and allowed limited discovery, because it was clear to me that at the time that I ruled initially that false statements were made to me by career State Department officials. And it became more clear through discovery that the information that I was provided was clearly false regarding the adequacy of the search and this–what we now know turned out to be the secretary’s email system.
I don’t know the details of what kind of IG [inspector general] inquiry there was into why these career officials at the State Department would have filed false affidavits with me. I don’t know the details of why the Justice Department lawyers did not know false affidavits were being filed with me. But I was very relieved that I did not accept them, and that I allowed limited discovery into what had happened.
The full transcript of the hearing is available here.
Judicial Watch, a Washington-based nonprofit that describes itself as promoting “integrity, transparency, and accountability in government,” filed its FOIA lawsuit in July 2014 after the State Department declined to respond to a May 2014 request in which Judicial Watch asked for:
Copies of any updates and/or talking points given to [U.N.] Ambassador [Susan] Rice by the White House or any federal agency concerning, regarding, or related to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
Any and all records or communications concerning, regarding, or relating to talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency.
Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other Americansdied in the terrorist attacks on the consulate and a nearby CIA annex in Benghazi.
This same Judicial Watch lawsuit seeking information about the Benghazi attacks led to the discovery in 2015 of the private email server Clinton used while conducting official business as secretary of state.
The FBI uncovered 72,000 documents as part of its 2016 investigation into Clinton’s use of the private email server, which became an issue in the Democratic nominee’s presidential race with Republican nominee Donald Trump.
Judicial Watch obtained documents containing Clinton emails in response to a FOIA lawsuit it filed May 6, 2015, after the State Department did not respond to an earlier request.
U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg ordered the State Department to complete processing of the remaining Clinton documents by Sept. 28.
A State Department spokesperson told The Daily Signal that “all remaining” nonexempt records were posted to the department’s website Oct. 1 and 4 in compliance with court orders.
But Judicial Watch continues to press for additional disclosure of Clinton emails, and State Department officials continue to resist that.
“President Trump should ask why his State Department is still refusing to answer basic questions about the Clinton email scandal,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in an Oct. 17 press release. “Hillary Clinton’s and the State Department’s email coverup abused the FOIA, the courts, and the American people’s right to know.”
During an earlier hearing Oct. 11 in U.S. District Court, the watchdog group reported on the estimated number of Clinton documents the State Department continues to withhold.
Lamberth engaged in a testy exchange with Robert Prince, the Department of Justice lawyer representing State Department officials. The judge accused State Department officials of “doublespeak” and told Prince that he was playing the same “word games” as Clinton:
Lamberth: The State Department told me that it had produced all the records when it moved for summary judgment and you filed that motion. That was not true when that motion was filed.
Prince: At that time, we had produced all—
Lamberth: It was not true.
Prince: Yes, it was—well, Your Honor, it might be that our search could be found to be inadequate, but that declaration was absolutely true.
Lamberth: It was not true. It was a lie.
Prince: It was not a lie, Your Honor.
Lamberth: What—that’s doublespeak …
Prince: There’s strong precedent saying that items not in State’s possession do not need to be searched.
Lamberth: And that’s because the secretary [of state] was doing this on a private server? So it wasn’t in State’s possession?
Prince: No—
Lamberth: So you’re playing the same word game she played?
Prince: Absolutely not, Your Honor. I am not playing that.
In the hearing, Lamberth also said he was “dumbfounded” to learn in a report from the Department of Justice’s inspector general that Mills, Clinton’s former chief of staff, was granted immunity and permitted to accompany Clinton to an FBI interview about her using the private email server to conduct official business.
“I had myself found that Cheryl Mills had committed perjury and lied under oath in a published opinion I had issued in a Judicial Watch case where I found her unworthy of belief,” Lamberth said. “And I was quite shocked to find out she had been given immunity in—by the Justice Department in the Hillary Clinton email case.”
“So I did not know that until I read the IG report and learned that, and that she had accompanied the secretary to her interview,” the judge said.
The Daily Signal requested comment from the State Department and Justice Department about the Oct. 12 hearing and Lamberth’s accusations.
In an email message, a State Department spokesperson told The Daily signal on background that the agency can’t comment on ongoing litigation. The Justice Department also declined to comment.
In a related development, Judicial Watch obtained additional documents in response to a September 2018 Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.
The group said these documents show that “a significant number” of the 340,000 emails found on the laptop of former Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., were between Clinton and her longtime aide, Huma Abedin. Weiner is Abedin’s estranged husband.

Sunday, November 11, 2018

Invasion, USA


Invasion, USA 

An army is marching on us. Right now, somewhere beneath the line that separates the United States from the Third World, a massive force approaches, intent on pouring into America like the Spaniards did in Mexico. They rolled across Mexico's southern frontier — and Mexico's finest — liketoros over juevos. While the arena-sized crowd contains many men, women and children whose dreams of life among the gringos are filled with champagne and caviar — or at least potable water and edible food — many among them are thinking more "Grand Theft Auto" than "America the Beautiful."
The latest estimates place the size of the mobs around 10,000. Even if only 1 percent of them aspire to an American nightmare instead of an American dream, that's 100 new rapists, murderers, MS-13 narcoterrorists or garden-variety thugs who are making a run for our border. While the overwhelming majority might never do worse here than overstaying the time on the parking meter, I would be remiss if I did not note that nearly all of them illegally crossed the border separating Guatemala and Mexico, and say they plan to do the same when they reach the border separating us from them. Whatever they intend, from day labor to drug dealer, they intend to do it here. And somehow, despite the danger unfettered illegal immigration presents to any nation which allows it — I'm looking at you here, pretty much every country in Europe — we're actually embroiled in a debate over what to do.

While Americans who think America is worth protecting have expressed alarm, the Democrats are acting like little kids on the night before Christmas. While conservatives see people, some of whom are intent on doing serious harm to the Union, liberals see potential voters to be purchased with taxpayer-funded entitlements. While I suggest we consider combing the mob for malefactors, the pro-amnesty crowd wants to show them where we keep the valuables. While we call for action to preserve the country, they act on what the country should call illegal aliens.

Moreover, they don't even like the place. Even at the heights of the Obama regime's war on liberty, liberals never stopped shrieking about their grievances. Since Hillary Clinton came up one burrito short of the El Presidente Special, they've yammered about the racism and sexism which define everyone and everything. The same people who insist we should let every Tomas, Ricardo and Jorge crash on our national couch despise everything about America. Imagine how disappointed our newest residents will be when the liberals who rolled out the red carpet have turned the house into a replica of the crappy haciendas they fled. Eventually, we will have imported enough of what makes Latin America such a party that we'll be drinking ourselves under the same table.

The cohort bearing down upon us like Cortez on the Aztecs won't be the last. But rather than build up the battlements, we're yelling at each other about whether to build them at all. Someone should tell the pro-amnesty crowd how well that worked out for the Aztecs. 

The Caravan Attack on America



Steve Balich Editors Question Answered:



The Caravan Attack on America

The Caravan Attack on America
The caravan from Central America that has grown from 3,000 to 4,000 people in the last few days is an attempted invasion and an attack on the United States.
This assertion will almost certainly be denounced by the usual sources as being hateful or offensive, but it is long past time we stop letting the Left prevent us from using words which clearly communicate reality.
The fact is: Thousands of people have openly stated their intention to break American law and invade our country. Other people, some of them Americans, are funding this deliberate effort to invade America.
If you think “invade” is too strong a word, watch this videoof the caravan tearing down fences separating Guatemala and Mexico while waving the Honduran flag (the country these people no doubt plan to claim asylum from). How is this not an invasion?
We cannot allow ourselves to be intimidated by the heart-wrenching pictures and misleading words the left-wing media will doubtlessly manufacture if this caravan arrives at our border.
We also must reclaim our narrative from the Left. We cannot allow them to demonize us and distort what we stand for and what we are trying to do.
Let me be clear about where I stand.
I strongly favor legal immigration. I am happy that America remains the most welcoming country in the world for legal immigrants. According to Pew Research, in 2015 there were a little more than 30 million legal immigrants in the country. This is higher than the population of Texas – our second most populous state. I think this is a great thing that makes America stronger. It is simply a lie to say I oppose immigration.
Furthermore, I have worked very hard to get sound, responsible immigration reform for decades.
In October 1986, I voted for the Simpson-Mazzoli Immigration Reform Act, which granted amnesty to about 3 million people (originally estimated to be 300,000). I voted for the bill in return for two commitments: to control the border and to establish a guest worker program. Similarly, President Reagan wrote in his diary that he would reluctantly sign the bill, because as he wrote: “It’s high time we regained control of our borders and [Simpson’s] bill will do this.”
The harsh lesson of 1986 was that liberals took the amnesty for 3 million illegal immigrants and then broke their word on controlling the border and creating an effective guest worker program.
Finally, on a personal level, I spent much of my childhood living in foreign countries (my dad spent 27 years in the infantry, and I now live part time in Rome, Italy).
I outline my record to make clear that I don’t fit any of the nasty stereotypes with which the Left smears those who threaten them (see “the Kavanaugh effect”). And neither do the vast majority of Americans who want a functional immigration system that reflects American values.
The very idea that thousands of people believe (or are being told) they have a right to invade America and demand that we take care of them tells you how sick the system has become.
The time to draw the line and fight for an honest immigration and border control policy is now.
The caravan is the perfect symbol of the arrogance – the organized effort to destroy the rule of law – and the contempt for the American system which the Left exhibits every day.
We have been so conditioned by a half-century of political correctness doctrine (developed and sustained by the liberal news media, college professors, and left-wing politicians) that we have forgotten how to tell the truth about illegal immigration.
The truth is: It has substantially increased the risk for Americans.
MS-13, the vicious El Salvadoran gang, killed 17 people on Long Island in a 17-month period in 2016. The gang has an estimated 8,000 to 10,000 members in the United States. Fentanyl and opioids also come across the uncontrolled southern border. Last year, more than 72,000 Americans died from drug overdoses – more than the number killed during the eight years of the Vietnam War. There is a substantial safety impact of uncontrolled borders and the routine breaking of the law by illegal immigrants.
If America is to survive, we must win some key arguments about facts and prove that much of what left-wing politicians say – and what the liberal news media reports – is simply wrong.
If America is to survive, we must heed George Orwell’s warning in his great essay Politics and the English Language – that “political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible." Nothing could more accurately characterize the Left’s speech about political correctness and their unending effort to shut down language that exposes the hypocrisy and falsehood of their members’ positions – especially when it comes to their animus toward American sovereignty and defending the border.
As I wrote in my New York Times best seller Trump’s America: The Truth About Our Nation’s Great Comeback, the liberal media has actively participated in creating propaganda designed to manufacture sympathy for the lawbreakers and delegitimize those who would defend American sovereignty and the rule of law.
When House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi says to Harvard Kennedy School students that Democrats are for controlling our borders, she is simply lying. When she goes on to say, “we do need to guard our borders, and we do need to have immigration reform,” you have to wonder how stupid she thinks we are.
There is no evidence of any Democrat-backed program that would be effective in controlling illegal immigration. They oppose the wall in any form. They would hobble or abolish ICE. They favor so-called sanctuary cities and states in order to shield illegal immigrants from the legal immigration process. Senator Dianne Feinstein has introduced an open borders bill, which every Democratic Senate incumbent has cosponsored. The national vice chair of the Democratic Party campaigns in a t-shirt which says in Spanish “I don’t believe in borders.” Democrats only ever favor complicated, impossible-to-implement legal systems, which create opportunities for people to enter and stay in America illegally.
Not only do Democrats oppose controlling the border and stopping illegal immigration, they welcome illegal immigrants as an offset to legal American voters.
Consider what Pelosi said in El Paso to immigration rights activists: “We believe that we will have leverage when we win in November. And why is that important? Because it gives leverage to every family” who came to America illegally.
Stacey Abrams, a Democratic candidate for governor in Georgia, is even clearer in her commitment to illegal immigrants. In a recent speech, she said the blue wave is comprised of “those who are documented and undocumented.” There could not be a clearer indication of the Democrats’ belief that illegal immigrants are an integral part of their coalition.
The San Francisco Democrats have even adopted a new regulation to allow illegal immigrants to vote in city elections.
The caravan invasion is a useful starting point to insist on an honest debate about our future as a country.
Every Democrat should be forced to answer these six questions before the election:
1. Do you think 4,000 or more people should be allowed to invade the United States whenever they want to, and, if so, how big and how frequent do you think the next caravans will be?
2. Who do you think is paying for these efforts to undermine American sovereignty, break American laws, and impose foreign will on the United States?
3. When you are told it is only a small number of people in this first caravan, how do you respond to the fact that we already have an estimated illegal population of 1.8 million Central Americans, 650,000 South Americans, and 425,000 immigrants from the Caribbean. Does that change the scale of the problem? If caravans are accepted the numbers will grow dramatically in a very short period.
4. When you learn that the Gallup World Poll estimates that 29 percent of people in Latin America and the Caribbean (that would be about 197 million people) want to migrate – and 29 percent of those people (about 57 million) want to come to the United States, does this change your concern about controlling the border?
5. When you learn that beyond our hemisphere, the Gallup World Poll estimates that millions more would come to the United States if they could, does that increase your interest in controlling the border?
6. If you do not think this caravan should be allowed to illegally enter the United States as an invasion of our sovereign border, what would you do to stop them?
If Democrats really wanted to control the border, how do we have an estimated 11 million-plus illegal immigrants currently in the United States – and a system that can be gamed so easily that people have continued to brazenly and openly break the law?
This caravan attack is the right place to draw the line and say, “no more.”
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy is right. Congress should come back and pass the laws that would enable Americans to re-establish the rule of law at the border and protect our country with dignity and authority.
President Trump is right. Stop the caravan now.
If you want to defend America, let your House member and Senators know how you feel.

Saturday, November 10, 2018

How Trump Is Toughening Asylum Rules for Immigrants



How Trump Is Toughening Asylum Rules for Immigrants


President Donald Trump’s administration is clamping down on asylum rules for immigrants coming to the United States, the White House announced Thursday.
The Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department jointly issued a new rule requiring that immigrants seeking asylum along the southern border must present themselves lawfully at a port of entry.
Trump will sign a proclamation with specifics. The president last week announced his intention to do so.
The new rule is aimed at ensuring illegal immigrants who are subject to the terms of the proclamation that Trump issues are not eligible for asylum.
Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker issued a joint statement on the new policy.
Consistent with our immigration laws, the president has the broad authority to suspend or restrict the entry of aliens into the United States if he determines it to be in the national interest to do so.
Today’s rule applies this important principle to aliens who violate such a suspension or restriction regarding the southern border imposed by the president by invoking an express authority provided by Congress to restrict eligibility for asylum.
Our asylum system is overwhelmed with too many meritless asylum claims from aliens who place a tremendous burden on our resources, preventing us from being able to expeditiously grant asylum to those who truly deserve it.
Today, we are using the authority granted to us by Congress to bar aliens who violate a Presidential suspension of entry or other restriction from asylum eligibility.
The new rule clarifies that anyone who illegally enters the United States will be ineligible for asylum.
The president is relying on the Immigration and Nationality Act, which states in part:
Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. …
Unless otherwise ordered by the president, it shall be unlawful for any alien to depart from or enter, or attempt to depart from or enter, the United States, except under such reasonable rules, regulations, and orders, and subject to such limitations and exceptions as the president may prescribe.
In June, the Supreme Court upheld Trump’s broad statutory authority to implement entry restrictions in a ruling on the policy of extreme vetting that opponents characterized as a “Muslim ban.”
Under the proclamation, those who arrive at a port of entry will remain eligible for asylum. The Department of Homeland Security is deploying additional resources to ports of entry.
Illegal immigrants are often coached in advance to claim “credible fear” in order to claim asylum. Before 2013, about 1 in every 100 arriving immigrants claimed credible fear and sought asylum. Today, that has spiked to 1 in 10, according to the White House.
About two-thirds of immigrants claiming credible fear are from the Central American nations of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, and do not have valid asylum claims, but are released into the country because the existing asylum system has become overwhelmed, the White House said.
Last year, about half of the illegal immigrants who claimed credible fear did not show up for their assigned hearing or even file an asylum application.
In fiscal 2018, which ended on Sept. 30, U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered 612,183 inadmissible immigrants. Of those, 404,142 aliens entered illegally. About 98 percent of the latter—396,579—who entered illegally were apprehended by CBP along the southern border.
The total number of “credible fear” referrals for interviews increased from about 5,000 a year in fiscal 2008 to about 97,000 in fiscal 2018, the White House said.