EXCLUSIVE: ‘Nightmare is Beginning’ as Title 42 Ends, Says CBP Source
Editor’s Note: Shortly after this story was published, United States District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan temporarily stayed his order at the request of the Biden Administration for a period of five weeks “with great reluctance.”
ORIGINAL STORY BELOW
EAGLE PASS, Texas — A source within Customs and Border Protection says an announcement was sent to Border Patrol ordering them to immediately discontinue using Title 42 authority to expel applicable migrants from the United States on Tuesday. The source, not authorized to speak to the media, says “the nightmare is just beginning for us — there is no ‘Plan B’.”
The operating instruction to Border Patrol comes after a court ruling was issued on Tuesday ordering a halt to the use of Title 42 to expel certain migrant cohorts. The ruling was issued by United States District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the District of Columbia.
The court order will effectively require hundreds of migrants currently detained for removal under Title 42 to be re-examined and re-processed under the legacy Title 8 asylum process. The source says processing migrants under the previous and inefficient asylum pathway will likely result in severe overcrowding at Border Patrol processing facilities. Most will be released into the United States to pursue asylum claims.
It takes less than 15 minutes to process migrants and return them to Mexico and other countries under Title 42, the source explains. Under Title 8, the process more paperwork time and a credible fear hearing with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
The source says the processing facility in Eagle Pass, where more than one thousand migrants are apprehended daily, averages more than 2,000 migrants in a space designed to hold half as many. Title 42 allowed the Border Patrol to return citizens of Mexico and many from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. The source says the authority has also been utilized to expel Haitian migrants to their home country through ICE flights referred to as “delayed Title 42.”
The source says the authority has kept Haitian migrants at bay and reduced the likelihood of a repeat of the mass migration event in Del Rio in September 2021. That incident saw more than 30,000 Haitian migrants enter the United States near the Del Rio International Bridge and set up a hastily constructed outdoor encampment.
As recently as September, a CNN report estimated more than 10,000 migrants were sheltered in Reynosa, Tamaulipas, opposite McAllen, Texas. Those migrants have been waiting out the enforcement of Title 42. According to the report, many of those were Haitians.
In mid-October, the Biden Administration added Venezuelan migrants to the ranks of those subject to expulsion under the Title 42. According to CBP, nearly 6,000 Venezuelans were expelled to Mexico in October. The source says those Venezuelans are now likely to make quick returns.
Currently, there are more than 1,000 Venezuelan nationals staging in a makeshift camp in Juarez, across the border from El Paso, Texas. A recent report describes how the migrants at the camp were waiting for a change in policy to re-enter. The source says Tuesday’s court decision is the opportunity they have been waiting for and expects the large group to rush the border.
The source also expects the cancellation of Title 42 to impact the agency’s ability to fully staff and patrol areas of the border. The increase in case processing requirements will likely lead to further reductions of field patrols from already historic lows, according to the source.
Another added burden of the ruling will focus on immigration courts. There is currently a backlog of nearly 2 million immigration cases before administrative judges as of the end of Fiscal Year 2022. According to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), a Syracuse University research tool, more than 800,000 immigration cases were added to the backlog in FY22.
In FY22, more than 1,100,000 migrants were expelled under the emergency COVID-19 authority. Many of those would have otherwise been allowed to pursue asylum claims and add to the backlog.
Randy Clark is a 32-year veteran of the United States Border Patrol. Prior to his retirement, he served as the Division Chief for Law Enforcement Operations, directing operations for nine Border Patrol Stations within the Del Rio, Texas, Sector. Follow him on Twitter @RandyClarkBBTX.
DHS Secretary: ‘I Don’t Even Know What You’re Referring to’
(CNSNews.com) – DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said Tuesday that he didn’t know what Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) was referring to when the congressman asked him whether he authorized CBP agents to release illegal aliens into the United States without vetting them or collecting their fingerprints.
During a House Homeland Security Committee hearing titled “Worldwide Threats to the Homeland,” Mayorkas also said he didn’t know what the congressman was referring to when questioned about whether the secretary used his authority to suppress evidence presented by CBP agents who came under public attack by the Biden administration.
The secretary offered the same response when questioned about whether he used his authority to retaliate against DHS agents identified as conservatives or Trump supporters.
Likewise, Mayorkas didn’t know what Higgins was referring to when asked whether the secretary encouraged his chain of command to suppress law enforcement actions at the border using internal investigations and threats of disciplinary actions to force those agents to comply with DHS policies that “injure” the country’s homeland security.
The congressman’s exchange with the secretary was interrupted by Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), who challenged the congressman to allow the secretary to answer his line of questioning.
HIGGINS: Secretary Mayorkas, for the record, are you aware or have you authorized CBP agents to release illegal aliens into America without identifying, screening, or vetting them properly or harvesting even basic biometric data like fingerprints?
MAYORKAS: Congressman, our nation’s sovereignty stands strong, and our brave men and women in the Border Patrol and throughout U.S. Customs---
HIGGINS: Are you aware or have you authorized CBP agents to release illegal aliens into America without having properly vetted, identified them or collected at least basic biometric data like fingerprints?
MAYORKAS: Congressman—
HIGGINS: You got millions coming across.
MAYORKAS: Congressman, our ---
THOMPSON: Mr. Higgins, allow the secretary to answer.
HIGGINS: It’s my time, Mr. Chairman. If I want to reclaim my time, I will. I’m gonna move on without an answer. Mr. Chairman, are you asking for me to yield you time?
THOMPSON: No, I’m the chair.
HIGGINS: Then I’m going to reclaim my time. Moving on, Secretary Mayorkas.
THOMPSON: Gentleman from—
HIGGINS: Are you interrupting my time, Mr. Chairman? Are you first questioning me to yield you time?
THOMPSON: I’m trying to ensure that we conduct—
HIGGINS: You’re interfering with my –
THOMPSON: The gentleman will---
HIGGINS: If you request me to yield my time, I’ll give you time.
THOMPSON: No, but that’s not the procedure.
HIGGINS: That is the procedure.
THOMPSON: It is not.
HIGGINS: Yes, it is. Of course it is. I reclaim my time, and I want this time back. Mr. Secretary Mayorkas, have you used your authority to suppress exculpatory evidence presented by CBP agents who’ve come under public attack and condemnation by you and the Biden administration?
MAYORKAS: Two points if I may, Congressman. Number one, in response to your second question, I don’t even know what you’re referring to, and with respect to your first question---
HIGGINS: I’ll take that as you’re on the record as saying, no, you have not used your authority to suppress exculpatory evidence. If you’re an honorable man, then obviously, you should be able to say no to that. Who would suppress exculpatory evidence? Is your answer no?
MAYORKAS: I don’t even know what you’re referring to, Congressman.
HIGGINS: You will.
MAYORKAS: And if I may—
HIGGINS: Secretary Mayorkas, have you used your authority to retaliate against DHS agents who served on special details in the Trump administration, agents identified by your administration as conservatives or Trump supporters?
MAYORKAS: Once again, Congressman, I don’t even know what you’re referring to.
HIGGINS: You’re before Congress. I’m going to take that as a no. Through your authority, Secretary Mayorkas, have you encouraged your chain of command to suppress basic law enforcement actions at the border and harass or victimize or intimidate experienced front-line law enforcement agents at the border using internal investigations and threats of disciplinary action or transfer in order to force those agents to comply with DHS policies that actually injure the security of our homeland and are contrary to the sworn oath of those agents? Is that the culture you’ve created?
MAYORKAS: Congressman, I don’t even know what you’re referring to.
HIGGINS: You will.
MAYORKAS: And I am—
HIGGINS: Secretary Mayorkas, final question. It’s been rumored ---
MAYORKAS: --- a culture of honor and service and nobility throughout the Department of Homeland Security.
HIGGINS: You represent nobility, Secretary Mayorkas?
MAYORKAS: Congressman, that is what I am dedicated to.
HIGGINS: It’s been rumored, Secretary, that you’re going to resign prior to January the 3rd. Is there any truth to those rumors?
MAYORKAS: That is a false rumor.
HIGGINS: Alright. We look forward to seeing you in January.
Poll: Just 15% of Voters Have ‘Very Positive’ View of Migration
Pro-migration activists are admitting there is little public support for business plans to import more foreign workers and renters.
The admission comes as Democrats call for amnesties and giveaways in Congress’s lame-duck session before the GOP takes control of the House in January.
Only 28 percent of registered voters believe immigration has been positive for their local economy, and only 38 percent say immigration is good for the United States, according to an August 12-15 survey of 2,025 registered voters conducted for a pro-migration advocacy group.
The poll admits that only 15 percent said they have a “very positive” view of national migration, and 20 percent said they have a “very negative” view.
The survey by the Economic Innovation Group (EIG) tested questions to maximize apparent public support for migration and relied on a poll that skewed sharply Democratic. For example, only 43 percent of the poll’s respondents said they would back the Republican Party in the pending midterms.
In the November result, the GOP won a clear majority of the votes and a bare majority of House districts. Fourteen percent of Republican voters said immigration was their top issue, ahead of crime, abortion, and guns.
The EIG advocacy group is backed by investors who want to import more white-collar migrants and inflate housing prices in states far from the coasts. Their migration policy would shift wealth from ordinary American families to coastal investors in California and New York.
The EIG poll showed 28 percent of Americans say migration has a negative impact on their communities and that 36 percent say it has a negative impact on the United States.
The EIG poll also tested language to maximize apparent support for migration.
But those careful questions failed to show much support. For example, only 14 percent said they were “much more likely” to support a political candidate to “supported allowing more skilled immigration.” Eight percent said they were much less likely to support such a candidate.
The group argued that the apparently low numbers show that business groups can raise public support for more migration:
Ultimately, only 56 percent of respondents believe that immigration has either a positive or negative impact on their local economy, which provides an opening for stakeholders, advocates, and policymakers to make a positive local economic case for immigration, such as by demonstrating that it can help declining areas shift to growth again.
But a recent study by a pro-migration advocate suggests that opposition to migration moves many more votes than support for migrants.
Alexander Kustov at the University of North Carolina wrote:
I find that compared to pro-immigration voters, [pro-citizen] voters feel stronger about the issue and are more likely to consider it as both personally and nationally important. This finding holds across virtually all observed countries, years, and alternative survey measures of immigration preferences and their importance. Overall, these results suggest that public attitudes toward immigration exhibit a substantial issue importance asymmetry that systematically advantages [pro-citizen] causes when the issue is more contextually salient.
…
even when the public support of pro-immigration policies is seemingly greater than or similar to that of anti-immigration policies in the raw poll numbers, it is likely the case that the anti-immigration side is still more politically motivated and influential.
Pro-citizen “anti-immigration voters always care more,” Kustov wrote at Medium.com in October:
According to my analysis of the American National Election Studies and the Voter Study Group polls, compared to those who support immigration, those who oppose it feel more strongly about the subject and are more likely to see it as having both personal and national importance. Furthermore, when the issue is receiving more media attention, this pattern becomes particularly pronounced.
Following Donald Trump’s victory in 2016, for example, those who supported restricting immigration were much more likely to rank it as the most important issue facing their nation (27% vs 16%). The same asymmetry was 4% vs 2% in 2012, when immigration was less prominent at a national level. The comparable figures in 2020 were 17% vs 12%. Even in 2020 — the year with the highest pro-immigration polling numbers ever recorded — there may have been fewer supporters of immigration than opponents among those who actually cared about the issue (4% vs 5% of all respondents).
Numerous polls show that the swing-voting public opposes the continued inflow of wage-cutting, rent-spiking migrant workers and consumers. For example, a 52 percent majority of American swing voters believe Democrats put the interests of migrants ahead of Americans, while Republicans put Americans first, according to a late October CBS poll of 2,119 registered voters.
Many polls show the public wants to welcome some immigration, but the polls also show deep and broad public opposition to labor migration and the inflow of temporary contract workers into the jobs needed by the families of blue-collar and white-collar Americans.
This “Third Rail” opposition is growing, anti-establishment, multiracial, cross-sex, non-racist, class-based, bipartisan, rational, persistent, and recognizes the solidarity that American citizens owe to one another.
Extraction Migration
Government officials try to grow the economy by raising exports, productivity, and the birth rate. Those strategies are difficult and slow, and so officials also try to expand the economy by extracting millions of migrants from poor countries to serve as extra workers, consumers, and renters.
This policy floods the labor market and so it shifts vast wealth from ordinary people to investors, billionaires, and Wall Street. It also makes it difficult for ordinary Americans to advance in their careers, get married, raise families, buy homes, or gain wealth.
Extraction migration slows innovation and shrinks Americans’ productivity. This happens because migration allows employers to boost stock prices by using stoop labor and disposable workers instead of the skilled American professionals and productivity-boosting technology that earlier allowed Americans and their communities to earn more money.
This migration policy also reduces exports because it minimizes shareholder pressure on C-suite executives to take a career risk by trying to grow exports to poor countries.
Migration undermines employees’ workplace rights, and it widens the regional economic gaps between the Democrats’ cheap-labor coastal states and the Republicans’ heartland and southern states.
But the progressives’ colonialism-like economic strategy kills many migrants. It exploits the poverty of migrants and splits foreign families as it extracts human resources from poor home countries to serve wealthy U.S. investors.
So far, progressives have not apologized for their civic and economic wreckage. “I’m not going to change anything in any fundamental way,” President Joe Biden told a November 9 post-election press conference.
No comments:
Post a Comment