MEXIFORNIA IN METLDOWN: First, illegal immigration is the problem. CA has spent hundreds of billions on illegal aliens and their bills — public schools, free meals at school, special bi-lingual teachers, healthcare, housing allowances, low income energy assistance, aid to families with dependent children, prisons, cops, courts, public defenders, welfare, food stamps, and a hundred other gov handouts. And don’t forget lower college tuition for illegal immigrants. WAYNE ALLYN ROOT
A police officer from Mexico was arrested in Orange County, California, for allegedly transporting 50 pounds of methamphetamine on Wednesday.
An Orange County Sheriff’s deputy patrolling the I-5 Freeway between Orange and San Diego counties reportedly stopped a vehicle for equipment violations and contacted a male driver who identified himself as 41-year-old Miguel Angel González Patrón, according to local reports. Patrón claimed to be an active duty municipal police officer from Ensenada, Baja California, and produced a Mexican identification card as proof of his employment. The Orange County deputy reportedly noted that Patrón appeared extremely nervous and displayed behavior suggesting criminal activity.
After Patrón reportedly consented to have his vehicle searched, the deputy, with assistance from a narcotic K-9 detection dog, discovered a hidden compartment containing more than 50 pounds of methamphetamine. Patrón was arrested and detained on suspicion of transporting a controlled substance and use of a hidden compartment to conceal a controlled substance, according to Orange County Sheriff’s Officials. Patrón was booked and held on a $200,000 bail.
According to local media reportsfrom Ensenada, Jorge Íñiguez Díaz, the Director of Public Security, confirmed Patrón is an active duty officer and was listed on vacation at the time of his arrest. Patrón is assigned to the south sector of the municipality and is already facing administrative actions for his arrest back home.
Ensenada, the once peaceful beach resort community approximately 68 miles south of the U.S.-Mexico Border, is seeing a spike in cartel activity and violence.
The Mexican Army made two seizures in Ensenada on August 17 (1,036 pounds of meth, heroin, and fentanyl) and August 18 (1,653 pounds of meth, fentanyl, and marijuana).
The Mexican Army made aseizure of 1.5 tons (3,064 pounds or 1,390 KG) of hard drugs consisting of fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine in Ensenada in June 2018.
Robert Arce is a retired Phoenix Police detective with extensive experience working Mexican organized crime and street gangs. Arce has worked in the Balkans, Iraq, Haiti, and recently completed a three-year assignment in Monterrey, Mexico, working out of the Consulate for the United States Department of State, International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Program, where he was the Regional Program Manager for Northeast Mexico (Coahuila, Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, Durango, San Luis Potosi, Zacatecas.) You can follow him on Twitter. He can be reached at email@example.com
It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country. Yet prior to September 11, while there were efforts to enhance border security, no agency of the U.S. government thought of border security as a tool in the counterterrorism arsenal. Indeed, even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.S. visa and gaining admission into the United States, border security still is not considered a cornerstone of national security policy. We believe, for reasons we discuss in the following pages, that it must be made one.
That report was authored by the federal agents and attorneys who were assigned to the 9/11 Commission. The 9/11 Commission was created and tasked with conducting an exhaustive investigation into how the 9/11 terrorists were able to carry out the most deadly terror attack in the history of the United States.
Indeed, the 19 hijacker-terrorists slaughtered more innocent victims on September 11, 2001 than did the Japanese fleet at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 and the death toll continues to rise as still more people, including valiant first responders succumb to illness directly attributable to the toxins they were exposed to when the World Trade Center Complex was reduced to rubble.
Today more than 10,000 people are being treated for illnesses directly related to those terror attacks.
The mission for the 9/11 Commission was not simply to document that which had transpired on that horrific day, but to identify the vulnerabilities that enabled those attacks to be carried out so that remedial measures could be implemented to prevent future attacks.
The 9/11 Commission determined that multiple failures of the immigration system, including failures of border security and a lack of interior enforcement of our immigration laws, undermined national security. These failures enabled, not only the 9/11 terrorists to enter the United States and embed themselves as they went about their deadly preparations, but also other terrorists that the 9/11 Commission studied.
Since the terror attacks of 9/11, additional deadly terror attacks have been carried out by aliens who, in one way or another, managed to enter the United States, commit immigration fraud and/or violate other immigration laws and then commit mass murder.
Other foreign terrorists were thwarted, either by law enforcement, by courageous civilians, by dumb luck or by their own ineptitude.
My recent article, Congressional Hearing: Iranian Sleeper Cells Threaten U.S. included the Congressional testimony of national security experts who warned of the presence of large numbers of terrorists in Latin America who are supported by Hamas and Hezbollah—funded by Iran in Latin America—who are increasing their cooperative efforts with drug trafficking organizations to move large quantities of narcotics and individuals into the United States across the highly porous U.S./Mexican border.
That hearing was conducted on April 17, 2018 by the House Committee on Homeland Security, Counterterrorism and Intelligence Subcommittee on the topic, "State Sponsors of Terrorism: An Examination of Iran’s Global Terrorism Network."
How then could any rational individual or organization oppose securing our nation’s borders against the entry of international terrorists and/or transnational criminals?
That is the question that the executives of the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) should answer.
On October 12, 2018 the ACLU issued a press release: ACLU Responds To Introduction Of McCarthy Immigration Bill.
Here is what the press release contained:
WASHINGTON — House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy introduced a bill today that includes provisions to violate the constitutional rights of immigrants and inflate the Department of Homeland Security budget.
The bill would allocate $23.4 billion for a border wall, which even members of the Republican party have referred to as a “quantum leap” in funding. The sweeping bill also includes several bills previously introduced in the House that raise serious constitutional concerns.
Lorella Praeli, deputy political director at the American Civil Liberties Union, had the following response:
“Let’s be clear: this bill is blatant political posturing ahead of the election and a total disregard for how voters want the government to use their taxpayer dollars. It rewards Trump for his brutal deportation force crackdown and family separation policy. Moreover, the bill is riddled with constitutional violations that completely disregard the civil and human rights of immigrants.
“The true intent of these bills is to empower Trump’s deportation force and anti-immigrant agenda. It’s inhumane, unacceptable, and voters will remember it in November.”
A border wall would not stop the lawful entry of even a single alien into the United States, or prevent anyone from having access to a U.S. port of entry.
All that a border wall would do is funnel all traffic destined to the United States into ports of entry where inspectors of CBP (Customs and Border Protection) would interview them, examine their documents and make law-based decisions as to whether or not to admit those aliens into the United States.
The grounds for excluding aliens from entering the United States are enumerated in one of the sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)- Title 8, United States Code, Section 1182. Among these classes of aliens who are to be prevented from entering the United States are aliens who suffer from dangerous communicable, diseases or extreme mental illness.
Additionally, convicted felons, human rights violators, war criminals, terrorists and spies and aliens who were previously deported are to be excluded, as well as aliens who would seek unlawful employment thus displacing American workers or driving down the wages of American workers who are similarly employed and aliens who would likely become public charges.
It is vital to note that our immigration laws make absolutely no distinction in any way, shape of form as to the race, religion or ethnicity of any alien.
Opponents of border security would undermine national security and the integrity of the immigration system itself, leading America to anarchy.
Additionally, the above-noted ACLU press release made note of “several bills.” The link that was provided in the press release related specifically to “Kate’s Law” named for murder victim, Kate Steinle who was killed by an illegal alien who had previously been deported multiple times by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents and repeatedly reentered the United States in violation of federal law.
Criminal aliens who are deported from the United States and then unlawfully reenter the United States face a maximum of 20 years on prison. Kate’s law would mandate that such aliens who are deemed “aggravated felons” would face a minimum of 5 years in prison for committing the crime of unlawful reentry. Aggravated felons are particularly dangerous criminals who have committed specific felonies for which they were convicted.
The enhancement in punishment for such criminals are intended to act as a deterrence against such threats to public safety from returning to the United States, thereby threatening innocent lives.
As I noted in a recent article, Sanctuary Policies Protect Sex Offenders, this section of law is of particular interest to me. In the early 1980’s I approached then U.S. Senator Al D’Amato with the proposition that the federal law that addressed the unlawful reentry of aliens who had been deported be amended. At the time, the section of law in question, 8 U.S. Code § 1326 provided for a two year maximum penalty for aliens who had been previously deported from the United States and subsequently reentered without authorization. Because the penalty for this crime was so low and because so many aliens who had been deported from the United States returned, the U.S. Attorneys, particularly in major cities such as New York City, rarely prosecuted aliens for that crime. Back then the law made no distinction between aliens who had been convicted of committing serious crimes and those who did not.
I suggested that a clear distinction be made for aliens who had been convicted of serious crimes, were deported and then reentered the United States. I suggested that they be subjected to a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison as a means of deterring such threats to public safety and possibly national security from returning to the United States where they might harm more victims.
Working with the Senator and his staff and with my colleagues at the former INS including Walter Connery, who headed up the Investigations Branch of the NYC District Office of the INS, the law was amended. Consequently, the crime of unlawful reentry of “aggravated felons” as specified in section b of 8 U.S. Code § 1326, is the most frequently prosecuted federal crime.
However, the ACLU adamantly opposes efforts to protect innocent victims from aliens who are convicted felons. The American justice system operates via the principle of deference through enforcement. Penalties are imposed on those who are convicted of crimes to not only punish the guilty but to deter future crimes.
Deporting criminal aliens and preventing their return, protects public safety.
Would that the ACLU be concerned about the civil liberties of the victims of alien criminals and terrorists.
Those who lose their lives to criminals and terrorists also lose their civil liberties.
THERE ISN'T A GLOBALIST BILLIONAIRE OUT THERE
THAT DOES NOT WANT WIDER OPEN BORDERS AND
MORE WELFARE HANDED TO THE INVADERS TO KEEP
THEM COMING AND BREEDING THEIR 'CHEAP' LABOR
Billionaire Koch Brothers: Trump is ‘Wrong,’ It’s ‘Morally Right’ to Import Foreign Welfare Dependents
The pro-mass immigration, GOP megadonor, billionaire Koch brothers are opposing President Trump’s initiative to save American taxpayers from having to subsidize welfare-dependent legal immigrants.
Since February, Breitbart News has reported how the Trump administration is set to enforce an existing law whereby foreign nationals seeking to permanently resettle in the U.S. would need to prove that they will not become drains on the American taxpayer.
Such a plan would be a boon for American taxpayers, who currently spend about $57.4 billion a year on paying for the welfare, crime, and schooling costs of the country’s mass importation of 1.5 million new, mostly low-skilled legal immigrants every year. In the last decade, the U.S. has imported more than 10 million foreign nationals and is on track to import the same amount in the coming decade if legal immigration controls are not implemented.
Through the Koch brothers’ network of organizations—which have campaigned for Democrats’ open borders policies this election cycle—which include the pro-mass immigration LIBRE Initiative and the economic libertarianism group Freedom Partners, the billionaire donors are opposing Trump’s reform to the legal immigration system.
Freedom Partners Executive Vice President Nathan Nascimento said in a statement that allowing mass migration of welfare-dependent foreign nationals into the U.S. is “morally right,” calling Trump’s reform “the wrong approach.”
“We should always welcome people who desire to come here and contribute because is it both morally right and their efforts benefit our nation, economy, and taxpayers,” Nascimento said.
Nascimento also said the U.S. must continue bringing more than 1.5 million immigrants to the country every year because there are not enough American workers willing to do blue-collar jobs, though economic data does not back up the so-called “labor shortage” claims made by the big business lobby and Chamber of Commerce.
“Moreover, with a strong economy fueled by the Trump administration’s pro-growth policies, unemployment is at a nearly 50-year low and many companies struggle to find workers,” Nascimento said. “We’re concerned that this proposed rule discourages well-intentioned, legal immigrants from coming here, particularly at a time when their contributions are needed the most.”
LIBRE Initiative Policy Director Kevin Hernandez similarly denounced Trump’s plan to save American taxpayer money, accusing the administration of “attempting to further restrict and complicate legal immigration under the guise of a welfare reform regulatory rule.”
“Our communities, businesses, and economy will suffer as the rule is likely to turn away immigrants who will contribute their ideas and talents in a mutually beneficial way to society,” Hernandez said.
Currently, the U.S. admits more than 1.5 million legal and illegal immigrants every year, with more than 70 percent coming to the country through the process known as “chain migration,” whereby newly naturalized citizens are allowed to bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the country.
The Koch brothers have said they oppose Trump’s plan to end chain migration. In the next 20 years, the current U.S. legal immigration system is on track to import roughly 15 million new foreign-born voters. Between seven and eight million of those foreign-born voters will arrive in the U.S. through chain migration.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.
President Donald Trump rejected pressure from the 60 MinutesTV show and suggested he would renew policies which allow migrant job-seekers to be prosecuted when they bring a child to trigger the 2015 Flores catch-and-release loophole.
“When you allow the parents to stay together, OK, when you allow that, then what happens is that people are going to pour into our country,” he told 60 Minutes‘ Lesley Stahl, in a show broadcast Sunday night. Trump continued:
We are looking at a lot of things … What we want to do is change the immigration laws because they [are] a laughing stock all over the world.
Trump’s answer came as Stahl suggested that he should ignore the nation’s popular immigration laws which preserve Americans wages by directing a zero-tolerance policy of prosecuting all illegal migrants. It “was on the books, but [President Barack Obama] didn’t enforce it, you enforced it, you launched the zero-tolerance policy,” Stahl said.
In May, Trump demanded his agencies adopt a zero-tolerance enforcement of the law but backtracked in June as the established media used recordings of crying children to paint the border-enforcement laws as vindictive and inhumane.
Prior presidents have largely ignored the laws, but Trump and his deputies are looking for several ways to stop the migration, amid loud pro-migration demands from Democrats, business-first Republicans, and the establishment media.
Trump’s showed his hardnosed determination to block migrants to Stahl just as a group of Central American migrants announced they are launching another “caravan” of job-seeking migrants to travel up through Mexico to the U.S. border.
Trump’s ability to control the border is growing — despite congressional passivity and opposition — because Attorney General Jeff Sessions has been waging a war of legal attrition in the agencies and the courts.
That legal war has gained several victories. For example, Sessions persuaded the Supreme Court to accept Trump’s curbs on Muslim migration, and he has ordered his agency’s immigration-court judges to ignore Obama’s claims that migrants deserve asylum when they are threatened by spouses and criminal gangs.
Sessions has also gotten a hostile Californian judge to agree that migrants can be detained with their child or children for 20 days.
Officials are now considering using the 20-day rule as a foundation for a policy which tells migrant men or women that they can be detained with their child or children for 20 days and then must make a decision whether they want to go home, or have the child sent to a shelter while the parents remain detained until his or her court case is completed, in as little as 40 days.
Stahl asked Trump about that draft 20-day policy, prompting Trump to say:
We are looking at a lot of things … I want all the laws changed. There have to be consequences, Lesley, for coming into our country illegally. Part of the reason, I have to blame myself, the economy is so strong that everybody wants to come into the United States.
Nine ways in which Trump, AG Sessions, and DHS Nielsen are gradually getting migration under control. Estb. is fighting tooth-and-nail to distract middle-class from bigger issue of legal immigration/visa-workers which keeps wages low & stock-values high. http://bit.ly/2Dfeqcn
Another option for Trump is being developed by AG Sessions, and it would direct the judges in the Justice Department’s immigration courts to stop allowing migrants to get bail and be released into the United States.
Sessions began to create that option in September when he asked migration lawyers to submit their views on a 2005 decision by judges which allows migrants who are asking for asylum to ask for bail and get released.
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(h)(1)(i) (2018), I direct the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) to refer this case to me for review of its decision …
Whether Matter of X-K-, 23 I&N Dec. 731 (BIA 2005), which held that immigration judges may hold bond hearings for certain aliens screened from expedited removal proceedings under section 235(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1), into removal proceedings under section 240, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a, should be overruled in light of Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018).
The opinions were due at the justice department by Oct. 9. The letter suggests that Sessions and his aid will use their legal expertise to rewrite the 2005 decision, and bar migrants from getting bail.
In an article for TheHill.com, Nolan Rappaport, an immigration expert, wrote:
The pertinent provision states when it’s been determined that a person has a credible fear of persecution, he “shall be detained for further consideration of the application for asylum,” and the Supreme Court held that this language “mandate(s) detention of aliens throughout the completion of applicable proceedings and not just until those proceedings begin.”
In other words, mandatory detention continues to apply until they have been granted asylum, deported, or – and this is key – they choose voluntarily to leave on their own.
If aliens placed in expedited removal proceedings have to be detained until they can be deported or are granted asylum, most of them will go home rather than stay at a detention center on a military base for several years with no realistic hope of being granted asylum.
The rewrite has to be done carefully by Sessions because pro-migration groups will ask the California judges to block its implementation.
Trump’s comments to Stahl echo his October 13 comments to establishment media journalists in the White House. The White House transcript said:
Q. Mr. President, there are reports that your administration is considering a new family separation policy at the border. Do you think that —
THE PRESIDENT: We’re looking at everything, Phil, that you can look at when it comes to illegal immigration. We have people that are trying to get into our country because of how well our country is doing. And, you know, in the old days, when the country wasn’t doing well, it was a lot easier. Now everybody wants to come in. And they come in illegally and they use children. In many cases, the children aren’t theirs. They grab them and they want to come in with the children. So we are. We’re looking at a lot of different things having to do with illegal immigration.
What should happen is the Democrats should pass good bills. This is the same situation that President Obama found himself in. He had separation, and people didn’t talk about. The famous picture from 2014 that they all thought was our picture, that was a picture of young children in jail cells that was during the Obama Administration.
So we want to do whatever we can do. We have people trying to come in like never before. Our Border Patrol, ICE, law enforcement is doing an incredible job. But we’re going to do whatever we can do to get it slowed down.
Q Mr. President, do you think the original family separation policy from this summer was effective in deterring people from crossing at the border? Did it work?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I will say this: If they feel there will be separation, they don’t come. You know, if they feel there’s separation, it’s a — it’s a terrible situation. We want to go through Congress, but the Democrats don’t want to approve anything. They’re obstructionists.
If they feel there’s separation — in many cases, they don’t come. But also, in many cases, you have really bad people coming in and using children. They’re not their children. They don’t even know the children. They haven’t known the children for 20 minutes, and they grab children and they use them to come into our country. You got some really bad people out there.
We’re doing an incredible job. But the one thing I will say: The country is doing so well economically and every other way that more people want to come in than ever before. So we have to be very strong.
Q (Inaudible) said that you agree with her that families should be able to enter the country, as her parents did and became U.S. citizens. Do you agree that family members should be allowed to come into the United States?
THE PRESIDENT: I do, but they have to come in legally. I want a lot of people to come in. Frankly, we need people coming in, because I have a lot of companies moving back in. Jobs are coming back in. You take a look at all of the new plants that are being built in the United States. We have a lot of people calling me; they want workers. And we want people to come into our country. That’s what people don’t understand about me. But they have to come in on a merit basis. And that’s what we’re working out with Congress.
Q But you say you were against chain migration. And the First Lady said that you and she both agreed family members should be allowed in.
THE PRESIDENT: Chain migration is not a good thing. Chain migration is bad. If you take a look at the lottery system, that’s bad. What I want is merit. I want a lot of people to come in. We have great car companies entering our country again. This hasn’t happened for 35 years. We have companies like Foxconn going to Wisconsin with a massive, massive plant.
We need people coming in, but we want them to come in on a merit. We want people that are going to help us. It’s very important. We want them to come in on a merit basis.
Q (Inaudible) campaigning on immigration as an issue?
THE PRESIDENT: Look, as far as I’m concerned, as to whether or not it’s an issue — for those of you that didn’t hear — immigration is always tricky, but to me it’s not tricky. You have to do the right thing whether there’s an election or not.
I’m very tough at the borders. We’ve been very tough at the borders. People have to come into our country legally, not illegally. Legally. And I want them to come in on merit.
If that’s a bad policy, then guess what, a lot of bad things are going to happen. But a lot of people agree with me. I would say a vast majority of our country agrees. They don’t want criminals coming into our country. They don’t want people that they don’t want in the country that aren’t going to help us as a country. They don’t want these people coming in. So we have a very strong policy.
Democrats running for re-election in the 2018 midterms are being advised to not speak about the issue of immigration as consultants admit the zero-enforcement, open borders positions of the Democrat Party are unpopular with swing voters.
In a memo obtained by the New York Times, left-wing consultants with the Center for American Progress and the think tank, Third Way, advised Democrats running for election to spend “as little time as possible” talking about the immigration issue facing the nation, where more than 1.5 million immigrants are admitted to the country every year.
“Sanctuary attacks pack a punch,” says a four-page memorandum, prepared by the liberal Center for American Progress and the centrist think tank Third Way, that has been shared at about a dozen briefings for Democrats in recent weeks. The New York Times obtained a copy of the memo, whose findings are based on interviews and surveys conducted over the summer. [Emphasis added]
Democrats, the strategists who prepared the memo advised, could neutralize the attacks if they responded head-on. But they should spend “as little time as possible” talking about immigration itself, and instead pivot to more fruitful issues for Democrats like health care and taxation. [Emphasis added]
“It is very difficult to win on immigration with vulnerable voters in the states Trump carried in 2016,” the strategy memo said, arguing that “even the most draconian of Republican policies,” such as family separation and threats to deport the Dreamers — undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children — failed to sway most of them. [Emphasis added]
As Breitbart News exclusively reported, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) has given the GOP ammunition to run on the issue of immigration for the midterm elections, introducing legislation that fully funds President Trump’s proposed border wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.
Meanwhile, Democrats have geared up for the 2018 midterm elections by running on a platform that would abolish the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, which would end all immigration enforcement across the United States. Three in four swing voters oppose the Democrats’ “abolish ICE” initiative.
Despite Republican efforts to run on the issue of uninfluential tax reform, Trump’s immigration reduction plan has sweeping support among not only Republican voters, but swing voters and black Americans.
In an April Harvard/Harris Poll, nearly 2-out-3 supported reducing legal immigration levels to the U.S. In May, 52 percent of swing voters opposed allowing big businesses to import more foreign workers to compete against their fellow citizens for coveted blue-collar and white-collar jobs.
Most specifically, 61 percent of swing voters in battleground districts who saidimmigration has changed their community claimed those changes are making life “worse” in America.
A similar CBS/YouGov poll in June found that 55 percent of swing voters in battleground districts believed the border wall is a “good idea that can probably be completed” or a “good idea that should be tried, even if it can’t be completed,” as Trump wants.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.
WATCH: 1300+ Hondurans Begin Organized Trek to U.S. Border
More than 1300 Honduran men, women, and children began a trek that is expected to take them through Central America and Mexico. Some of the migrants plan to seek asylum in Mexico while others plan to head to the U.S. border. The march appears to be organized through social media.
The march, dubbed “March of the Migrants,” began this weekend in San Pedro Sula, Honduras, where more than 1300 men, women, and children began a trek that will take them from Honduras to Guatemala and into Mexico where some will seek refugee status. Others are expected to continue north to the U.S border, Reuters reported.
Soon after the march began, social media groups promoting the well being of Honduras and Central America posted videos and photographs condemning the government and the lack of opportunities in the country.
According to Reuters, the primary reasons being mentions by those taking part in the trek are lack of jobs and violence. The march comes just months after a similar effort organized by the U.S. group Pueblo Sin Fronteras helped coordinate a caravan of more than 1,500 men, women, and children that trekked through Central America into Mexico seeking to reach the U.S. to request asylum, Breitbart Texas reported. While some members from that caravan stayed in Mexico, a large number made their way to the border where they worked to request asylum at the international ports of entry.
“There is no work and so much violence that you can get killed walking down the street,” 25-year-old Javier Solis told Reuters. He said he has not been able to find work for a year and wants to make his way to the United States. It is not his first attempt to illegally make his way to the U.S. Reuters reported that his first attempt ended in deportation after he made it to the Mexican border.
Ildefonso Ortiz is an award-winning journalist with Breitbart Texas. He co-founded the Cartel Chronicles project with Brandon Darby and Stephen K. Bannon.You can follow him on Twitter and on Facebook. He can be contacted at Iortiz@breitbart.com.
Brandon Darby is the managing director and editor-in-chief of Breitbart Texas. He co-founded the Cartel Chronicles project with Ildefonso Ortiz and Stephen K. Bannon. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook. He can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Hamptons’ ‘paranoid’ super rich installing luxury panic rooms to hide from MS-13 gang
Fearing the vicious Salvadoran MS-13 gang, which has plagued Long Island’s Suffolk County and threatens to spread its terror further, residents from the wealthy Hamptons area in New York are turning their homes into fortresses.
The extreme security measures include sleeping with guns, installing bulletproof windows and sometimes even luxury panic rooms.
Supermarket mogul, John Catsimatidis, told the New York Post that he sleeps with a gun underneath his pillow. “A Walther PPK/S, the same one James Bond carried,” he said.
Fears that the gang is spreading to the eastern tip of Long Island were bolstered by Southampton Town’s police chief Steven Skrynecki, after he stationed police with anti-terrorism gear at charity galas throughout the summer of 2017.
In April, the gang murdered four men at a soccer field in Central Islip. Three months later a Hampton Bays brothel, which was raided by police, was found to be tagged with an MS-13 sign.
The gang is “in Suffolk County. What's an hour car ride? They are near,” an unnamed Southampton homeowner said.
Long Island contractor Chris Cosban, whose company Covert Interiors installs pricey panic rooms, told the daily: “The big thing [with homeowners] in the Hamptons is that if somebody has it, they [all] want it.”
The price for a panic room ranges from $25,000 to over $200,000 which Cosban explains with ‘a wow factor.'
“They like to brag about it,” he said. People used to open up their garages and show off their Lamborghinis, but “now they take guests to the wine bar in their safe room,” said Herman Weisberg from personal security firm Sage Intelligence.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced on Monday a new strategy to take out the transnational gangs and drug cartels operating in the United States, including MS-13 and Sinaloa Cartel.
This action is part of fulfilling President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 13773, “which directed the federal government to “ensure that Federal law enforcement agencies give a high priority and devote sufficient resources to efforts to identify, interdict, disrupt, and dismantle transnational criminal organizations.”
“The day I was sworn in as attorney general, President Trump sent me an executive order to dismantle transnational criminal organizations—the gangs and cartels who flood our streets with drugs and violence,” Sessions said at a press conference at the Department of Justice (DOJ). “We embrace that order, and we carry it out every single day.”
“Today, to increase our effectiveness, I am putting in place new leadership to drive our transnational organized crime efforts and forming a Transnational Organized Crime Task Force of experienced prosecutors that will coordinate and optimize the Department’s efforts to take each of these groups off of our streets for good,” Sessions said.
To execute the executive order, Sessionsdirected the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF), and the Department’s Criminal Division “to identify top transnational criminal groups that threaten the safety and prosperity of the United States and its allies.”
At the conclusion of that review, Session designated the following criminal groups as top transnational organized crime (TOC) threats:
• Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion
• Sinaloa Cartel
• Clan del Golfo, and
• Lebanese Hezbollah.
Associate Deputy Attorney General Patrick Hovakimian will serve as the Department’s first Director of Counter Transnational Organized Crime.
“Hovakimian has served in the DOJ leadership since early 2017 and also as an AUSA in the Southern District of California, where he is co-lead counsel in a series of transnational public corruption and fraud cases,” the press release announcing the new developments stated.
Adam Cohen, currently the Chief of the Criminal Division Special Operations Unit’s Office of Enforcement Operations who has served in the Criminal Division for ten years, is the new Director of the Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF).
“He has also served as an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) for five years and as a state prosecutor in Florida for seven years,” the press release stated. “Cohen also led the National Gang Targeting Enforcement and Coordination Center for almost three years and has served as a Deputy Chief of the Narcotics and Dangerous Drug Section.”
“The Attorney General’s TOC Task Force will be led by the Deputy Attorney General and will be composed of experienced prosecutors” and “be organized into one subcommittee for each of the target groups,” the press release stated.
The prosecutors work in jurisdictions across the United States.
Assistant U.S. Attorney John Durham of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York will head the MS-13 subcommittee.
“Durham has played a significant role in the FBI’s Long Island Task Force, which has arrested hundreds of MS-13 members,” the press release stated.
Trial Attorney Brett Reynolds of the Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Section of DOJ’s Criminal Division will lead the subcommittee on Cartel Jalisco Nueva Generacion.
“Reynolds has led or co-led several investigations into the Cartel that have led to indictments of some of its highest ranking members,” the press release stated.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Sutton of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California will lead the subcommittee on the Sinaloa Cartel.
“Sutton prosecuted several Sinaloa kingpins and led multiple international investigations targeting Sinaloa Cartel leaders, resulting in seizures of millions of dollars in drug proceeds and thousands of kilograms of illicit drugs,” the press release stated.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Emery of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida is in charge of the subcommittee on Clan del Golfo.
“Emery has secured convictions against the top leadership of Clan del Golfo, including kingpin Henry de Jesus Lopez Londoño, who commanded over 1,000 armed men for the cartel,” the press release stated.
U.S. Attorney Ilan Graff of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York will head the subcommittee on Lebanese Hezbollah.
“Graff is overseeing the prosecution of two alleged members of Hezbollah’s External Security Organization, the first such operatives to be charged with terrorism offenses in the United States,” the press release said.
Sessions ordered the subcommittee to submit recommendations within 90 days on“how to disrupt and dismantle TOC, whether through prosecution, diplomacy, or other lawful means.”