A Bogus Central/Federal Government
We are currently in the process of capturing a lot of our previous articles and making them available as a tab at the top of this page. As the collection process continues, we would like to humbly put forth an astounding position that we have reluctantly found ourselves in. We can easily recall writing many of our indexed and categorized articles — especially those written over nine years ago that predict or outlay what the consequences will be as long as the United States continued to “protect” illegal immigrants from either deportation, criminal time, or mandating new laws in the name of “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” that allow for some cities, individual states, and various communities to break laws that are already on the books.
When I — as a journalist first began covering this “buddy to buddy” relationship between sanctuary cities and particular departments within the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government is when it finally made an outcome on my life, first as a person and secondly, my perspectives on or about the mental where with all of our elected officials in Washington, D.C.
No longer do I automatically worship the ground on any one of my employees may walk on. Some or most of these congressional legislative law-making clan I would not trust in the care of my beloved hounds. Furthermore, what I ascertained was the jealousy, pettiness, and the proverbial seek one’s own assets first. Here is an example: As it stands right now for the GOP presidential candidates, out of 15 total candidates I think that I would actually vote for perhaps one of them.
Sen. Marco Rubio is not one of them, nor is Sen. Lindsey Graham. They should know why, but just in case, these individual’s involvement (let alone how they voted!) with the Gang of Eight could not have possibly been for anything other than personal gain. And it is a darn good reason I don’t live in any of the San Francisco senatorial/House congressional districts. Why?
Let’s just say that Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Barbara Boxer, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein with their allegiances to organizations such as Code Pink, moreover, giving out rights to stay in our country for we have got to know why.
More than 100 convicted criminals who remained in the U.S. despite receiving deportation orders between 2010 and 2014 now face murder charges, according to the agency charged with carrying out such deportations of illegal immigrants.
U.S. Immigration Customs and Enforcement reports that 121 convicted criminals who were never removed from the country face murder charges today.
In response, Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., of the Judiciary Committee submitted a letter on June 12 requesting a “multi-departmental response” from Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Secretary of State John Kerry and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson.
In their letter, Grassley and Sessions cite Immigration and Customs Enforcement statistics that show 1,000 of the 36,007 criminally-convicted illegal immigrants released from custody in fiscal year 2013 have been reconvicted of additional crimes.
The senators wrote that the murders committed by the 121 convicted criminals “could have been avoided” had they not been released.
As a result, Grassley and Sessions are requesting an explanation from the Obama administration officials concerning the government’s decision to release the convicted criminals before deportation.
The senators also ask for information concerning the future of U.S. initiatives to deport convicted criminals and whether immigration officials are “fully leveraging existing tools and resources to prevent these dangerous outcomes.”
However, Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Sarah Saldana wrote in a recent letter that convicted criminals may be released, even if the convicted individuals face deportation charges.
This primarily manifests itself though the Supreme Court’s ruling in Zadvydas v. Davis, which requires Immigration and Customs Enforcement to release those who are being detained if the deportation does not occur within 180 days.
Of the 121 convicted criminals, 24 were released because Immigration and Customs Enforcement could not deport the criminals within 180 days, as lawfully required. So why release them?
Additionally, Grassley and Sessions’ letter claims that the majority of convicted criminals released due to the Zadvydas v. Davis ruling are from one of 12 countries.
Nearly one-third of these criminals are originally from Cuba. Grassley and Sessions requested a statement from Kerry to delineate actions planned to “incentivize cooperation” with Immigrations and Customs Enforcement’s removal efforts.
Both senators also requested a response from Johnson asking if initiatives including the visa waiver program had been implemented in order to “promote compliance with ICE removal efforts among recalcitrant countries.”