Fed Appeals Court: Immigrant Who Voted Illegally Can be Deported

JUDICIAL WATCH

Weeks after the House Minority leader blasted President Donald Trump for pledging to investigate voter fraud, a federal appellate court has ruled that a Peruvian immigrant can be deported from the U.S. for illegally voting in a federal election. The decision comes on the heels of a spat between Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi and the president. The California Democrat accused Trump of making false claims of election fraud and said that undermining the integrity of our voting system is “really strange.” Most Democrats in Congress agree with the former House Speaker and strongly oppose an investigation, asserting it will limit access to voting.

Not surprisingly, the overwhelming majority of the mainstream media coverage promotes the Democrats’ inaccurate version of the facts. One news network referred to Trump’s voter fraud claims as “baseless” and simply an excuse to enact restrictive voting laws. Another wrote that “Trump’s ‘iIlegals voting’ comments are false and divisive,” calling voter fraud by undocumented immigrants “patently false.” In an editorial titled “The Latest Voter Fraud Lie,” a mainstream newspaper writes that the “baseless claims continue to get converted into policy in the form of stricter voting laws like requiring prospective voters to show a photo ID…” A multitude of similar media reports have flooded the news wires in the week’s following Trump’s meeting with congressional leaders to address the issue.

This week’s appellate court ruling provides a jolt of reality that the media has chosen to ignore. Election fraud was a significant concern in 2008 and 2010, which is why Judicial Watch launched an election integrity project in 2012. The project is a legal campaign to force cleanup of voter registration rolls as well as monitor elections. As an example of the pervasive fraud, Judicial Watch uncovered that 1,046 aliens, or residents who are not U.S. citizens, were on the voter rolls in eight Virginia counites leading up to the 2016 presidential election. If that rate of non-citizen registration held in the rest of Virginia’s counties, that would mean that about 6,500 non-citizens are registered to vote in the state. Additionally, Judicial Watch’s investigation found that 57,923 Virginians were registered to vote in at least one other state as well as 19 deceased individuals. Similar issues have been uncovered in several other states as part of Judicial Watch’s ongoing probe into election fraud.

The Latin American woman in the recent court ruling who voted illegally is hardly an isolated case. Her name is Margarita Del Pilar Fitzpatrick and she lied about being an American citizen on an Illinois Department of Motor Vehicle form. It was that easy. Fitzpatrick, a legal U.S. resident with three kids, voted in two federal elections in 2006 and claims that she had official approval to cast a ballot after presenting her Peruvian passport and green card. An immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals, the government’s highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws, determined that Fitzpatrick should be deported because non-U.S. citizens cannot vote in federal elections and can be removed from the country for doing so.

The Peruvian woman did not back down, appealing the decisions in federal court. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the two previous rulings in favor of deportation, though it acknowledged that Fitzpatrick “led a productive and otherwise-unblemished life in this country.” In its decision, the court states that the motor vehicle form sternly warns aliens not to check the U.S. citizen box and that Fitzpatrick is “literate in English and has no excuse for making that misrepresentation.” Aliens are forbidden to vote in federal elections, the ruling says, adding that “another statute provides for the removal of aliens who vote in violation of either state or federal law.” During oral argument, the appellate judges inquired whether Fitzpatrick is the kind of person the Attorney General and Department of Homeland Security want removed from the United States. “The answer was yes,” the ruling states.

Iran Warns Trump Against Disclosing Secret Iran Deal Documents

https://rjaybee.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/iran-nuclear-deal-congress1.jpg?w=1189&h=669

Image via richards-watch.org

 

The Washington Free Beacon

Senior Iranian officials are warning the Trump administration about disclosing secret deals related to the nuclear deal that have long been hidden from the public by the Obama administration, according to recent comments that prompted pushback from senior sources on Capitol Hill.

Iran’s warning comes on the heels of a Washington Free Beacon report disclosing that former national security adviser Michael Flynn had been pushed out of office partly due to his intention to release these sensitive documents to the American public.

Leading lawmakers in Congress launched multiple investigations last year into the Obama administration’s efforts to keep these documents secret and out of public view. Sources who spoke to the Free Beacon about the matter said that the Trump White House is working on ways to publicize this information despite warnings from Iran.

Secret side deals related to the nuclear agreement remain unclassified but have been stashed in a secure location on Capitol Hill, making it difficult for staffers and lawmakers to view them. Individuals seeking to view these documents must have security clearance and are barred from taking notes or speaking about what they see.

Continue reading

These 73 sitting Democrats voted to ban visas from some Muslim countries. That law still exists.

Flopping Aces

Daniel Horowitz:

Trump’s executive order is so modest that the foundation of it is essentially existing law. That law was passed unanimously by both bodies of Congress in 2002. In fact, it garnered the support of 16 Democrat senators and 57 Democrat House members who are still serving in their respective bodies!

Following 9/11, Congress passed the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act, which addressed many of the insecurities in our visa tracking system. The bill passed the House and Senate unanimously. The bill was originally sponsored by a group of bipartisan senators, including Ted Kennedy and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. (F, 0%). Among other provisions, it restricted non-immigrant visas from countries designated as state sponsors of terror:

SEC. 306. RESTRICTION ON ISSUANCE OF VISAS TO NONIMMIGRANTS FROM COUNTRIES THAT ARE STATE SPONSORS OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM.

(a) IN GENERAL- No nonimmigrant visa under section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.1101(a)(15)) shall be issued to any alien from a country that is a state sponsor of international terrorism unless the Secretary of State determines, in consultation with the Attorney General and the heads of other appropriate United States agencies, that such alien does not pose a threat to the safety or national security of the United States. In making a determination under this subsection, the Secretary of State shall apply standards developed by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General and the heads of other appropriate United States agencies, that are applicable to the nationals of such states.

The directive to cut off non-immigrant visas from countries designated as state sponsors of terror is still current law on the books [8 U.S. Code § 1735]. Presidents Bush and Obama later used their discretion to waive the ban, but Trump is actually following the letter of the law — the very law sponsored and passed by Democrats — more closely than Obama did. Trump used his 212(f) authority to add immigrant visas, but that doesn’t take away the fact that every Democrat in the 2002 Senate supported the banning of non-immigrant visas.

At present, only three of the countries —  Sudan, Syria, and Iran —  are designated as state sponsors by the State Department. At the time Democrats agreed to the ban in 2002, the State Department also included Libya and Iraq in that list. Although Libya and Iraq were on the list due to the presence of Gadhafi and Saddam Hussein as sponsors of terror, there is actually more of a reason to cut off visas now. Both are completely failed states with no reliable data to vet travelers. Both are more saturated with Islamist groups now than they were in 2002. The same goes for Yemen and Somalia. Neither country is a state sponsor of terror because neither has a functioning governments. They are terrorist havens.

Thus, the letter of the law already applies to three of the countries, and the spirit of the law applies to all of them. Plus, the State Department could add any new country to the list, thereby making any future suspension of visas from those specific countries covered under §1735, in addition to the broad general power (INA 212(f)) to shut off any form of immigration. Given that Trump has backed down on green card holders, his executive order on “Muslim countries” is essentially current law, albeit only guaranteed for 90 days!

Sixteen sitting Democrats, including their Minority Leader, voted for the 2002 bill [several of them were in the House at the time]:

Cantwell, D-Wash. (F, 4%)

Cardin, D-Md. (F, 2%)

Carper, D-Del. (F, 10%)

Markey, D-Ore. (F, 17%)

Menendez, D-N.J. (F, 6%)

Murray, D-Wash. (F, 2%)

Nelson, D-Fla. (F, 4%)

Reed, D-R.I. (F, 4%)

Sanders, I-Vt. (F, 17%)

Schumer, D-N.Y. (F, 2%)

Stabenow, D-Mich. (F, 8%)

Wyden, D-Ore. (F, 6%)

Durbin, D-Ill. (F, 2%)

Feinstein, D-Calif. (F, 0%)

Leahy, D-Vt. (F, 6%)

Udall, D-N.M. (F, 4%)

In addition, such prominent Democrats as former Vice President Biden, former Secretary of State Clinton, former Secretary of State Kerry, and former Majority Leader Reid vote voted for the bill.

In the House, 57 sitting Democrats voted for the 2002 bill, including leadership members, such as Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. (F, 10%), Steny Hoyer, D-M.D. (F, 8%), and James Clyburn, D-S.C. (F, 8%).

Dianne Feinstein has now introduced a bill to overturn Trump’s executive order, but her bill would also overturn, in part, the law on the books she herself sponsored and supported in 2002. In addition, a number of Republicans who are whining about the order, such as John McCain, R-Ariz. (F, 32%), voted for the 2002 bill.

The Warmist thumb on the scale at the Department of Energy

obama-finger

American Thinker

Jack Hellner

The Obama administration fired a scientist, intimidated staff at the Department of Energy, and allegedly ordered officials to obstruct Congress – all in order to push its climate change agenda, a House committee report asserted.

The Washington Free Beacon detailed Tuesday a report released by the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, which is chaired by Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, charged senior Obama administration officials retaliated against the scientist, Dr. Noelle Getting, who was manager of a radiation research program, and devised ways to block a congressional inquiry into the radiation research.

“Instead of providing the type of scientific information needed by Congress to legislate effectively, senior departmental officials sought to hide information, lobbied against legislation, and retaliated against a scientist for being forthcoming,” Smith said in a statement, the Free Beacon reported.

“In this staff report based on lengthy record before the committee, much has been revealed about how senior level agency officials under the Obama administration retaliated against a scientist who did not follow the party line.”

The scathing analysis comes in the wake of a report the Department of Energy refused to turn over to Donald Trump’s transition team the names of its staff members who worked on climate change issues for the Obama administration.

Continue reading

Trump’s Border Wall: The Bill Was Passed and Signed Into Law

https://i1.wp.com/s.ngm.com/2007/05/us-mexican-border/img/border-wall-615.jpg

image via ngm.nationalgeographic.com

Family Security Matters

by JIM KOURI, CPP

One of the main issues that propelled Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump to victory was the promise of a wall being built at the United States border with Mexico. The response by the news media, their favorite Democratic politicians and illegal-immigration advocates was astounding, with newspapers, magazines, television, radio and the Internet awash in comments that Trump was a racist, a bigot, and a xenophobic bully.

But the truth — noticeably avoided by the media — is that the U.S. Congress passed a bill and it was signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2006 ordering a wall to be built at the U.S.-Mexican border and more Border Patrol agents should be hired for the Southern border.

“The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, required DHS to complete construction by December 31, 2008, of either 370 miles or other mileage determined by the Secretary, of reinforced fencing along the southwest border wherever the Secretary determines it would be most practical and effective in deterring smugglers and aliens attempting illegal entry,” according to Global Security.

Continue reading

Harry Reid’s ‘nuclear option’ clears path for Donald Trump’s Cabinet nominees

Free Republic

Democrats are increasingly antsy over the lineup President-elect Donald Trump has announced for his Cabinet, but they are also powerless to do very much to stop him — thanks to their own leader, Sen. Harry Reid.

It’s unlikely Mr. Reid had a President Trump in mind when he pulled the so-called “nuclear option” trigger three years ago, changing Senate rules to eviscerate the use of a filibuster to block presidential nominees.

Set up to help President Obama’s picks overcome GOP opposition, those same rules now will clear the path for Sen. Jeff Sessions to become the new attorney general, Rep. Tom Price to head Health and Human Services and two billionaires to lead the Treasury and Commerce departments.

Liberal interest groups are pleading with Democrats to fight the nominees, even though there’s not a lot they can do without the filibuster and against a unified GOP.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com

Obama is never going away

450x298-alg_trash_obama

CFP

President Obama has no intention of fading away as Republican presidents typically do when they leave office.

Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush completed their presidencies and were then more or less silent on their successors’ performance in office.

However, Democrat former presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are constitutionally incapable of shutting up and Americans have long suffered their bloviations.

Barack Hussein Obama, like Carter and Clinton, is a Democrat who adores the sound of his own voice.

obama-kiss-self-a

As Politico reports,

Continue reading