A statement issued by Homeland Security Secretary Jack Kelly, concerning data compiled by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, noted that there has been a marked decrease in illegal border crossings at the U.S.-Mexican border this year between January and February, “as measured by apprehensions and the prevention of inadmissible persons at our southern border.” In January there were 31,578 apprehensions, while in February there were 18,762. This 40 percent drop is in contrast to previous year comparisons of January and February, during which there had been a 10-20 percent increase in apprehensions of illegal immigrants.
The trend is in the right direction, even without the border wall already in place that President Trump promised during the campaign. According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data cited by Homeland Security Secretary Kelly, “in the period from Oct 1, 2016 to the Presidential inauguration, U.S. Customs and Border Protection reported 157,000 apprehensions of illegal immigrants – a 35 percent increase over the previous fiscal year, with family units increasing by more than 100 percent. However, since President Trump took office on January 20, we have seen a dramatic drop in numbers.”
Some of the decline may be due to seasonal factors. However, more robust enforcement in the wake of President Trump’s issuance of two executive orders intended to boost such enforcement of the nation’s existing immigration laws are clearly having a deterrent effect. Since the Trump administration’s implementation of these executive orders, according to Secretary Kelly, we are seeing apprehensions and the turning away of inadmissible persons at our southern border “trending toward the lowest monthly total in at least the last five years.”
What makes the robust enforcement regime introduced by President Trump’s executive orders even more effective is the termination of the practice commonly known as “catch and release,” whereby illegal immigrants have been routinely released in the United States shortly after their apprehension for violations of immigration law. Thus, illegal immigrant traffic is slowing due to the deterrent effect of more rigorous enforcement, while those caught having entered the country illegally are not allowed to simply roam free pending their immigration hearings.
“As directed in my memoranda implementing the President’s executive orders, we remain committed to carrying out fair, impartial and humane enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws,” said Secretary Kelly in his statement. “We will remain vigilant to respond to any changes in these trends, as numbers of illegal crossings typically increase between March and May. However, the early results show that enforcement matters, deterrence matters, and that comprehensive immigration enforcement can make an impact.”
Univision anchor Jorge Ramos clearly does not like what he is seeing with regards to current U.S. immigration policy. He wants open borders.
Tucker Carlson of Fox News confronted Ramos during an interview Wednesday night with a statement Ramos made in February: “I’m a proud Latino immigrant here in the United States. You know exactly what is going on here in the US. There are many people who do not want us to be here and who want to create a wall in order to separate us. But you know what, this is also our country. Let me repeat this, our country, not theirs, it’s our country.”
Carlson then asked Ramos, “Who’s the us, and who’s the they? Whose country is it?” Ramos equivocated, but said that by 2044 “the white population will become a minority, it will be a minority/majority country, that is precisely what I’m saying. Latinos, Asians, African-Americans, whites, it is our country Tucker.” Carlson reminded Ramos that “you are white, obviously, you are whiter than I am. You’ve got blue eyes,” and then questioned what Ramos meant “by white or Latino.” Ramos ended up by declaring that one’s country of origin in Latin America makes one a Latino, regardless of ethnicity.
Thus, by Ramos’s own logic (or, more accurately, illogic), any Latino from South America, Central America or Mexico wanting to enter the United States should be allowed to do so without restriction because it is their country too.
This same open borders premise underlies objections to President Trump’s new executive order temporarily suspending the admission of refugees worldwide for 120 days. The new order also suspends the entry for 90 days of people from six designated terrorist-prone countries whom do not have green cards or previously issued visas to enter the United States. The new order replaces the previous executive order that was held up in the courts. It is due to take effect on March 16th.
In addition to narrowing the scope of people temporarily subject to the entry suspension, Iraq was removed from the original order’s list of affected countries. Any suggestion of preference for religious minorities has also been removed.
Democrats willing to gamble with American lives wasted no time in pouncing on the new order. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer bemoaned, “A watered down ban is still a ban. Despite the administration’s changes, this dangerous executive order makes us less safe, not more, it is meanspirited, and un-American.” A temporary pause on entry from countries even the Obama administration identified as terrorist-prone will make us less safe? What alternative universe does Senator Schumer inhabit?
Schumer’s counterpart in the House, Nancy Pelosi, tweeted, “This is the same ban, with the same purpose, driven by the same discrimination that weakens our fight against terror.” Keeping out would-be terrorists weakens our fight against terror? Evidently, just like with her Obamacare bill, she did not take the time to actually read the new order and compare it to the original version before impulsively tweeting her unfounded objections.
The state of Hawaii is already challenging in court the executive order. So is the state of Washington, which had successfully sued to halt the implementation of the original order. Washington’s governor has also signed an executive order of his own restricting state agencies from cooperating with federal immigration authorities.
President Trump’s “executive order inflicts a grave injury on Muslims in Hawaii,” Hawaii’s complaint says. One of the plaintiffs, a member of the Muslim Association of Hawaii, is upset that his Syrian mother-in-law will not be able to visit him while the travel suspension remains in effect. In other words, this plaintiff insists he has the right to demand that his Syrian non-blood relative be given a visa immediately to visit him in the United States. Apparently the state of Hawaii agrees that allowing such a visit to take place right away is more important than allowing the president of the United States, acting under explicit federal statutory authority, to temporarily suspend entry from Syria if he determines it necessary to protect the American people. Why doesn’t the plaintiff travel to meet his mother-in-law overseas instead, if he simply cannot wait? The state of Hawaii can even pay for his travel, which would be a lot cheaper than wasting taxpayers’ money on a lawsuit.
“Hawaii is special in that it has always been non-discriminatory in both its history and constitution,” Attorney General Douglas Chin explained. “Twenty percent of the people are foreign-born, 100,000 are non-citizens and 20 percent of the labor force is foreign-born.”
Lofty principles such as non-discrimination are fine, but their restatement in this context is completely out of place. Apparently, the opponents of President Trump’s executive order believe that foreigners from any country seeking to enter the United States for any reason, no matter what the circumstances in their home country affecting U.S. national security, should have a constitutional right favoring their entry that overrides national security considerations. Not to admit them is somehow discriminatory.
Meanwhile. proponents of an open border between Mexico and the United States think nothing of the safety and economic impact of uncontrolled immigration on American citizens.
As Tucker Carlson asked Jorge Ramos, “Whose country is it?”