What our president must do to seal the border.
A migrant caravan from Central America is currently heading en masse to the United States. Its members, several thousand strong, are intent on pouring into the U.S. in what amounts to an invasion force. President Trump has correctly branded the caravan an “onslaught” and an “assault on our country.” The president has promised to use military troops if necessary to close the southern border with Mexico. He also threatened to cut off all foreign aid to those Central American countries that are not doing enough to stop the migration caravan in its tracks.
Members of the caravan have already demonstrated their violent streak during an early stage of their trek, as they approached Mexico. They “forced their way through Guatemala’s northwestern border and flooded onto a bridge leading to Mexico,” AFP reported. These migrants, mainly from Honduras, engaged in violent clashes with Mexican riot police as they tried to surge through police lines and cross the bridge into Mexico. Four Mexican police officers were reportedly injured. “Violent entry into the country not only threatens our sovereignty, but also puts the migrants themselves at risk,” Mexico’s President Pena Nieto said. “Mexico does not permit and will not permit entry into its territory in an irregular fashion, much less in a violent fashion.”
Mexican government officials have said that Mexico would be willing to consider asylum requests from members of the caravan on an individual basis, with the assistance of the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner on Refugees (“UNHCR”). Mexico is proposing that UNCHR establish shelters along Mexico’s southern border with Central American countries. Individuals deemed by the UN agency to be eligible for asylum protection, presumably after performing its standard vetting, would be eligible for placement in a host country willing to accept them, which could be Mexico or the United States. Those deemed not to have a legitimate claim would be sent back to their home countries. If someone manages to slip through this system and travels through Mexico before crossing the Mexico-U.S. border into the United States, Mexico has indicated that it would be willing to accept the return of that individual if the U.S. so wishes. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that the United States welcomed and would cooperate with Mexico’s initiative to have Central American migrants processed for possible asylum in Mexico first with UN assistance. The initiative conforms with international law on the handling of claims for refugee status and is an orderly and humane solution to the migration crisis that the caravan has precipitated.
However, the migrant invaders are impatient. “We are going to the United States,” said one of the migrants. “Nobody is going to stop us.” The Associated Press has reported that despite Mexico’s attempt to intervene, “a growing throng of Central American migrants resumed their advance toward the U.S. border early Sunday in southern Mexico.” Their numbers have reportedly grown, after migrants in the caravan decided not to submit to Mexico’s asylum process that would have enabled them to enter Mexico legally. Instead, they took the law into their own hands. Mexico now appears to have largely given up and is doing little to stop them.
The caravan migrants believe that they are entitled to simply pass through Mexico without any interference and ensconce themselves in the United States. A press release issued by the organizers of a similar migrant caravan earlier this year stated a “demand of Mexico and the United States” that “they open the borders to us because we are as much citizens as the people of the countries where we are and/or travel.” This “open borders” demand is a direct challenge to U.S. national sovereignty. Migrants are not entitled to insist upon a “right” to choose the United States as their destination country, including would-be asylum-seekers if they are offered the chance for asylum in Mexico first.
Some of the caravan migrants cry poverty and use children as shields while pleading their case. Others in the caravan have likely learned – from the migrants who preceded them and from open borders advocates encouraging their migration – the playbook of how to exploit the loophole-ridden U.S. immigration laws. They know that their sheer numbers will further overwhelm an already overstretched adjudicative process with many more amnesty claims. Once in this country, the migrants, especially those with children in tow, are likely to be released into the community-at-large, pending the outcome of their asylum hearings, which could take place years later. They may well skip their hearings altogether, as many before them have done, and remain free to live in our country at American taxpayers’ expense indefinitely. Other migrants in the caravan who manage to make it to the U.S. border will simply enter illegally at unguarded points without even the pretense of seeking asylum unless they can be stopped first. Terrorists and criminal gang members are free to take part in the caravan with little chance of detection.
President Trump has vowed to use the military to seal the southern border of the United States with Mexico, if necessary – a stretch of territory as long as 2000 miles. Aside from logistical issues, questions have been raised as to whether the president has the legal authority to take such action in enforcing U.S. immigration laws, at least with respect to utilizing active-duty members of the army, navy, air force and marines. Those who claim that the president does not have such authority cite the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, as amended from time to time, which prohibits active duty military troops from executing the country’s laws unless expressly authorized by the Constitution or an Act of Congress. This statute does not apply to the National Guard operating under state authority.
A federal court has held that the Posse Comitatus Act “makes unlawful the use of federal military troops in an active role of direct law enforcement by civil law enforcement officers,” which includes “arrest; seizure of evidence; search of a person; search of a building; investigation of crime; interviewing witnesses; pursuit of an escaped civilian prisoner; search of an area for a suspect or other like activities.” Military personnel can do little more than maintain border fences and vehicles and perhaps also assist with surveillance, including in connection with drugs smuggling, if the Posse Comitatus Act is interpreted as restrictively as open borders proponents are likely to advocate in court.
However, repelling an organized force of unvetted migrants, who may include terrorists and foreign criminal gang members, from entering this country in the first place is not simply civil domestic law enforcement. It is a military response to a genuine threat to U.S. territorial sovereignty and national security originating from foreign territories. The military response would be directed by the president of the United States who is vested with the constitutional authority of commander in chief. The president would be using the military to implement the constitutional mandate of Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution that the “United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion.”
Moreover, the Posse Comitatus Act was intended to protect Americans within the boundaries of the United States from military rule. Its original purpose was to put an end to the use of federal troops to police state elections in the ex-Confederate states where the civil power had been reestablished. As one federal court stated, the Posse Comitatus Act is “the type of criminal statute which is properly presumed to have no extraterritorial application in the absence of statutory language indicating a contrary intent.” There is nothing in either the legislative history or text of the Posse Comitatus Act.to indicate that its drafters intended to prohibit the president’s use of military troops to block aliens gathered together in a horde from attempting to cross into our country after having violently clashed with the police of another country en route and having willfully evaded that country’s laws. Terrorists may well be concealing themselves in the migrant caravan. Hezbollah, for example, has already managed to penetrate the U.S. border with Mexico, posing a serious national security threat.
The Supreme Court recently upheld the constitutionality of President Trump’s executive order limiting the entry of aliens from certain countries on national security grounds, pending a thorough review of the vetting process. The Court relied on §1182(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which enables the President to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens” whenever he “finds” that their entry “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”
Analogously, if the president determines that it is necessary to use active members of the military to enforce federal authority in situations he deems potentially dangerous to national security, there is a statutory exception to the Posse Comitatus Act which should allow him to do just that (10 U.S.C. § 332, renumbered §252). This provision states that the president may “use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary,” to enforce “the laws of the United States” whenever he “considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages” make it “impracticable” to enforce such laws “by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings.” The migrant caravan aimed at entering the United States is an “assemblage” by definition. This assemblage has already acted unlawfully in violent clashes with Mexican riot police, after which some members then entered Mexico illegally despite being given the chance to submit to a legal process for asylum claims. U.S. border enforcement officials have already been overwhelmed by the number of illegal aliens and would-be asylum seekers from Central America. The current migration caravan will further burden the adjudicative system for amnesty hearings to the point of implosion.
President Trump tweeted on Sunday: “Full efforts are being made to stop the onslaught of illegal aliens from crossing our Southern Border. People have to apply for asylum in Mexico first, and if they fail to do that, the U.S. will turn them away.” If he needs the military to protect the border from the migrant caravan invasion, so be it.
Mar 04, 2019 0
The University of Cape Town campus. Photo: Adrian Frith via Wikimedia Commons.
The University of Cape Town, the top-ranking academic institution in Africa, is set to consider enforcing an academic boycott against Israel later this month.
The UCT Senate, a decision-making body comprised primarily of professors and administrators, endorsed a proposal on March 15 to bar the university from entering into any formal relationship with Israeli academic institutions that operate “in the occupied Palestinian territories,” or otherwise enable “gross human rights violations in the occupied Palestinian territories,” the university said in a statement.
The campus of Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.
JNS.org – Students at Brown University voted overwhelmingly in favor of a referendum held between Tuesday and Thursday, calling on the school to separate itself from companies that conduct business with the State of Israel.
The tally was 69 percent in favor and 31 percent against.
Members of the pro-Israel community nationally and locally condemned the outcome.
“For the sake of My servant Yaakov, Yisrael My chosen one, I call you by name, I hail you by title, though you have not known Me.” Isaiah 45:4 (The Israel Bible™)
Many have seen similarities between the Biblical King Cyrus and President Donald Trump. (Breaking Israel News)
After 52 years it is time for the United States to fully recognize Israel’s Sovereignty over the Golan Heights, which is of critical strategic and security importance to the State of Israel and Regional Stability!
Many are claiming this was a pre-election gift to Trump’s friend, Netanyahu, but it others see a much larger significance that transcends politics and enters into the realm of the Biblical. One such belief was expressed by Breaking Israel News publisher Rabbi Tuly Weisz, who noted that the announcement came on the Jewish holiday of Purim.
“The same days on which the Yehudim enjoyed relief from their foes and the same month which had been transformed for them from one of grief and mourning to one of festive joy. They were to observe them as days of feasting and merrymaking, and as an occasion for sending gifts to one another and presents to the poor.” Esther 9:22 (The Israel Bible™)
If there was ever a quintessentially Jewish holiday, it’s Purim, when the Jewish people were threatened by Haman, a descendant of Amalek, and saved by God’s hidden hand. Even so, we find examples of people from the Nations being inspired by the story of Purim and even gathering to mark the day alongside the Jewish people.
Protesters waving Turkish and Palestinian flags shout anti-Israel slogans during a demonstration in Amsterdam June 4, 2010. Israel’s raid of a Gaza-bound aid flotilla has set off a diplomatic furor, drawing criticism from friends and foes alike and straining ties with regional ally Turkey, which cal. (photo credit: REUTERS)
AMSTERDAM (JTA) — Demonstrators carrying Palestinian flags turned their backs on a Dutch chief rabbi during his eulogy at a vigil for Muslims killed in New Zealand.
The incident Sunday happened as Rabbi Binyomin Jacobs was discussing the meaning of a minute of silence at the gathering at the Dam Square World War II memorial monument. Thousands of people, many of them Muslims, gathered at the square to commemorate the 49 people slain Friday by a far-right killer at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand.
Hamas is now accusing the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Fatah of exploiting the economic crisis in the Gaza Strip to call on Palestinians to overthrow the Hamas regime. Fatah, for its part, is accusing the “dark forces” of Hamas of acting on orders from outside parties to establish a separate Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip.
The US administration says it will publish its long-awaited plan for peace in the Middle East, known as the “Deal of the Century,” after the general elections in Israel on April 9
There is a difference between an “honest broker” and a “neutral arbiter.” In advance of the rollout of its Middle East peace plan, the Trump administration has taken a series of steps to ensure its role as the honest broker. The U.S. is not “neutral” between our ally, Israel, and the Palestinians who seek to replace it. But it won’t be easy to change presumptions that are deeply embedded in the
When the FBI informs us that parents are ready to spend up to $6.5 million in bribes to get their children into prestige colleges, it seemingly implies that all is very, very well in the American university. But Warren Treadgold tells us that’s an illusion.
He’s a distinguished professor of Byzantine history at St. Louis University who has also taught at Berkeley, FIU, Hillsdale, Stanford, and UCLA. Having entered college in 1967, he draws on long experience to both indict and offer a remedy of the most thoroughly left-wing major institution in America. His book, The University We Need (Encounter, 2018) presents its case with insight and a light touch.
The threat posed by Hezbollah and Ali Musa Daqduq, a senior operative in Hezbollah, was unmasked by Israel on Wednesday.
Daqduq was responsible for the “abduction and execution of five American servicemen in Iraq in 2007,” the IDF said. The role of Hezbollah members in neighboring states is an illustration of how groups allied with Iran are continuing to build a web linking Tehran to Beirut via a “road to the sea” that transits Iraq and Syria.
According to the IDF, the role of Daqduq includes establishing terror cells in Iraq to fight the US in 2006, stints training in Lebanon in 2013-2018 and now putting down roots in Syria.
Every few weeks, some political or national figure demands a national conversation about race. (Most recently, Senator Kamala Harris insisted, “We have not had these honest discussions about race.”)
What does a conversation about race mean? Invariably, an indictment of the fundamental unfairness of our country, the historical roots of racism in white supremacy, and the national guilt of white people.
Or, to put it more simply, why Senator Kamala Harris deserves to be in the White House.
We don’t have national conversations about anti-Semitism because the problem can’t be narrowed down to an easily blamed demographic. The Democrats invariably try to blame anti-Semitism on the usual suspects, white male Republicans living more than two hundred miles from a Starbucks, but the largest toll of violent anti-Semitic attacks tend to fall on New York City’s black neighborhoods.