Two Swing State Polls Show Immigration Is on the Ballot in November

Two recently released polls show immigration is on the ballot and may be the deciding issue in the November presidential election. While American voters largely slept on this issue throughout the first three years of the Biden administration, they have received a rude awakening of late — but they could always again lose focus on the border as the election year heats up and the media offers other distractions.

One poll was conducted by Morning Consult for Bloomberg and the other by British opinion firm Redfield & Wilton Strategies (RWS) for the Telegraph (UK). The Morning Consult/Bloomberg poll involved 4,969 registered voters in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and it has a margin of error of +/- 1 percent. The RWS poll included 5,010 voters in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania, with no reported margin of error.

Morning Consult/Bloomberg. The first thing that sticks out in the Morning Consult/Bloomberg poll are two similar questions, one that asks respondents whether the economy is on the right track or wrong track nationally, and one that posits the same question locally.

Just 30 percent of those polled believed that the national economy is on the right track, but 43 percent thought the same about economic conditions in their own states. In other words, the rest of the country is going to hell in a handbasket in the minds of most voters, but in those seven swing states, things could be worse. Overall, though, the economic picture is grim.

Turning to the subject at hand, however, 58 percent of those swing-state voters stated that immigration would be “very important” when they cast their votes in November, and an additional 28 percent of respondents said that it would be “somewhat important”, for an overall importance of 86 percent.

While that’s insightful, a majority of voters polled stated that every issue they were asked about — the economy (96 percent important), infrastructure (81 percent important), housing (85 percent important), crime (91 percent important), climate change (64 percent important), education and schools (87 percent important), guns (79 percent important), abortion (76 percent important), senior services (89 percent important), etc. merited consideration at the ballot box, though there was an intensity gap among those issues.

Much more telling was the next question: “Asking this a different way, what is the single most important issue to you when deciding how to vote in the November 2024 election for U.S. president?”

As Bill Clinton advisor James Carville famously noted during the 1992 presidential campaign, “It’s the economy, stupid”, and not surprisingly, the “Ragin’ Cajun’s” sage advice still applies: Just over a third, 34 percent of swing-state voters, identified the economy as their most important issue come November.

That said, immigration came in second among voters’ key issues, at 15 percent. To underscore how important immigration is to the swing-state electorate, no other issue polled in the double digits, and third place was taken (again, not surprisingly) by abortion, tied with “democracy” at 9 percent.

Immigration is what I do for a living, but if you had told me two years ago that it would edge out abortion as a key voting issue in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, I would have questioned your sanity and/or your analysis. And yet, here we are.

Abortion is shaping up in the minds of many in the national media to be a big deal in the elections in Arizona, where an 1864 law banning the practice was recently given new life by the state’s Supreme Court. (The state House voted this week to repeal it.) And yet, in the Grand Canyon State, 23 percent of registered voters said that immigration was a more important electoral issue than abortion (12 percent).

In fact, immigration came close to edging out the economy among Arizona voters, 26 percent of whom identified the economy as their top issue. Of course, Arizona was the only battleground state on the border in the Morning Consult/Bloomberg poll.

Arizona voters were the most likely to identify immigration as a top issue, while Georgia voters (at 13 percent) were the least likely. That said, it was still the number two issue in the Peach Tree State, trailing only the economy (at 41 percent).

Here’s how the rest of the states lined up: Michigan (the economy 35 percent, immigration second at 14 percent); Nevada (the economy 34 percent, immigration second at 21 percent); North Carolina (the economy 33 percent, immigration second at 14 percent); Pennsylvania (the economy 33 percent, immigration second at 16 percent, but abortion a close third at 13 percent); and Wisconsin (the economy 30 percent, immigration second at 16 percent).

Overall, voters trusted Donald Trump over Joe Biden to handle immigration, by a 52 percent to 32 percent margin (16 percent didn’t trust either of them).

In Georgia, however, that was a 48 percent to 36 percent split, and in Pennsylvania it was 50 percent to 36 percent, while in Nevada it was 57 to 28. The rest of the states largely matched up with the national average on this Biden vs. Trump issue.

RWS. The RWS poll asked slightly different questions and received slightly different results. Unfortunately, its results are mostly graphs, but they still tell a similar tale.

In that one, “the cost of living” was the main concern on voters’ minds in the six states polled, with “the cost of healthcare” coming in second and “illegal immigration” taking third place.

Further, as RWS explains:

    immigration . . . continues to be a major problem area for the Biden Administration, [as] majorities of voters in Arizona (54%), Pennsylvania (54%), and Michigan (52%) disapprove of Joe Biden’s job performance, as do pluralities of voters in the other three states polled.

That’s a problem for the incumbent, because 60 percent of RWS respondents in Michigan, 63 percent of voters in Pennsylvania, and 71 percent of those polled in Arizona believe that the United States does not have control over its borders.

On the bright side for the incumbent, he’s only 16 points underwater with voters in Florida with respect to immigration (30 percent approve vs. 46 percent disapprove), whereas in Arizona he’s 27 percentage points in the red (27 percent approve vs. 54 percent disapprove).

Voters in all six states trust Trump more than Biden when it comes to immigration: Arizona — Biden 32 percent to Trump 52 percent; Florida — Biden 31 percent to Trump 52 percent; Georgia — Biden 33 percent to Trump 48 percent; Michigan — Biden 35 percent to Trump 47 percent; North Carolina — Biden 31 percent to Trump 48 percent; and Pennsylvania — Biden 36 percent to Trump 50 percent.

As an aside, Republicans should not sleep on the issue of abortion in Florida, where it is the second most important issue, slightly ahead of immigration but still trailing the economy by a wide margin, nor in my current home state of North Carolina, where there’s a similar trend.

Recent Interest in Immigration. That’s especially true given the fact that abortion has been an evergreen issue throughout my entire lifetime, whereas immigration has only been heating up of late, as voters have become aware (and increasingly concerned) about the chaos at the Southwest border in the last year.

As recently as March 2023, immigration was a third-place finisher when voters were asked to identify their most important issue in that month’s Harvard-Harris poll, at 23 percent, trailing inflation (35 percent) and the economy and jobs (28 percent).

When Harvard-Harris asked the same question one year later, immigration jumped to the top spot, the choice of 36 percent of respondents, ahead of inflation (33 percent) and the economy (23 percent).

A lot could happen between April and November, either distracting voters away from immigration and the border or alternatively directing their attention to those issues. The same is likely not as true among those for whom abortion is and always will be their key concern.

Given that Biden has the first and last word on immigration and the border (at least until January 20, 2025, at a minimum), however, the current president could bolster his electoral hopes by switching course and gaining a handle on illegal immigration — or at least giving the appearance that he has.

I expect that the appearance of gaining control is a lot more likely than the reality, which is why an objectively Biden-friendly media keeps talking about the prospect of him using his “executive” power to bring the border under control.

If there is such a White House move, expect it to be largely for show and linked to some sort of amnesty, like one for the illegal-alien spouses of U.S. citizens that I recently discussed. Should that come to pass, you can bank on the amnesty, but likely not any meaningful enforcement.

Anything can happen in the next six months, but for now it appears that immigration could well decide how voters in key swing states will cast their ballots, which in turn will determine which candidate — Joe Biden or Donald Trump — will be sworn in next January. And for now, that issue favors the 45th president, and his party.

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
    
http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
 
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

The White House Is Sticking With This Narrative on Border Security

The Biden White House has gone back and forth plenty of times teasing as to if the president will actually do anything when it comes to fixing the crisis at the southern border. Even though what negotiators in the Senate came up with was objectively a bad border bill killed almost three months ago now, the White House is still trying to bring back the idea of voting on and passing such a bill, rather than having Biden take executive action.

On Monday morning, POLITICO published an article highlighting how "Biden said he’d take another stab at a border bill — but nothing appears in the works." It already was a foolhardy idea, but the headline isn't doing the president any favors. "It was news to those involved in the first round of negotiations over the bill," the piece mentions early on.

The idea came after Congress passed a foreign aid package into law, which President Joe Biden signed on Wednesday. It passed the Senate last Tuesday, and had passed the House on the Saturday before that.

As the POLITICO piece mentions:

Talks around resuscitating the bipartisan border compromise that senators struck in February have been nonexistent in Washington. And despite the president’s proclamation, administration officials and immigration policy experts both say it’s highly unlikely any legislative momentum for border security materializes between now and November.

“They pulled a rabbit out of a hat on Ukraine, but there’s no chance they’re getting anything out of Mike Johnson’s House on border security,” said an immigration advocate familiar with the White House’s thinking, granted anonymity to discuss private conversations with administration officials. “They’ve known that since December, when they realized they had to count votes in the House. There’s no chance of legislation on this, and they know that. It’s rhetorical posturing.”

Biden’s comments last week underscored the administration’s desire to try and turn the politics of the border — long an albatross for Democrats — into something more advantageous. After former President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers tanked the compromise bill, the White House moved to put blame for the crisis at their feet. The president has openly weighed the possibility of taking executive action and, as he did upon signing the foreign aid bill, talked up the need to revisit the legislation.

“I proposed and negotiated and agreed to the strongest border security bill this country has ever, ever, ever seen,” he said last week, speaking about its exclusion from the foreign aid package. “It was bipartisan. It should have been included in this bill, and I’m determined to get it done for the American people.”

But, in reality, there’s been no behind-the-scenes jockeying from the White House to restart talks, in part because the White House believes that the migration crisis has temporarily stabilized, with illegal border crossings dipping again in March to 137,000.

That the White House actually "believes that the migration crisis has temporarily stabilized" shows how tone deaf they are on the immigration issue. Then again, at least they're transparent about how much they don't care. This is not a good luck for the president in an election year. In fact, polls continue to show that it's one of Biden's worst. RealClearPolling has him at a 32.5 percent approval rating on immigration, while 63.2 percent disapprove of his handling of this issue that is still top of mind for many voters.

As U.S. Customs and Border patrol shared earlier this month about the March numbers, "CBP had a total of 189,372 encounters along the southwest border in March 2024." It's still higher than the encounters during the Trump administration. A concerning takeaway from the March numbers, as Sarah covered at the time, is how the Biden administration has flown 404,000 illegal immigrants into the country thanks to the Humanitarian Parole Program for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans.

The Biden administration still holds the distinction for record high encounters, as they did in December 2023, a record which was set before the month was even over.

The March numbers were released on April 12. In the weeks before and that same week that those numbers were released, the Axios Vibes survey was conducted by The Harris Poll, as Leah covered last week. Those numbers are also not good for Biden.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/rebeccadowns/2024/04/29/the-white-house-is-back-to-this-narrative-on-border-security-n2638427

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
    
http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
 
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

6 Reasons Chinese Nationals Are Illegally Crossing California’s Southern Border

Chinese nationals are crossing America’s southern border at a rapid rate. On Wednesday alone, the U.S. Border Patrol encountered 206 Chinese nationals crossing into the San Diego sector, Fox News correspondent Bill Melugin reported.  

But the illegal entry of Chinese nationals into America through the Border Patrol’s San Diego sector isn’t new. Chinese individuals long have worked with criminal cartels to get into the U.S., former Border Patrol Chief Rodney Scott says, but the numbers have shot up.  

In January, U.S. Customs and Border Protection reported over 3,700 encounters with Chinese nationals on the southern border, nearly all in the San Diego sector.  

But back up to January 2021, when Joe Biden became president, and CBP encountered only 17 Chinese nationals at the southern border. So what changed?

To find out why so many Chinese nationals are crossing the U.S.-Mexico border in the San Diego sector, The Daily Signal spoke to Scott as well as to Derek Maltz, a 28-year veteran of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, and to Michael Cunningham, a research fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Asian Studies Center. (Heritage founded The Daily Signal in 2014.)

They point to six main reasons.

1. San Diego Infrastructure

“It’s easy,” Scott said of why San Diego is a favorite crossing point for illegal immigrants from China.

Before serving as the 24th chief of the Border Patrol from January 2020 to August 2021, Scott was chief patrol agent for the San Diego sector from 2017 to 2019.  

San Diego, population 1.4 million, long has been a popular illegal crossing point for illegal aliens because it’s easy to disappear on busy city streets, Scott explains.  

“If you’re coming across [the border] in between the ports of entry through traditional smuggling, we used to talk about a vanishing point,” Scott said. “How fast can you get across the border and then blend into society? That’s one of the reasons you look for [urban] infrastructure.”

San Diego is even more popular now for illegal aliens, given the situation at the border, because “it’s a lower risk,” he said.  

To cross into Texas from Mexico, “you’ve got to come across the river,” the former Border Patrol chief explained, adding that globally, smugglers and others seeking to enter the U.S. illegally have seen Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s response to illegal immigration.

In an initiative called Operation Lone Star, the Republican governor placed Texas National Guard troops along sections of the border with Mexico and installed concertina and razor wire, creating a greater challenge for migrants seeking to cross the border illegally.  

And in Arizona, the harsh realities of the desert are a turnoff for illegal aliens trying to cross into the U.S., Scott said. Although such conditions don’t prevent illegal crossings, he said, Arizona is “hot” and “desolate.”

Mexico’s border with California in the San Diego sector offers a safer, more comfortable crossing option, he said.  

A migrant can go to Tijuana, Mexico, “be in a hotel drinking coffee, watching TV, get the ‘go,’ and in 15 minutes [he] can be in the United States,” Scott said.

In 20 more minutes, he said, that same migrant can be getting processed inside a Border Patrol station with “air conditioning, food, and water.”  

When illegal aliens are released in San Diego, the city offers “this massive nongovernmental organizational network system that’s going to provide free bus tickets [and] shelter,” he said.  

California also is a sanctuary state, meaning it doesn’t cooperate with federal authorities to enforce immigration law.  

“From a marketing standpoint, it’s the easiest place to convince people to cross illegally,” Scott said of San Diego. “And then from a cartel perspective … that smuggling infrastructure has been well-established for years.”  

2. Money Motivates Cartels

Chinese migrants are “lucrative” to the drug and smuggling cartels in Mexico, Scott told The Daily Signal.

“It’s pretty hard to get out of China,” the former Border Patrol chief said. “Nobody just goes to an airport and flies to the United States without specific permission from the government, so you have to be smuggled out of China and then into the United States.”  

Chinese nationals buy “travel packages” from the cartels that are similar to commercial vacation travel packages, Scott said, and they pay based on what is included.  

For example, he said, one package for Chinese nationals requires them to travel to Ecuador and then on to Mexico.

“And when they came into Mexico, they got legit legal travel documents so that they could fly on domestic airlines in Mexico. But for a lower fee, you didn’t get that.”  

3. Because They Can

Established smuggling routes, urban or suburban infrastructure, and the cartels’ financial motivation long have driven illegal Chinese migration to the U.S. So again, why the spike now?  

“The difference now,” Scott said, “is there’s no real response from the federal government of the United States to slow it down. There hasn’t been since 2021.”

Biden, a Democrat, was inaugurated Jan. 20, 2021, and quickly dismantled the border security policies of his defeated Republican predecessor, Donald Trump.  

Now, with a Biden-Trump rematch looming in November, Scott speculated, migrants and smugglers are concerned that U.S. border security will return if Trump or another Republican wins. That may help explain the rapid rise in crossings in recent months.  

Illegal crossings in the San Diego sector by Chinese nationals were relatively few at the beginning of the Biden administration.

CBP records only 75 encounters with Chinese migrants in the San Diego sector during fiscal year 2021, which ended that Sept. 30. The number climbed to 942 in fiscal 2022, then exploded to 10,520 in fiscal 2023.  

So far in fiscal 2024, which ends in five months, CBP has encountered 23,890 Chinese nationals in the San Diego sector.  

Cunningham, the research fellow in Heritage’s Asian Studies Center, told The Daily Signal that Chinese nationals “see all over the news that the border is wide open, that Biden is not protecting the border.”

So the question, he says, is “why wouldn’t they” attempt to cross into the U.S.?  

4. ‘A Better Life’

“A lot of people are desperate to get out of China now,” Cunningham said.  

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Chinese citizens endured about three years of lockdowns and restrictions that dwarfed those in the U.S. These “draconian lockdowns” led many Chinese to lose faith in their communist government, he said.  

China’s older population lived through the Cultural Revolution from 1966 to 1976, if not previous repressive political campaigns, Cunningham said, before the regime implemented a strict “zero-COVID” policy.  

“They saw zero-COVID as what it was—a political campaign. And they’re worried about China’s future,” he said of ordinary Chinese citizens.

Chinese leader Xi Jinping gained an opportunity to rule the nation indefinitely when the communist regime ended formal presidential terms in 2018.  

China’s economy is struggling as young people try to find jobs, the nation’s real estate market is in trouble after the failure of two major property development companies this year, and its stock market saw a $7 trillion decline in just a few years.

“People for years have wanted to get their money out of China, and it’s very difficult because of capital controls,” Cunningham said. “Now more of them are just wanting to get out of China altogether for a better life.”  

5. Chinese Influence on America

Through its Belt and Road Initiative, China plans to develop trade routes with other nations, expand infrastructure, and invest in foreign economic development initiatives.  

With Chinese leaders’ end goal of expanding “their power and control dramatically,” Scott said, it is “not a hidden secret that they have long allowed and or even facilitated and helped getting people out of China into the U.S. through whatever means possible.”

The former Border Patrol chief pointed to reports that Chinese nationals are “systematically coming into the United States and buying property, buying foreign property, buying property near military bases,” as evidence that they are crossing the border intentionally.  

China owns 384,000 acres in the U.S., about 1% of foreign-held acres, according to a Department of Agriculture report in 2021, the latest data available.  

Although illegal immigrants could achieve some cultural and economic influence on America, Cunningham said, it’s unlikely that significant numbers of Chinese nationals cross the southern border with the intent of spying on the U.S.  

Legal ways to enter the U.S., he said, provide greater opportunity for Chinese spies to access sensitive U.S. data than an illegal alien could get at.  

“The idea that China is desperate to get their spies in the U.S. and so they’re sending them across the border illegally where they’re going to have no identity, they’re not going to be capable of getting the high-access jobs that they want their spies to get—it’s just not reasonable,” Cunningham said.   

But, he added, it’s reasonable to believe that Chinese spies are infiltrated within criminal cartels and are “keeping tabs on some of the Chinese who are coming to America.”  

6. Marijuana Farms  

The Chinese are heavily involved in the domestic growth of marijuana in America, both legal and illegal, federal officials say.

In February, 50 members of the House and Senate sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland expressing concern about and asking for answers to “reports from across the country regarding Chinese nationals and organized crime cultivating marijuana on United States farmland.”

“There’s a new term that’s been used a lot lately in local law enforcement—especially [in] Northern California [and] the inland parts of California—called narco slavery,” Scott told The Daily Signal. “And they’re seeing more and more Chinese that are being brought across and they’re being forced to work these domestic marijuana grows; they’re being forced to shovel money around the United States to pay back the smuggling fee that they couldn’t afford up front.”

Chinese-run marijuana grow operations “are all over the country,” Maltz, the former DEA official, told The Daily Signal.  

This isn’t a coincidence, he said.

“The marijuana today has high content of THC, much higher than we’ve ever seen,” Maltz said.  

THC, formally known as tetrahydrocannabinol, is a psychoactive compound found in cannabinoids. Large amounts increase the effects of marijuana on the user.  

“Marijuana use directly affects brain function—specifically the parts of the brain responsible for memory, learning, attention, decision-making, coordination, emotions, and reaction time,” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  

Cannabis products have been legalized for medical use in 38 states and legalized for nonmedical use in 24 states.

The increased levels of THC in marijuana are “causing issues with the brain more than we’ve ever seen,” said Maltz, who also was in charge of the Justice Department’s Special Operations Division for nearly 10 years.  

“Very smart Chinese Communist Party leaders understand this is another way we could take advantage of America’s addiction to marijuana, and dumb Americans will never figure it out,” he said

https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/04/28/6-reasons-chinese-nationals-illegally-crossing-californias-southern-border/

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
    
http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
 
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

These States Are Making It Illegal for Illegal Immigrants to Enter

Conservative states across the country—Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, Tennessee, Georgia, and Oklahoma—are taking border security matters into their own hands, proposing or passing legislation targeting illegal immigration.

The Oklahoma legislature just passed a bill designed to prohibit illegal immigrants from entering or living in the state.

HB 4156 states: “A person commits an impermissible occupation if the person is an alien and willfully and without permission enters and remains in the State of Oklahoma without having first obtained legal authorization to enter the United States.”

The bill passed the state House and Senate by wide margins and Gov. Kevin Stitt, a Republican, is expected to sign it into law.

The legislature declared the issue a crisis in the state and stated in the bill: “Throughout the state, law enforcement comes into daily and increasingly frequent contact with foreign nationals who entered the country illegally or who remain here illegally.

“Often, these persons are involved with organized crime such as drug cartels, they have no regard for Oklahoma’s laws or public safety, and they produce or are involved with fentanyl distribution, sex trafficking, and labor trafficking.”

Under the new law, a conviction related to “impermissible occupation” would be considered a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in a county jail, a fine of up to $500, or both.

Subsequent offenses are felonies, punishable by up to two years in prison, a fine of up to $1,000, or both.

Illegal immigrants who are barred from the country or have been issued a removal order by an immigration judge, and then enter Oklahoma will face a felony charge carrying a possible sentence of up to two years in prison, a fine of up to $1,000, or both.

In all instances, those found guilty must leave Oklahoma within 72 hours of being convicted or released from custody.

The law requires police to collect fingerprints, photographs, and biometric data, which will be cross-checked with Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation databases.

“The failure of the federal government to address this issue … has turned every state into a border state,” said bill sponsor state Rep. Charles Mr. McCall said in a statement.

“Those who want to work through the process of coming to our country legally are more than welcome to come to Oklahoma; we would love to have them here. We will not reward [illegal immigration] in Oklahoma, and we will protect our state borders.”

U.S. border authorities have apprehended more than 9 million illegal immigrants nationwide under President Joe Biden, according to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data.
Under the administration’s catch-and-release policy, many have been released into the United States and have taken up residence all over the country.

Texas’ law, Senate Bill 4, makes it a state crime to enter Texas outside legal ports of entry.

The new law was set to go into effect in March, but has been blocked and is currently tied up in the courts.

New Iowa, Tennessee, and Georgia Laws

Earlier this month, Iowa’s Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds signed Senate File 2340 into law.

The new law, which goes into effect July 1, makes it a misdemeanor to be in the state or attempt to enter the state after being deported, denied admission to the United States, or if an individual has an outstanding deportation order.

Being in the state illegally becomes a felony under certain circumstances such as the accused having two or more misdemeanor convictions involving drugs or crimes against a person.

As with the Texas law, it gives judges the discretion to drop the charges if the illegal immigrant agrees to return to the country from which he or she entered the United States.

“Those who come into our country illegally have broken the law, yet Biden refuses to deport them,” Ms. Reynolds stated in a news release.

“This bill gives Iowa law enforcement the power to do what he is unwilling to do: enforce immigration laws already on the books.”

Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee signed a new law this month that requires law enforcement agencies to communicate with federal immigration authorities if they discover people are in the country illegally, requiring in most cases cooperation in the process of identifying, catching, detaining, and deporting them.

The law takes effect July 1.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/these-states-are-making-it-illegal-for-illegal-immigrants-to-enter-5625344

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

Australia: Conservative commentator slams PM over major problem with immigration after country reached worrying milestone

 Sky News commentator Peta Credlin has taken aim at Anthony Albanese after a record number of immigrants were welcomed into Australia in just one month.

More than 100,000 immigrants came to Australia in February, after 765,900 arrived throughout last year, another all-time record.

The massive influx has raised fears it will strain the crippled housing and rental markets with new housing proposals being accepted at the lowest rate in 11 years.

This is despite the Albanese Government promising to bring immigration down to 300,000-per-year and build 250,000 homes.

Credlin said the inaction was also abetting social disharmony.

Ms Credlin, in her weekly column, said successive governments have 'increasingly sent signals to migrants that the culture of the country they’re coming to is built on a history of shame, illegitimacy, and racism'.

'Is it any wonder that some migrant communities become reluctant to integrate or insistent that Australia must change to accommodate their preferences, when weak officialdom will only fly our national flag apologetically, in company with two other flags representing people with a particular racial heritage?' she wrote.

'Or when our civic culture now seems to revolve around indigenous ancestor worship while denigrating the Judaeo-Christian basis of our fundamental institutions like the rule of law.'

She added that it is 'hardly the fault of immigrants' who chose to come to Australia, but that of governments who failed to 'insist on (them) joining Team Australia'.

'It’s way past time for governments at every level to start stressing unity over diversity, to rebuild a patriotic love of Australia, rather than to preside over the diminution of our national symbols, like Australia Day,' she wrote.

Credlin claimed the 100,000 migrants who came to Australia was 'significant'.

She compared the figure to the Howard government era where 110,000 migrants came on average every year during that period.  

'It’s no secret then, why housing is unaffordable, wages are flat, and roads and public transport are clogged because that’s just what happens when you don’t have a population policy and instead, use migration as a way to make the budget bottom line look better than it really is,' she wrote.

Institute of Public Affairs deputy executive director Daniel Wild said high immigration rates with few properties being built is a recipe for a housing crisis.

'The data proves that the federal government’s unplanned mass migration program is unsustainable,' he said.

'It actively undermines Australians who are struggling to find a home as increasing demand and a lack of supply is pricing them out of the market.'

Australia's median capital city house price of $956,782, based on CoreLogic data, is well beyond the reach of an average, full-time worker on $98,218.

That's because banks are only able to lend 5.2 times their salary to someone with a steady job and a 20 per cent mortgage deposit.

The average wage would only be enough to buy a $639,000 home, which in greater Sydney would only buy a unit or a house 100km away from the city centre.

Renters are also suffering with 175,960 international student arriving in February, adding to competition for somewhere to live.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13332121/Anthony-Albanese-immigration-milestone.html

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
    
http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
 
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

UK: Rwanda flights to go ahead as asylum policy finally passes into law in boost for Rishi Sunak

Parliament has finally passed Rishi Sunak’s “emergency” Rwanda bill but the controversial legislation is set to run into legal challenges that could still delay flights.

Mr Sunak has said that the first flight would take off in 10-12 weeks and regular trips will take place over the Summer “until the boats are stopped.”

His plan was finally given the green light on Monday evening after peers in the House of Lords gave up their fight with MPs over amending the legislation.

Lords had been trying to force the government to exempt Afghans who supported British troops overseas from being deported to Rwanda. They had also pushed an amendment that would have made sure the terms of the UK’s treaty with Rwanda were met and that it was assessed to be a safe country before flights took off.

However the government refused to cave to pressure and didn’t include the changes to the bill. Mr Sunak had already paid £240m to Rwanda by the end of 2023, and spending watchdog the National Audit Office says that the total cost of the plan will be at least £370m over five years.

Labour peers didn’t press the Afghan amendment on Monday night after Home Office minister Lord Sharpe said they would not deport members of Afghan special forces units who had been given the right to live and work in the UK by the Ministry of Defence. But they did vote in favour once for the amendment on assessing the safety of Rwanda.

Home Office minister Michael Tomlinson told the Lords that their final amendment was “not necessary”, adding: “These amendments have already been rejected, enough is enough.”

Labour’s shadow immigration minister Stephen Kinncok said it was “staggering” that the government refused to concede on the clause ensuring the safety of Rwanda. He added: “This is a post-truth bill. You cannot possibly legislate for something which is in the lap of the gods”.

SNP MP Alison Thewliss criticised Labour peers for not pushing the flights exemption for Afghans who supported British troops. She told MPs: “If they think this is some kind of concession I’ve got some magic beans to sell them.”

Despite the bill finally passing through parliament, it will likely face additional legal hurdles before flights actually take off.

Charities and unions will now see whether they can bring any legal challenges to the bill itself. One union, the FDA, is considering a challenge over the whether civil servants would have to ignore their professional code to follow minister’s instructions to ignore directions from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

Refugee charities will support asylum seekers who are chosen to go on the first flights to challenge their deportation. Although the courts will not be able to consider whether Rwanda is safe, they may be able to consider how a Rwanda deportation would affect each asylum seeker personally - for example if the asylum seeker is a victim of trafficking, or is LGBTQ+.

If they are unable to find a hearing in the UK courts, cases could go all the way to the ECHR - with Strasbourg judges ruling whether deportation is lawful. Mr Sunak has already said he will ignore a ruling from the ECHR and press ahead anyway.

The prime minister said in a press conference on Monday that the government had already booked commercial charter planes for specific slots to remove asylum seekers to Rwanda. He said some 500 escorts had already been trained for the job of removing people, and there were 2,200 spaces in detention ready.

Mr Sunak, who has made stopping the boats one of his five key pledges, was left scrambling to save his flagship plan after the Supreme Court ruled it unlawful late last year.

In a damning judgement, the highest court in the land found that there was a real risk asylum seekers sent to Rwanda could be returned to their home countries to face “persecution or other inhumane treatment”.

In response, Mr Sunak pledged new “emergency” legislation to get flights in the air.

But a public call for parliament not to thwart his plans backfired as the government was defeated again and again in the House of Lords, leading to months of bitter wrangling.

Labour’s Mr Kinnock called the bill “deeply damaging” to the UK and said it was “unconscionable” that Britain might now send brave Afghans who fought alongside UK armed forces to Rwanda.

Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said the Rwanda scheme was “an extortionate gimmick”. She added: “The prime minister knows this scheme won’t work, that’s why he tried to cancel it when he was Chancellor, and why even now he won’t say how many people will be on the token flights.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rwanda-bill-vote-lords-flights-sunak-scheme-b2530395.html

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
    
http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
 
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

Latest ICE Detainee Death Exploited by Anti-Detention Crowd Raises Questions for ICE and Activists

The anti-ICE crowd has found its latest detainee death to dramatize and use as an excuse for ending detention, and this time it’s a mentally ill, convicted murderer who overstayed a tourist visa nearly 24 years ago. Though the anti-detention activists are vocal, they fail to offer any serious recommendations about how ICE could or should have handled the situation differently. As usual, media have parroted activist talking points without asking questions that might offer better insight into exactly what transpired. Some of those questions are presented here.

The full ICE detainee death report is available online, but a summary and additional questions are as follows. Detainee Charles Leo Daniel, citizen of Trinidad and Tobago, entered the United States in Miami in 2000 and overstayed a tourist visa. The first questions: Why wasn’t he prevented from entry as a potential visa overstayer in the first place? Why wasn’t he immediately deported after overstaying, and what resources are needed to make quick removals of visa overstayers a reality? Undoubtedly this would require better screening upfront, including by the State Department's consular officers, and increased resources for ICE in order to remove visa overstayers, who make up a large portion of the nation’s illegal-alien population. But the anti-ICE crowd complaining about the death of Daniel is not asking for any of this, despite the fact that it might have prevented the death of Daniel’s victim and, in the logic of the anti-ICE activists, Daniel’s own death in an ICE detention facility.

By 2003, Daniel was in Seattle and murdered reggae musician Ras Bongo, stabbing him to death with a 14-inch kitchen knife. Media then called Daniel a "transient" instead of an "illegal alien", perhaps because media never thought to inquire about who this transient was, or perhaps because DHS wasn’t being proactive in defending the importance of immigration enforcement. Daniel had lived for a bit in Arizona and California before making his way to Seattle, according to media reports. Daniel’s victim was described as “a Rastafarian and a loving soul who was a ubiquitous presence in Seattle's small Jamaican-music scene”. The anti-detention activists embracing next to their memorial for Daniel don’t seem to have shed any tears for the murdered musician.

In March 2020, amid the outbreak of the pandemic, Daniel was transferred to ICE custody at the Northwest ICE Processing Center in Tacoma, after having served most of his prison sentence. Removal to his home country was likely complicated by the pandemic, but ICE was undoubtedly arranging for travel documents. Media and activists troubled by Daniel’s long detention that lasted from his book-in to his recent death should be asking the following question: What efforts was ICE making for removal, and was Trinidad and Tobago being cooperative? For many reasons, it’s ideal for detention to be as short-term as possible, and illegal aliens should be quickly returned home.

U.S. taxpayers spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year on detainee health care, and Daniel was a beneficiary, though he refused much of recommended treatment. Upon entry to the detention facility, Daniel received a full medical screening and was diagnosed with stage two hypertension. He was on an antidepressant, had elevated blood pressure, and leg swelling, but refused any medications or blood tests.

Between April 2020 and October 2023, medical staff monitored Daniel’s blood pressure when he consented, ordered medications to treat his hypertension, ordered laboratory testing, scheduled chronic care follow-up appointments, and educated him on a healthy lifestyle and the risks of untreated hypertension. However, Daniel repeatedly refused medical services and medication in over 60 medical consent refusal forms. Medical staff ordered Daniel compression stockings for edema in both legs, but he refused to wear them. Here’s a question for the anti-ICE, anti-detention crowd: What would they have ICE do when a criminal alien refuses medical treatment? Should it be forced upon him? This is a serious question that media reporting on detainee deaths like this should ask of the anti-ICE activists they quote.

Daniel reported hearing voices with visual hallucinations, and had delusions of “being electronically harassed, and people putting spirits on him” according to ICE’s detainee death report. He also had a history of marijuana, cocaine, and alcohol use. A psychiatrist evaluated Daniel, documented a history of delusional disorder, and treated him with risperidone (an antipsychotic medicine) for a short period of time, which Daniel quickly refused. A psychiatrist evaluated Daniel monthly and in September 2021, a psychiatrist canceled future appointments due to his repeated medication refusals. Another question for the anti-detention crowd: What would they prefer happens in this situation? Are they demanding that a mentally ill, convicted murderer, illegal alien be released back into the community?

A central complaint being made by activists is that Daniel was in segregation housing for most of his time in ICE detention. It turns out that Daniel was the one who requested it, and medical and behavioral health staff continued to closely monitor him there. Another question for the anti-detention crowd that the media didn’t ask: Do they believe that ICE should refuse a detainee’s request for segregation housing? Do they believe a mentally unsound individual should not be separated from other detainees? What about the safety of other detainees? It may be that Daniel was rational enough to understand that he was a threat to other detainees and considered this to be a way to protect others.

An advanced practice provider gave Daniel an exam and ordered an ultrasound of the neck (result: presumptive thyroglossal duct cyst) and left leg (negative for blood clots), a computed tomography scan of the neck (result: large neck cystic lesion), chronic care labs (all normal except elevated kidney enzymes and prostate antigen), ear drops, and compression stockings, and noted Daniel’s refusal for hypertension treatment. He was also given a referral to an ENT, but refused consultation.

A behavioral health provider completed daily evaluations for Daniel in lieu of previous weekly evaluations because of his significant mental illness classification and segregated housing.

On the day of his death, March 7, 2024, “he presented as smiling, pleasant and non-distressed, [and] denied any suicidal ideations” as of 10:05 a.m. At 10:34 a.m. he was discovered laying on the ground, without a pulse or breathing, and staff immediately began chest compressions and called 911 for emergency medical services (EMS). The EMS was unable to resuscitate Daniel.

Some questions for ICE that media should be asking: Though removal was likely difficult during the first year of the pandemic, why did the Biden administration continue to detain Daniel for years? Was Daniel actively fighting his removal? Were immigration attorneys encouraging him to remain in detention instead of returning home? If so, who are the attorneys and do they have some responsibility here? It seems the media should seek a quote from them if immigration attorneys are involved. Did Daniel actually know that he had the opportunity to be deported home, or was he under the impression that he had to remain in detention? Does ICE need to do a better job informing detainees of their right to return to their country of origin?

Was Trinidad and Tobago cooperating with removal efforts or not? If not, has the Biden administration made sufficient efforts in obtaining travel documents from recalcitrant countries? ICE made a lot of progress in using 243(d) visa sanctions against uncooperative countries, but there doesn’t seem to be any discussion of this effort under the Biden administration. Is a lack of focus on recalcitrant countries by the Biden administration partially to blame for Daniel’s long-term detention?

These are some of the basic questions that the Seattle Times and other news outlets should be asking instead of trying to discredit ICE detention professionals and medical staff, who clearly provided a significant amount of medical care to a dangerous and ill individual who had no right to be in the United States.

https://cis.org/Feere/Latest-ICE-Detainee-Death-Exploited-AntiDetention-Crowd-Raises-Questions-ICE-and-Activists

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
    
http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
 
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************