Nick Givas | Media And Politics Reporter

Michigan’s newly elected Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer canceled plans for an immigration detention center, prompting Republican State Rep. Thomas Albert to speak out on “Fox & Friends.”

“This deal had been under works for well over a year. This former prison facility has sat vacant for over a decade now,” Albert said Tuesday. (RELATED: Private Immigration Detention Center Says It Has Already Fixed Problems Identified In Watchdog Report)

“Immigration Centers of America came in and said hey, we’ll invest tens of millions of dollars to fix it up. We’re going to bring at least 250 really good paying jobs to your community. And you know, Gov. Whitmer came in and just with a heavy hand just killed the deal. It’s actually pretty devastating to my community.”


Albert said the facility should not be looked at as a prison so much as a “center” to hold illegal immigrants while their cases are being sorted out.

“Essentially it would hold illegal immigrants. You know, it’s not Shawshank Redemption,” he said. “This is, it’s a center that would be holding people who are, from my understanding more of civil infraction. So they’re not criminals. They’re really just being held until they can get their hearing and that’s what this center would do.”

Albert also claimed Whitmer demanded that anyone who claimed they were being separated from their families would be granted release from the facility.

“I wish some people in the media would look into what her stipulations were. So this deal had been in the works. She added some conditions to the development agreement. Some of them were reasonable,” he continued. “But one in particular basically said, if I could boil it down was if anybody claims or alleges that they’re being separated from a family, they’d have to be let go. And, of course nobody could comply with that. So it literally just torpedoed the deal.”

You can Follow Nick on Twitter

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact

Source: The Daily Caller

Graves desecrated with swastikas are seen in the Jewish cemetery in Quatzenheim
Graves desecrated with swastikas are seen in the Jewish cemetery in Quatzenheim, near Strasbourg, France, February 19, 2019. REUTERS/Vincent Kessler

February 19, 2019

By Luke Baker

PARIS (Reuters) – A series of attacks across France in recent days has alarmed politicians and prompted calls for action against what some commentators describe as a new form of anti-Semitism among the far-left and Islamist preachers.

The problem was starkly underlined on Tuesday with the discovery of more than 90 graves in a Jewish cemetery in eastern France desecrated with swastikas and other abuse. It remains unclear who carried out the attack.

“Whoever did this is not worthy of the French republic and will be punished,” declared President Emmanuel Macron as he paid homage at the site. “We’ll take action, we’ll apply the law and we’ll punish them.”

Politicians from across the spectrum will join marches against anti-Semitism across France on Tuesday evening, including in Paris. Macron will visit the Holocaust memorial in the city, together with the heads of parliament.

France is home to the largest Jewish community in Europe, around 550,000 people, a population that has grown by about half since World War Two. But anti-Semitic attacks remain common, with more than 500 alone in 2018, a 74 percent increase on 2017, according to figures released last week.

Almost every day over the past two weeks there has been new evidence of anti-Semitism.

A tree in memory of Ilan Halimi, a young Jewish man kidnapped, tortured and murdered in 2006, was cut in two. A bagel shop in Paris was spray-painted with the word “Juden”, German for Jews, in yellow letters. Portraits of Simone Veil, a Holocaust survivor and magistrate, were defaced with swastikas.

Then last Saturday, a group of around 30 ‘yellow vest’ protesters were filmed harassing Alain Finkielkraut, a well-known writer and son of a Holocaust survivor, as he walked through a Paris neighborhood, calling him a “dirty Zionist shit” and telling him to “go back to Tel Aviv”.


Some commentators have blamed the resurgence on unchecked incitement by fringe Islamist preachers, calling it a new form of anti-Semitism, as opposed to that most commonly associated with Nazi ideology and the far-right.

Others point to the increasingly virulent criticism of Israel coming from the far-left and the rise of anti-Zionism – opposition to the existence of Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people – which has morphed into hatred of the Jews.

Among those filmed hurling abuse at Finkielkraut was a Muslim on a watchlist, according to French officials.

Francis Kalifat, the head of Crif, an umbrella organization representing France’s Jewish community, said anti-Zionism needed to be regarded as akin to anti-Semitism.

“If you want to have an effective fight against anti-Semitism, you need to be able to fight against all forms of it,” he said. “It’s not enough to fight against the (anti-Semitism) of the extreme right, or that of the extreme left or the Islamists. We need to fight against all forms, and that’s what we’re waiting for from political leaders.”

The leader of France’s far-left, Jean-Luc Melenchon, defended the ‘yellow vest’ movement against accusations of anti-Semitism on Tuesday, following the video targeting Finkielkraut.

Melenchon, whose La France Insoumise party draws support from the ‘yellow vests’, criticized the “politicization” of anti-Semitism, saying people from across the political spectrum needed to stand against all forms of racism and hatred.

“No, the ‘yellow vest’ movement does not deserve to be tarred by these despicable acts,” he said.

“No, the ‘yellow vest’ movement is not a racist movement, no the ‘yellow vest’ movement is not an anti-Semitic movement.”

France’s parliament on Tuesday debated whether anti-Zionism should be classified as a form of anti-Semitism, a position President Emmanuel Macron said he was opposed to.

“Those who today want the disappearance of Israel are those who want to attack the Jews,” he said. “But nevertheless, I think that when you delve into the detail, a penal condemnation of anti-Zionism creates other problems.”

Amid the rash of attacks, Israel’s immigration minister sent a tweet calling on French Jews to leave France and move to Israel, where around 200,000 French Jews already live.

(Additional reporting by Richard Lough and Johnny Cotton in Paris; Editing by Janet Lawrence)

Source: OANN

Saagar Enjeti | White House Correspondent

President Donald Trump’s prediction that he would be sued in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals jurisdiction for declaring a national emergency at the southern border now seems well on its way to coming to fruition.

Trump delivered a singsong rendition of what he expected to happen in his Friday Rose Garden announcement, saying, “We will have a national emergency, and then we will then be sued, and they will sue us in the 9th Circuit, even though it shouldn’t be there. And we will possibly get a bad ruling, and then we’ll get another bad ruling. And then we’ll end up in the Supreme Court, and hopefully, we’ll get a fair shake.”

Trump’s dark humor quickly became reality Monday evening when 16 states sued the president over the national emergency declaration. The suit was organized by the State of California and filed in the Federal District Court in San Francisco, which appeals to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Other states that joined the lawsuit include Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon and Virginia.

“Contrary to the will of Congress, the president has used the pretext of a manufactured ‘crisis’ of unlawful immigration to declare a national emergency and redirect federal dollars appropriated for drug interdiction, military construction and law enforcement initiatives toward building a wall on the United States-Mexico border,” the lawsuit declares.

EL PASO, TEXAS – FEBRUARY 12: People work on the U.S./ Mexican border wall on February 12, 2019 in El Paso, Texas. U.S. President Donald Trump visited the border city yesterday as he continues to campaign for more wall to be built along the border. Democrats in Congress are asking for other additional border security measures. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

The lawsuit follows Trump’s political defeat in Congress when he was only able to secure $1.375 billion in funding for his proposed border wall. The president long requested $5.7 billion in wall funding and instead will tape funds available to him under his executive powers.

These funds include $600 million available to him as a result of asset forfeiture, appropriate funding under his authority to interdict drug corridors; it also includes use military construction funds available to him under his authority as commander-in-chief. (RELATED: Trump Will Sign Border Bill, Declare National Emergency)

White House officials long feared the lengthy court process which could enjoin court battles over a national emergency declaration. One official pointed out to The Daily Caller that the court battle over the travel ban took nearly one year to process its way through the courts even though the administration was ultimately vindicated.

Officials fear that border wall funding will be held in legal limbo as the 2020 presidential election draws closer and closer.

Source: The Daily Caller

Graves desecrated with swastikas are seen in the Jewish cemetery in Quatzenheim
Graves desecrated with swastikas are seen in the Jewish cemetery in Quatzenheim, near Strasbourg, France, February 19, 2019. REUTERS/Vincent Kessler

February 19, 2019

STRASBOURG, France (Reuters) – Vandals have daubed swastikas and anti-Semitic slogans on around 90 graves in a Jewish cemetery in eastern France, local officials said on Tuesday, shortly before planned marches nationwide against a surge in anti-Semitic attacks.

French President Emmanuel Macron visited the cemetery on Tuesday in the village of Quatzenheim, near the city of Strasbourg, following the overnight desecration, walking through a gate scarred with a swastika as he entered the graveyard.

“It’s important for me to be here with you today,” a solemn looking Macron told local leaders and members of the Jewish community after paying respects at one of the desecrated graves.

“Whoever did this is not worthy of the French republic and will be punished… We’ll take action, we’ll apply the law and we’ll punish them,” he said.

Many French political leaders are due to join Tuesday evening’s march in Paris against anti-Semitism. Macron will visit the national Holocaust memorial with the heads of the Senate and National Assembly.

Figures released last week showed there were more than 500 anti-Semitic attacks in France in 2018, a 74 percent increase from 2017.

Among incidents in recent days, ‘yellow vest’ protesters were filmed hurling abuse on Saturday at Alain Finkielkraut, a well-known Jewish writer and son of a Holocaust survivor.

France is home to the biggest Jewish community in Europe — around 550,000 — a population that has grown by about half since World War Two, but anti-Semitic attacks remain common.

A rabbi and three children were killed at a Jewish school in Toulouse in 2012 by an Islamist gunman, and in 2015 four Jews at a kosher supermarket in Paris were among 17 people killed by Islamist militants. In 2006, 23-year-old Ilan Halimi was kidnapped, tortured and murdered by an anti-Semitic gang.

This month, artwork on two Paris post boxes showing the image of Simone Veil, a Holocaust survivor and former magistrate, was defaced with swastikas, while a bagel shop was sprayed with the word “Juden”, German for Jews, in yellow letters.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a statement in response to the cemetery attack.

“I call on all French and European leaders to take a strong stand against anti-Semitism,” he said in a video message recorded in Hebrew. “It is an epidemic that endangers everyone, not just us, and it must be condemned everywhere and every time it rears its head.”

His immigration minister, Yoav Galant, sent a tweet calling on French Jews to quit France and “come home” to Israel, where around 200,000 French Jews already live.

(Additional reporting by Mayaan Lubell in Jerusalem; Writing by Luke Baker; Editing by Gareth Jones)

Source: OANN

FILE PHOTO: Syrian refugees sit and listen during a news conference by U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi at the Al Zaatari refugee camp in Jordan
FILE PHOTO: Syrian refugees sit and listen during a news conference by U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi at the Al Zaatari refugee camp in Jordan, February 12, 2018. REUTERS/Muhammad Hamed/File Photo

February 19, 2019

GENEVA (Reuters) – Less than five per cent of refugees in need of resettlement in Western countries found new homes last year, the United Nations said, as the United States scaled back its acceptance of displaced people under President Donald Trump.

The United States took in 17,113 resettled refugees in 2018, leading 27 countries who resettled a total of 55,692 refugees under programs run by the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, the UNHCR said on Tuesday.

But that was down from Washington’s acceptance of 24,559 resettled refugees in 2017, Trump’s first year in office, and 78,761 in 2016, the last full year of the Obama administration, UNHCR figures show.

The overall total of resettled refugees last year was 10,000 fewer than in 2017 and less than half of the 126,291 in 2016.

Canada was the second highest receiving country last year with 7,713 resettled refugees, followed by Britain (5,702), France (5,109) and Sweden (4,861).

“Despite record levels of worldwide forced displacement, just 4.7 per cent of global refugee resettlement needs were met in 2018,” UNHCR spokeswoman Shabia Mantoo told a news briefing.

Syrian refugees living in countries across the Middle East and Turkey accounted for 28,174, or more than one-third of the total 81,310 refugees referred by UNHCR to resettlement countries last year for consideration, said Mantoo.

Refugees from the Democratic Republic of Congo, Eritrea and Afghanistan followed, many of them having fled violence and torture, she said.

“Resettlement remains a life-saving tool to ensure the protection of those most at risk,” Mantoo said. It was also a

“a tangible mechanism for governments and communities across the world to share responsibility”.

The Trump administration has been less willing to take in refugees and migrants. On Feb. 15, Trump declared a national emergency in a bid to fund his promised wall at the U.S.-Mexico border without congressional approval. Trump says he wants to honor a 2016 campaign pledge to curtail illegal immigration, but his opponents quickly filed lawsuits against his move.

(Reporting by Stephanie Nebehay; Editing by Mark Heinrich)

Source: OANN

A view shows a new section of the border fence in El Paso, Texas, U.S., as seen from Ciudad Juarez
A view shows a new section of the border fence in El Paso, Texas, U.S., as seen from Ciudad Juarez, Mexico February 15, 2019. REUTERS/Jose Luis Gonzalez

February 19, 2019

By Jeff Mason and Sarah N. Lynch

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A coalition of 16 U.S. states led by California sued President Donald Trump and top members of his administration on Monday to block his decision to declare a national emergency to obtain funds for building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California came after Trump invoked emergency powers on Friday to help build the wall that was his signature 2016 campaign promise.

Trump’s order would allow him to spend on the wall money that Congress appropriated for other purposes. Congress declined to fulfill his request for $5.7 billion to help build the wall this year..

“Today, on Presidents Day, we take President Trump to court to block his misuse of presidential power,” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement.

“We’re suing President Trump to stop him from unilaterally robbing taxpayer funds lawfully set aside by Congress for the people of our states. For most of us, the office of the presidency is not a place for theater,” added Becerra, a Democrat.

The White House declined to comment on the filing.

In a budget deal passed by Congress to avert a second government shutdown, nearly $1.4 billion was allocated toward border fencing. Trump’s emergency order would give him an additional $6.7 billion beyond what lawmakers authorized.

Three Texas landowners and an environmental group filed the first lawsuit against Trump’s move on Friday, saying it violated the Constitution and would infringe on their property rights.

The legal challenges could slow Trump’s efforts to build the wall, which he says is needed to curb illegal immigration and drug trafficking. The lawsuits could end up at the conservative-leaning U.S. Supreme Court.

Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Virginia, and Michigan joined California in the lawsuit.

The states said Trump’s order would cause them to lose millions of dollars in federal funding for national guard units dealing with counter-drug activities and redirection of funds from authorized military construction projects would damage their economies.

In television interviews on Sunday and Monday, Becerra said the lawsuit would use Trump’s own words against him as evidence that there was no national emergency to declare.

Trump said on Friday he did not need to make the emergency declaration but wanted to speed the process of building the wall. That comment could undercut the government’s legal argument.

“By the president’s own admission, an emergency declaration is not necessary,” the states said in the lawsuit. “The federal government’s own data prove there is no national emergency at the southern border that warrants construction of a wall.”

(Reporting by Jeff Mason and Sarah N. Lynch; Editing by Clarence Fernandez)

Source: OANN

FILE PHOTO: Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon listens to Plaid Cymru's leader Adam Price speak at the Scottish National Party's party's conference in Glasgow, Scotland
FILE PHOTO: Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon listens to Plaid Cymru’s leader Adam Price speak at the Scottish National Party’s party’s conference in Glasgow, Scotland, Britain October 8, 2018. REUTERS/Russell Cheyne/File Photo

February 19, 2019

By Elisabeth O’Leary

EDINBURGH (Reuters) – Scotland will step up efforts to persuade EU citizens to stay after Brexit, its First Minister will tell French lawmakers on Tuesday, amid concerns about potential workforce shortages in the largest of the United Kingdom’s three smaller nations.

Nicola Sturgeon, who supports Scottish independence from the United Kingdom, will tell French lawmakers that Britain’s proposals for its exit from the European Union and limitations on freedom of movement will damage Scotland’s economy more than Britain as a whole.

Small business and tourism associations have warned of labor shortages already occurring for remote, low-paid work such as food processing and hospitality which are key to Scottish economic success and depend heavily on EU workers.

Political tension has increased between Sturgeon’s devolved government, which opposes Brexit, and Britain’s divided Conservative government struggling to deliver Brexit by March 29.

Unhappiness over Brexit within Sturgeon’s Scottish National Party is also pressurizing her to reignite a push for independence as the impending break with the EU pushes British politics to its limits.

“Without freedom of movement there is a danger that our population will start to decline. We could face workforce shortages in rural areas, in our universities, in our care and health services,” Sturgeon will tell the French National Assembly’s Foreign Affairs Committee, which she has been invited to address.

“The UK government is proclaiming the end of free movement as a victory – instead, it is a self-defeating measure,” she will say.

Differences over Brexit have strained relations between the United Kingdom’s four nations. Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to stay in the EU in a 2016 referendum, while Wales and England vote to leave.

The desire to limit the number of EU citizens coming to Britain was a major reason Britons voted for Brexit in 2016. Immigration is one of the most heated political issues in the Brexit debate even though there are some parts of Britain with labor shortages.

Net migration of EU citizens to Britain fell to its lowest level in nearly six years during the year to June, extending a decline seen since the 2016 Brexit vote.

Scotland’s population is aging more quickly than the United Kingdom as a whole and its economy has been shored up by EU migrants in recent years, studies show.

A Scottish government official declined to detail what the intensified effort to keep EU citizens would entail. London has argued that Scotland does not need a differentiated migration system.

Scotland last year announced measures to support EU citizens, such as waiving a registration fee for a post-Brexit immigration system, funding a citizens’ rights service to provide information and raise awareness of the issue and paying tuition fees for EU students at Scottish universities.

(Reporting by Elisabeth O’Leary, Editing by William Maclean)

Source: OANN

The president declared a national emergency to build a wall on the southern border. In doing so, he is exercising his constitutional and statutory authority. Fault for this problem lies with illegal border-crossers. But if Americans want to blame their own government, then Congress is a better scapegoat than the president.

With his emergency declaration, Trump claimed authority to spend at least $6.7 billion on border-wall construction in addition to the $1.4 billion that Congress just appropriated for that purpose. The president has a constitutional right to build this wall. That’s because the Constitution separates power among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government. Separate powers are independent powers.

Defending the national border is one of the separate, independent powers of the presidency. The president does not need to declare a national emergency to exercise this power. Rather, national defense is his basic constitutional duty. By trusting the president with such responsibility, the Constitution also vests him with the inherent power to fulfill it. To insist that separation of powers requires Congress and the president to unite on this issue is a contradiction: such mandatory unity is the opposite of separation.

Regardless, in this instance the president is, in fact, united with Congress. He may disagree with Congress on the amount of money it should have appropriated this year. But the president is not relying on unappropriated money or new permission for building the wall. Instead, he is relying on Congress’ already-appropriated money to build an already-authorized wall. His power to declare a national emergency is described in the National Emergencies Act. And Congress’ “construction authority” statute cited in President Trump’s emergency declaration grants him discretion to reallocate funds under a national emergency.

These statutes are the highest, most important expression of Congress’ intent. They are more authoritative than the text of any individual Congressman’s email blasts or media interviews. Congressmen try to have it both ways by passing statutes authorizing executive action while also criticizing such action, but this fact reflects poorly on Congress, not the president.

Of course, Congress has separate powers, too. One of these powers is the power to levy taxes and grant funds to the president: the “power of the purse.” Congress exercised this power when it granted $1.4 billion for border wall construction in 2019 — and also when it appropriated the rest of the money that President Trump will tap into. Hence the president’s decision to fill the 2019 appropriation gap with money from Congress’s prior appropriations.

If any branch of government is violating the Constitution’s separation of powers, it’s Congress. No branch of government can abdicate its duties. Thus, it would be unconstitutional for the president to default his responsibility for national defense by outsourcing border security to Congress. Likewise, it would be unconstitutional for Congress to forfeit its “power of the purse” and outsource the national budgeting process to the president. No branch of government can delegate its core function to any other branch. This principle is called “the nondelegation doctrine.”

In this case, however, Congress has not delegated its prerogative to appropriate funds. The funds have already been appropriated. And, in the statutes President Trump cited in his emergency declaration, Congress even instructed the president on how he can use such funds. Money, once raised and appropriated, does not become untouchable to both branches. Even the nondelegation doctrine permits Congress to delegate practical discretion on how exactly to spend the funds it appropriates.

In any case, some spending authority does inherently belong to the president. Everything the president does — from flipping a light switch in the White House to publishing an executive order on a website — costs money. If the president has any inherent authority at all, then he has some inherent authority to spend money in furtherance of his constitutional duties: especially money that Congress already appropriated. Under President Obama, scholars even argued that the president can unilaterally incur up to trillions in brand-new national debt — let alone to merely follow Congress’s guidance on how to reallocate $6.7 billion that Congress already appropriated under Congress’ own statutes.

The buck stops with the president. But the president can’t do his job free-of-charge. So, in some cases, the bucks start with him, too.

Lew Olowski is an attorney and formerly a clerk to Radovan Karadzic, president of the Bosnian Serb Republic, at the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Lew served under Peter Robinson, who is among the world’s premiere international criminal trial lawyers litigating war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. He is a graduate of Georgetown Law School.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of The Daily Caller.

Source: The Daily Caller


The Daily Caller’s Stephanie Hamill and Richie McGinniss went wall hunting in the state of New York for this episode of “Walls Across America,” exposing the hypocrisy of those who are against Trump’s border wall, but who live behind walls themselves.

The rich and powerful tend to live in gated compounds, have big fences, walls, security on site and technology that monitors their properties 24-7. The Clintons and New City York Mayor Bill De Blasio are no exception.

Both the Clintons and Mayor De Blasio enjoy the luxury and privilege of having extra security that is out-of-reach for the majority of Americans, which is rather ironic considering that they’re all not fans of President Donald Trump’s immigration policies or his effort to build a wall along the southern border.

If walls don’t work, then why do the rich and powerful have them? (RELATED: Tucker Dedicates Segment to Walls Around the Homes of Trump’s Biggest Critics).


The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of The Daily Caller.

NOW CHECK OUT The Daily Caller’s most popular shows:

Nike Sides With Colin Kaepernick, Many Customers Revolt 

Inside The Daily Caller’s Exclusive Oval Office Interview With President Donald Trump 

Would You Rather Date A Trump Supporter or MS-13 Gang Member? 

New Details About The ‘Muslim Extremist’ Compound In New Mexico

‘Trophy Culture’ Hijacks New Jersey High School Cheer Squad

Fact Checking White House ‘Truth Seekers’ On North Korea

Democrats’ New Campaign Message: ‘Drain The Swamp’

‘Fake News’ Defends Brutal MS-13 Gang

Follow Stephanie Hamill on Twitter  

Source: The Daily Caller

Terry Schilling | American Principles Project

Political pundits on both sides of the aisle mocked President Trump over the weekend for declaring the border crisis a “national emergency.” This shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. While many might question how a functioning meritocracy could select such a boneheaded cadre of losers to run our country’s most treasured institutions — and they would be right to do so — it’s best to appreciate our elites for their most impressive talent: the uncanny ability to find new and creative ways to demonstrate just how out of touch they are with reality.

The crisis at the border is real, and it absolutely merits Trump’s “national emergency” designation.

The United States is now facing a drug crisis unlike any we have ever seen, due in large part to the unimpeded flow of illegal migration across our southern border. Drugs and crime are inundating our communities and destroying families in the process, mostly in predominantly poor flyover regions of the country where blue-checkmark Twitter rarely visits.

According to the CDC, more than 70,000 Americans died in 2017 due to drug overdoses, a number that has unacceptably quadrupled in just 20 years. Each of these victims of drugs had a family. Many had children. Many were children. Most of these overdoses are related to fentanyl — of which 1,500 pounds was seized by U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents during 2017. But how much fentanyl wasn’t seized?

While our nation’s politicians generally recognize the existence of an “opioid epidemic”, they appear unwilling to do anything about it on the supply side. House Democrats have quibbled over increasing funding for border security at ports of entry and outright opposed efforts to strengthen in-country enforcement of our immigration laws. Now Democratic presidential candidates are even going as far as calling for existing border walls to be torn down. Apparently 70,000 drug deaths a year isn’t enough.

This shameful callousness from our nation’s leaders toward the victims of the border crisis goes beyond just a disdain for American families. They have also chosen to ignore the humanitarian crisis directly affecting the migrants themselves.

For years, migrant families have been abused and exploited by traffickers, cartels, and gangs. According to a 2017 report from Doctors Without Borders, 31.4% of women had been sexually abused during their transit through Mexico. These women are mothers, wives, and daughters. Who do they report these crimes to when they wish to seek justice? They certainly can’t go to U.S. authorities when they reach their destination for fear of deportation. Because of this dynamic many illegal immigrants become trapped in a cycle of violence and injustice.

Many families have watched helplessly as their young daughters are ripped away from them and trafficked across our border to be sold into prostitution and sex slavery. According to an estimate by the Global Slavery Index, there are 57,000 human trafficking victims in the U.S. By refusing to secure our border and force people to come to the U.S. through the front door, we are aiding and abetting this human horror show.

Only a cold soul could look at photographs (many taken during the Obama administration) of child immigrants in cages and not feel great heartache. But the policy of “family separation” was implemented in direct response to the human trafficking crisis. Many victims of human trafficking are minors who have been taken from their parents and snuck across the border by people claiming to be their parents. These children are threatened with severe punishment and even death and are often too afraid to tell the truth in front of the traffickers to U.S. border agents. Certainly the need for a policy that generated understandable national hysteria merits the declaration of a “national emergency.”

There is plenty of room to debate the merits of the wall or other proposed policies to curb the flow of illegal migration. However, it’s hard to debate that the border crisis isn’t indeed a national emergency, especially since everyone agreed on that before Trump got involved. Republicans cited drug statistics and horrific instances of crime committed by undocumented criminals. Democrats whipped up national hysteria over the “family separation” policy. Immigration activists cited the humanitarian crisis facing migrants. Only now that the president has chosen to act are cynical partisans attempting to downplay the issue.

But addressing this crisis should be an issue that unites all Americans who care about protecting both migrant families and American families. For every Angel Mom who has had a child murdered by an undocumented criminal, there are dozens of migrant mothers who have had violence committed against them and their families but been unable to report it due to fears of deportation. Allowing illegal migration to continue unfettered hurts us all.

America has a moral responsibility to address this national emergency on our border. The president is absolutely right to act.

Terry Schilling (@PizzaPolitico) is the executive director at American Principles Project, a conservative nonprofit dedicated to putting human dignity at the heart of public policy.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of The Daily Caller.

Source: The Daily Caller

Current track