*Hillary Clinton’s “Open Borders” Dream*
RELIGIOUS 'CHARITIES' PROFIT FROM OPEN BORDERS
Thousands of Central American children crossing the border illegally could
soon turn into asylum seekers armed with immigration lawyers provided by
church groups and paid for by federal tax dollars.
WND reported Friday
Catholic Charities USA and other religious groups were working behind the
scenes with the federal government to temporarily house and resettle the
children in dozens of communities across the United States.
Catholic Charities is running a fundraising campaign to help finance the
resettlement of the illegal aliens, WND reported. But the religious
charities get the bulk of their funding not from private donors or church
members putting checks into a basket. They get it from the federal
Alexandria, Va.-based Catholic Charities USA reported receiving $1.7
million in government grants in 2012, according to its IRS Form 990
But one of the largest recipients of government funds to resettle immigrant
children is the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The USCCB helps
resettle not only unaccompanied alien children, or UACs, who enter the
country illegally but also refugees fleeing persecution overseas who enter
through legal channels.
The USCCB is one of nine agencies that receive hundreds of millions in tax
dollars to resettle refugees and asylum seekers in the U.S. under contract
with the federal government. Six of the nine contractors are religious
groups, WND has learned, including the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee
Service, Episcopal Migration Ministries, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society,
the Church World Service and World Relief Corp., which includes a plethora
of evangelical groups.
The Catholic Bishops alone received $65.9 million in federal grants to care
for unaccompanied alien children and refugees, according to its 2012 annual
By contrast, the group raised $1.4 million from its own church members
while federal loans and private-sector grants made up the remainder of the
$71 million spent on the resettlements that year. That means 93 percent of
the USCCB’s spending on charity work with UACs and refugees was covered by
the American taxpayer.
Kevin Appleby, director of USCC’s Migration and Refugee Services Office,
did not respond to calls and emails from WND seeking comment.
Similar funding ratios have been found to be the norm with the Lutheran
The Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service reported total income of $41.7
million in 2012, and government grants accounted for $40.4 million, or 96.8
percent of that amount, according to the nonprofit’s most recently reported
a disclosure that nonprofits must file with the Internal Revenue Service.
The group raised only $1.3 million from private donors.
Miji Bell, press spokeswoman for Lutheran Immigration, also did not return
The money for refugees and asylum seekers may not even include the federal
money funneled to Catholic Charities USA and other religious groups to
resettle illegal border crossers coming into Texas, Arizona or New Mexico
who arrive by themselves. The charities often subcontract with other
charities, making it difficult to track the money.
The numbers of UACs coming through the Southern border have increased
dramatically since 2009, and so have the costs, according to the Office of
Refugee Resettlement, which operates within the Department of Health and
Eight years ago, the program averaged 6,775 referrals a year. In fiscal
2013 the number reached 24,668. Now, the agency is expecting 60,000
referrals in 2014 at a cost to the U.S. government of more than $750
million, up from less than $500 million in 2013 and less than $250 million
The University of Texas at El Paso’s National Center for Border Security
and Immigration conducted a study
in March in which it laid bare the major cause of the problem –
exploitation of weak border enforcement policies by the U.S.
“Both Border Patrol and ICE ERO officers agreed that the lack of deterrence
for crossing the U.S.-Mexican border has impacted the rate at which they
apprehend UACs. Officers are certain that UACs are aware of the relative
lack of consequences they will receive when apprehended at the U.S.
border,” the authors wrote on page 3 of the UTEP study. “UTEP was informed
that smugglers of family members of UACs understand that once a UAC is
apprehended for illegal entry into the United States, the individual will
be re-united with a U.S. based family member pending the disposition of the
immigration hearing. This process appears to be exploited by illegal alien
smugglers and family members in the United States who wish to reunite with
How many of the Central American children will seek asylum is not clear at
this point. The United Nations is considering granting some type of legal
status to children in Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras who can show
evidence of being persecuted. An asylum seeker differs from a refugee in
that the person comes into the U.S. on his own, often crossing the border
illegally, and then seeks to gain asylum through legal channels.
Included in President Obama’s $3.7 billion emergency aid package for
dealing with the border crisis is $1.1 million for immigration lawyers to
represent the illegal alien children. Another $1.8 billion would go toward
resettling the children as opposed to deporting them.
Don Barnett, a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, said he would
like to see the feds rein in the grants and loans to charities that
resettle refugees and UACs seeking asylum.
The federal government gives out not only grants but loans, and the
nonprofit charities are able to pocket 25 percent of whatever they collect
on those loans, Barnett explained. He said many of the loans are made to
refugees or UACs for travel purposes.
“They actually hire collection agents to get the money back from the
refugees,” he said. “It’s very profitable for the nonprofits, really quite
profitable, and it has introduced perverse incentives into the whole
process, into decision making and policy,” he said. “It totally
disincentivizes rational thinking.”
These same religious charities can also be found lobbying Congress and the
Obama administration for amnesty legislation and other policies that
immigration watchdogs see as encouraging more illegal immigrants to cross
On July 2 the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a letter
<http://www.usccb.org/news/2014/14-118.cfm>to Obama urging him not to send
any of the unaccompanied children who had illegally crossed into the U.S.
back to their home countries.
“Current law permits children from non-contiguous countries to remain in
the country until their request for asylum or immigration relief is
considered by an immigration judge,” said Eusebio Elizondo, auxiliary
bishop of Seattle and chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’
Committee on Migration. “This is a very vulnerable population which has
been targeted by organized crime networks in Central America. To return
them to these criminal elements without a proper adjudication of their
cases is unconscionable.”
And in 2011, the Catholic Bishops advocated for passage
the DREAM Act, which would provide permanent legal status, some call it
amnesty, to young people under 35 brought into the U.S. illegally by their
parents if they had been here in the country since the age of 16 or
younger, provided they had completed two years of college or military
*Conflicts of interest?*
Dan Cadman, with the Center for Immigration Studies, says it’s a conflict
of interest for a group that benefits financially from immigration – both
legal and illegal – to try to influence immigration policy.
“It bothers me that any private organization is using a government funding
stream for that purpose, not only Catholic Charities but Lutheran World
Service, the Episcopal Church, they’ve all got their hands in the pie,”
Cadman said. “The thing is that everyone understands that, with a wink and
a nod, this so-called emergency money (from Obama) is not going to result
in any substantial number of individuals being deported. It’s just not. How
ironic to see an emergency budget supplemental request and then when you
look at the details you see it’s all going to be chewed up for things like
brick and mortar buildings for resettlement and not used in any useful way
to stop this tidal wave of human beings.”
Cadman said there is “no doubt in my mind” that the religious NGOs or
“non-governmental organizations” are working with the United Nations to get
the children qualified as refugees or asylum seekers.
“The religious charities have had a hand in that,” he said. “There’s no
doubt in my mind they are looking to afford people status in any way, shape
or form because the end game is to not get them sent back to their country
*Children don’t qualify as refugees*
Frank Head Jr., director of Immigration Services for Catholic Charities of
Arkansas, said the Central American children would not qualify as refugees
under the current United Nations definition, but it’s not out of the
question that a special legal status could be created for the children.
“There’s no easy pat answer to that,” he told WND. “They will not get
refugee status. That’s never been the case. There is a special set of
regulations for children not accompanied by parents, but no immediate
status. They get put into a special adjudication system. They never get
called ‘refugees’ but there is a category, a process where a juvenile who
is basically an orphan with no family to claim them could get a certain
status (as an asylum seeker) after a lengthy court battle.”
That court battle could be fought with federally funded lawyers, a
development even more likely if Obama’s $3.7 billion in emergency aid gets
passed by Congress.
“The actual answer, everyone wants to know (about the status), but the
Obama administration has proposed a new set of regulations and $3.7 billion
to fund it,” Head said. “A juvenile, aside from the fact that they get
special treatment if caught, and only in recent years have they been
afforded that special status – they used to get thrown into adult jails –
they now get treated as a juvenile. But there isn’t any immediate status.
Definitely there is intensive meetings going on to possibly create some new
status because the current refugee law doesn’t apply. They couldn’t
That’s because a refuge by definition is someone who has been pre-screened
by the U.N. and then allowed to legally enter a host country.
“But these kids for the most part don’t qualify as refugees because you
have to be part of a designated group facing political or religious
persecution, but these are just kids fleeing from violence. They’re not
running off all right-wing children or all left-wing children or
government-inclined children,” Head said. “It’s not a religious sect, it’s
not a political group, so they wouldn’t qualify for asylum status and so
you would ultimately just ship them back and that’s what a lot of people
want to do. You have a pretty good idea who that is.”
Head said he doesn’t expect the Obama package to pass the
Pursuing the U.N.’s channels would be a totally separate approach.
“That would have to be for people who hadn’t entered the country yet,” Head
said. “The U.N. would have to setup an office in say Guatemala or El
Salvador and you could come there, make a case and possibly get refugee
status and get a safe place to come. Even if the U.N. approves you it
doesn’t mean the U.S. will let you in. But if someone’s already here you
have to apply for asylum status.”
He said the U.S. lets in 75,000 to 85,000 foreign refugees a year. “And at
any given time there’s several million in the world.”
This is separate from the unaccompanied alien children who illegally cross
the border and offer themselves up to be apprehended by Border Patrol
agents then get turned over the Health and Human Services and given a piece
of paper ordering them to appear at a deportation hearing two to three
years down the road.
Read more at
On Friday, October 14, 2016 at 8:39:39 AM UTC-5, Travis wrote:
> Thursday, 13 October 2016
> *Will Hillary Clinton’s “Open Borders” Dream End Up Deciding Election —
> for Trump? *
> Written by William F. Jasper
> [image: Description: Will Hillary Clinton’s “Open Borders” Dream End Up
> Deciding Election — for Trump?]
> Hillary Clinton’s campaign strategists surely breathed a huge sigh of
> relief when the 2nd Presidential Debate
> without any mention of Clinton’s “open borders” comments, which had
> recently been released by WikiLeaks. They know that, as with the Brexit
> in the UK in June, the deadly reality of “open borders” could end up having
> a much greater impact on Election Day than the pro-Hillary media polls are
> showing. British voters revolted against the massive “Project Fear”
> waged by Prime Minister David Cameron, President Obama, and virtually all
> of the British political, banking, academic, and media establishment.
> British voters demanded a return of their independence and sovereignty.
> Especially, they demanded control over their own borders, defying the
> European Union’s claim of the right to decide who (and how many) may
> migrate to Britain.
> So, Team Hillary’s strategists were undoubtedly relieved when CNN’s
> Anderson Cooper and ABC’s Martha Raddatz did them a big favor in the second
> presidential debate last Sunday by saving their candidate from having to
> face her record and policies on open borders, immigration, refugees,
> illegal alien amnesty, and trade treaties. Specifically, Cooper and Raddatz
> made sure nobody brought up the matter of Hillary Clinton’s speech to
> Brazilian bankers in which she told of her “dream” of an EU-style
> hemispheric union of “open trade and open borders.”
> The “open borders” speech was one of many Clinton bombshells to be dropped
> by the WikiLeaks organization, in a dump of thousands of hacked e-mails,
> two days before the debate. It goes to the heart of a timely and vital
> issue that millions of American voters consider very important. However,
> Cooper and Raddatz were intent on avoiding the open borders issue and
> insisted on obsessing instead on the conveniently leaked video of Donald
> Trump’s vulgar comments from more than a decade ago.
> Specifically, in a speech to the Brazilian megabank, Banco Itau, Mrs.
> Clinton said: "My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and
> open borders, sometime in the future with energy that's as green and
> sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every
> person in the hemisphere."
> The social chaos, terrorism, debt, banking crisis, currency crisis, and
> other crises under which the European common market is disintegrating,
> offer little to commend the European Union as a hemispheric model for
> Americans. The ongoing migration tsunami that is wracking and ruining the
> EU gives us a pretty good picture of what “open borders” look like.
> Europeans are finding out that the ugly reality is far different from the
> rosy pictures painted for decades by their politicians — politicians of the
> same internationalist mold as Hillary Clinton. Borders matter; if you don’t
> have them you can’t enforce them, and you don’t really even have a country.
> Hillary Clinton is extremely vulnerable on this issue, even if we do not
> experience another terror attack by Islamic extremists in this country
> before the November election.
> Clinton has leapfrogged over her former boss, President Obama, and called
> for an even more radical Syrian refugee policy than his very unpopular
> program. In fact, she called for more than six times the number of refugees
> proposed by Obama. In a 2015 interview, she said the United States should
> accept 65,000 refugees from Syria; President Obama’s Syrian refugee plan,
> at the time, was for 10,000.
> "We're facing the worst refugee crisis since the end of World War II and I
> think the United States has to do more," the former secretary of state said
> on CBS's *Face the Nation*.
> would like to see us move from what is a good start with 10,000 to 65,000
> and begin immediately to put into place the mechanisms for vetting the
> people that we would take in."
> Of course, the “mechanisms for vetting people” comment was an obligatory
> throwaway line meant to placate voters’ national security concerns. But it
> was totally devoid of content, since our top security officials have
> repeatedly pointed out
> there is no way for us to properly vet these “refugees.” However, the
> refugee issue is only one part of Hillary’s “open borders” equation; she
> has also spent a political lifetime — as first lady, senator, secretary of
> state, Clinton Foundation chieftess — promoting and supporting
> <http://correctrecord.org/hillary-clinton-and-immigration/>illegal alien
> amnesty, increased immigration, entitlements of every kind for immigrants
> (legal and illegal) and fast-track citizenship, and fast-track voting.
> Beyond the refugee/migrant/immigrant matters that are big-ticket items for
> the large pool of voters Donald Trump is aiming at, there is the “open
> trade” and “hemispheric common market” component that crosses party and
> ideological lines, energizing huge numbers of conservative Republicans, Ron
> Paul Libertarians, and Bernie Sanders Democrats and Independents. To this
> broad swath of Americans, the WikiLeaks “open borders” leak confirms
> Hillary’s firm commitment to the deadly trade deals such as the Trans-Pacific
> Partnership (TPP) and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)
> For the past year and a half, Hillary has been trying to convince voters
> that despite her role in helping craft the TPP and TTIP (as secretary of
> state), publicly praising it more than 45 times (as even the pro-Clinton
> CNN notes
> having described the TPP as the “gold standard” of trade agreements. Much
> of the opposition to the TPP, the TTIP, and other multilateral "trade"
> agreements of this type has focused on the enormous economic harm that
> NAFTA has done, especially in terms of millions of lost jobs and the loss
> of America's once world-dominant manufacturing and technology base. Equally
> important, though less understood, however, are the numerous attacks on
> national sovereignty woven into the fabrics of NAFTA, TPP, and TTIP. Like
> the various treaties that have incrementally transformed the EU into the
> centralized and increasingly tyrannical behemoth it has become, these
> regional "trade" treaties actually establish bodies with legislative,
> executive, and judicial functions that are designed to gradually transform
> into a regional government that will override our own constitutionally
> limited government. Hillary Clinton is well aware of these dangers that she
> has helped build into the TPP and TTIP. The believability of her convenient
> flip-flop on this crucial issue is about zero; she can be counted on to
> flip again, if she gets to the Oval Office. Her current anti-TPP stance is
> most certainly her “public position,” at the moment, but what does she
> really intend to do on the matter? One of the other inconvenient (for
> Clinton) WikiLeaks revelations concerned her admission of duplicity, in one
> of her high-paid speeches to high-end investors, asserting that politicians
> need to be two-faced, having "both a public and a private position."
> *Project Fear/Project Smear*
> The political/business/media/academic elites that targeted the Brexit vote
> for defeat with “Project Fear” are the same combined forces that have
> targeted Donald Trump with Project Smear
> the Brexit victory, an obviously chastened Richard Haass, president of the
> world government-promoting, pro-EU, pro-open borders Council on Foreign
> Hillary Clinton's campaign, this is something of a warning not to
> underestimate this disaffection, not to underestimate political and
> economic nationalism."
> Hillary Clinton, who, while secretary of state, famously said (in the
> presence of her “good friend” Richard Haass) that she depended upon the CFR
> to tell her what to do and what to think (see video of her confession here
> is obviously listening to the advice of Haass. She has flip-flopped on TPP
> and has sort of flip-flopped on migration-refugees. She is trying to appeal
> to all sides; appealing for the Hispanic/immigrant vote by supporting
> “comprehensive immigration reform” — the longtime code phrase for amnesty
> and open borders — while at the same time attempting to appeal to Middle
> America by insisting she intends to implement stringent vetting of
> refugees/immigrants. The open question is how many American voters will
> believe her new “public position” on open borders — and how many will
> believe — or be influenced by/distracted by — Project Smear.
> [image: Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
> Visit Your Group
> [image: Yahoo! Groups]
> • Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> •
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.