Breitbart

CBO Report: DACA Amnesty Would Cost American Taxpayers $26 Billion

HERE

SOS offices to issue optional REAL ID-compliant licenses, ID cards

HERE 

Yearbook of Immigration Statistics 2016
HERE

Photo: Wikimedia.com

AllLaw.com

Is it a Crime to Enter The U.S. Illegally?

Illegal entry (or “improper entry”) to the US carries criminal penalties (fines and jail or prison time), in addition to civil penalties and immigration consequences (deportation and bars from future entry).

By Ilona Bray, J.D.

Whether it’s by crossing the U.S. border with a “coyote” or buying a fake U.S. passport, a foreign national who enters the U.S. illegally can be both convicted of a crime and held responsible for a civil violation under the U.S. immigration laws. Illegal entry also carries consequences for anyone who might later attempt to apply for a green card or other immigration benefit.

The penalties and consequences get progressively more severe if a person enters illegally more than once, or enters illegally after an order of removal (deportation) or having been convicted of an aggravated felony.
What Is Illegal Entry?

The immigration law actually uses the term “improper entry,” which has a broad meaning. It’s more than just slipping across the U.S. border at an unguarded point.

Improper entry can include:
entering or attempting to enter the United States at any time or place other than one designated by U.S. immigration officers (in other words, away from a border inspection point or other port of entry)

eluding examination or inspection by U.S. immigration officers (people have tried everything from digging tunnels to hiding in the trunk of a friend’s car)

attempting to enter or obtain entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or willful concealment of a material fact (which might include, for example, lying on a visa application or buying a false green card or other entry document).

(See Title 8, Section 1325 of the U.S. Code (U.S.C.), or Section 275 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (I.N.A.) for the exact statutory language – www.uscis.gov/laws/immigration-and-nationality-act.)
Criminal Penalties

For the first improper entry offense, the person can be fined (as a criminal penalty), or imprisoned for up to six months, or both. For a subsequent offense, the person can be fined or imprisoned for up to two years, or both. (See 8 U.S.C. Section 1325, I.N.A. Section 275.)
But just in case that isn’t enough to deter illegal entrants, a separate section of the law adds penalties for reentry (or attempted reentry) in cases where the person had been convicted of certain types of crimes and thus removed (deported) from the U.S., as follows:
(1) People removed for a conviction of three or more misdemeanors involving drugs, crimes against the person, or both, or a felony (other than an aggravated felony), shall be fined, imprisoned for up to ten years, or both.
(2) People removed for a conviction of an aggravated felony shall be fined, imprisoned for up to 20 years, or both.
(3) People who were excluded or removed from the United States for security reasons shall be fined, and imprisoned for up to ten years, which sentence shall not run concurrently with any other sentence.
(4) Nonviolent offenders who were removed from the United States before their prison sentence was up shall be fined, imprisoned for up to ten years, or both.
What’s more, someone deported before a prison sentence was complete may be incarcerated for the remainder of the sentence of imprisonment, without any reduction for parole or supervised release.
(See 8 U.S.C. Section 1326, I.N.A. Section 276.) More here.

They mean illegal aliens…immigrants are legal and can already get health care coverage.

California lawmakers propose health coverage for immigrants

By: JONATHAN J. COOPER, Associated Press

Updated: Dec 14, 2017 – 12:49 PM

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) – California, flush with cash from an expanding economy, would eventually spend $1 billion a year to provide health care to immigrants living in the state illegally under a proposal announced Wednesday by Democratic lawmakers.

The proposal would eliminate legal residency requirements in California’s Medicaid program, known as Medi-Cal, as the state has already done for young people up to age 19.

It’s part of $4.3 billion in new spending proposed by Assemblyman Phil Ting, a San Francisco Democrat who leads the budget committee. Assembly Democrats also want to expand a tax credit for the working poor, boost preschool and child care, and increase college scholarships to reduce reliance on student loans.

They also would commit $3.2 billion more than required to state budget reserves.

The proposal marks the Assembly’s opening volley in six months of budget negotiations with the Senate and Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown, who has been reluctant to commit to new ongoing spending on social services.

California has significantly reduced its rate of uninsured people since former President Barack Obama’s health care law took effect, but about 7 percent of residents still lack coverage. Many are people living in the country illegally, who are ineligible for U.S.-funded health care assistance.

While federal funds cover at least half – and as much 95 percent – of the cost for citizens and legal U.S. residents on Medi-Cal, the state would have to pick up the cost on its own for people living here illegally.

Expanding access to health care has been a contentious issue for California lawmakers, who targeted last year by protests from liberal activists who want the Legislature to provide state-funded coverage to everyone, regardless of immigration status… HERE

Photo: CAPS

By WILL WEISSERT, ASSOCIATED PRESS

Homeland Security chief lauds Texas ‘sanctuary cities’ ban

Dec 12, 2017,

New U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen harshly criticized so-called “sanctuary cities” late Tuesday, urging the rest of the nation to emulate Texas’ tough law banning them.

President Donald Trump’s former deputy White House chief of staff, Nielsen was confirmed by the Senate last week. She wasted little time visiting Austin, where Travis County Sheriff Sally Hernandez once promised not to comply with some “detainers,” or federal requests to hold for possible deportation people who were already jailed on non-immigration charges.

That helped prompt the Republican-controlled Texas Legislature to approve in May a sanctuary cities crackdown known as SB4, where sheriffs and police chiefs can face removal from office and even criminal charges for failing to fully enforce federal immigration policy. The measure now is being contested in federal court, but Nielsen nonetheless praised Texas for taking a “firm stand against dangerous and destructive sanctuary cities.”

“I hope other states follow this lead,” she said, calling for an elimination of a “shadow society outside the rule of law.”

Choosing to come to Texas to discuss sanctuary cities so soon after taking her post sent a political message. Homeland Security has been leading the charge on implementing Trump’s aggressive immigration agenda, and Nielsen has pledged to continue that.

She was in Baltimore earlier Tuesday with U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who said that this week’s attack on the New York City subway system showed in the “starkest terms” that the failures of the U.S. immigration system are a national security issue.

Nielsen told reporters in Austin that years of relaxed federal immigration policy have also endangered police officers, saying “sanctuary cities put law enforcement lives at risk in favor of
criminals who have no right to be in the United States.”

Hernandez, a Democrat, had announced on the day of Trump’s inauguration that Austin jails would only comply with federal requests to hold in jail immigrants suspected of violent crimes — not those being held on the most-common offenses like drunken driving, She cited a need to create trust between law enforcement and immigrant communities.

But Hernandez also announced policy changes after Texas’ sanctuary cities ban was approved.

She was the only Texas law enforcement official to publicly oppose full compliance with federal detainer requests, but the state’s largest cities, including Houston and Dallas, have joined forces in suing to block the law. Opponents argue such crackdowns make combating crime harder since it spreads fear and mistrust among immigrant communities and spooks potential witnesses to crimes from cooperating with police…. MORE HERE