Blood on Open Borders Boston’s hands
by Michelle Malkin
Here is a chilling case of sanctuary chickens coming home to roost.
Upon being convicted of armed robbery, kidnapping, home invasion and the brutal murders of two doctors on Tuesday, African criminal Bampumim Teixeira taunted the Massachusetts prosecutor who won the case and vowed to rape his wife. “You better hope I don’t get out of jail,” Teixeira threatened as he was dragged away in handcuffs by a quartet of court security officers. The killer appeared to greatly enjoy the media spectacle while striking fear into the hearts of innocents. He will be sentenced on Friday.
I am outraged on behalf of the victims’ families and pray for the prosecutor’s loved ones. But let’s be clear: This homicidal beast is a beneficiary of liberal Bay State policies that coddle foreign evildoers and give them cover to wreak havoc in our homeland. The architects of open borders Boston have blood on their hands.
Teixeira was a repeat offender well-known to law enforcement and government officials before he snuck into the South Boston condo of Richard Field and Lina Bolano in 2017, bound and gagged them, slit their throats and stabbed them to death. A homeless vagrant from Guinea-Bissau in West Africa, Teixeira had been convicted of two bank robberies and was released from prison just weeks before the massacre at Field and Bolano’s condo. This thieving bum’s lawyer secured a deal with the Suffolk County district attorney’s office to sentence him to 364 days for the second heist and downgraded the second felony crime to larceny.
Why one day shy of a year? Why the reclassification of a felony to a misdemeanor?
The soft-on-alien-crime agreement allowed him to escape deportation, which any green card holder would normally face for committing crimes of moral turpitude or crimes that result in sentences of 365 days or more. Ultimately, he served only 9 months behind bars. This evilness is part of a nationwide move by far-left Democratic prosecutors, many subsidized and supported by open borders billionaire George Soros, to minimize “collateral immigration consequences of criminal convictions” and help immigrants evade “disproportionate collateral consequences, such as deportation. All in the name of “public safety” and celebrating diversity, of course.
For those outside of New England, let me tell you about the infamous public enemy, Suffolk County DA Rachael Rollins. In March, she ordered her employees to monitor and snitch on federal ICE officers hanging around any courthouse while trying to do their jobs. She is overseeing a radical “restorative justice” agenda to decrease arrests, detentions and prosecutions for both citizens and noncitizens. Our office, she announced, “will begin to factor into all charging and sentencing decisions the potential of immigration consequences.”
Let me translate that for you: If foreign adults commit crimes that would separate them from their families and lead to imprisonment and deportation, DA Rollins will drop charges or shorten sentences in the name of social justice — the law-abiding victims of these criminal immigrants be damned.
The anarchy-promoting DA grudgingly admitted to Boston talk show legend Howie Carr earlier this year that the Teixeira case was a “horrific situation.” She said she would have “no problem” deporting convicted criminal immigrants, but only after they “shoot or rape or kill somebody.” In other words: Always look the other way at immigration crimes until it’s too late to save the lives of innocent people sacrificed at the altar of open borders.
As the people of Boston face a crucial vote by their city council this week on whether to make their sanctuary policies even more radical and welcoming for the world’s homeless, jobless, drug dealers and gangbangers, I have questions:
Why shouldn’t foreign law-breakers face “immigration consequences” for every single civil and criminal law they violate?
Why are Soros-bots across the country elevating the rights of criminal immigrants above law-abiding citizens?
Why aren’t more Americans rising in revolt against open borders-sponsored politicians and prosecutors turning our neighborhoods into safe spaces for foreign outlaws?
Over the past three months, thousands have joined me at rallies to Stand with ICE and defend American First in so-called sanctuary cities from Boston to Aurora to Portland to Montgomery County, Maryland? What about the rest of you? What’s your excuse?
Michelle Malkin ‘s email address is MichelleMalkinInvestigates@protonmail.com
Where are all the AWOL Muslim military trainees?
by Michelle Malkin
The feds have repeatedly emphasized that “Saudi Air Force officers selected for military training in the United States are intensely vetted by both countries.” But the government’s own data on military deserters from the Muslim world and elsewhere are not so reassuring.
Take a look at this pie chart from an October 2017 report by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR):
Disappearing Afghan pilots in the U.S. have been a national security concern for more than a dozen years.
I reported on the alarming phenomenon of Muslim deserters in 2014:
So the five Afghan soldiers who went missing from two separate U.S. military bases are now all accounted for and apparently headed back to their home country. Feel safer now? Don’t. The Pentagon, State Department and Department of Homeland Security would like this story to be over and done. (Just like they wanted the White House “fence-jumper” story to be buried. But then we found out he didn’t just jump the fence; he also overpowered a Secret Service agent, burst through the halls and invaded the East Room wielding a knife.)
Here are my nagging questions about another hushed-up national security incident the White House would prefer to whitewash:
–Why were officials so quick to tell the public that these men were not a threat to the public?
The two Afghan men who disappeared on Sept. 13 from a training program with the Drug Enforcement Administration in Quantico, Va., were Mohd Naweed Samimi, 24, and Mohammad Yasin Ataye, 22. The three men who ditched Cape Cod’s Camp Edwards on Sept. 22 were Major Jan Mohammad Arash, Captain Mohammad Nasir Askarzada and Captain Noorullah Aminyar. (Update: Here are there asylum stories. And here are reminders of how easily our asylum system is gamed.)
Both Afghan and U.S. officials rushed to assure the public that none of these men posed a security threat. The Pentagon said “they were vetted” by the State Department through its so-called “Leahy vetting process.” Big deal. This so-called process has been under fire for years because of shoddy or unavailable records, as well as inconsistency across programs and agencies.
“We generally don’t know who we are training. We have little reliable information,” one U.S. official told RAND Corp. researchers. Their study “found significant problems with current U.S. vetting practices in relation to security assistance.”
That RAND warning about vetting problems was issued in 2006.
More from my 2014 post:
In 2008, similar problems were exposed by the State Department inspector general in visa programs for thousands of Afghan and Iraqi translators and interpreters who worked for U.S. government agencies. The programs were deemed at “high risk for fraud and abuse,” with almost 25 percent of those approved failing to meet the eligibility criteria.
In 2012, after Afghan trainees murdered 45 NATO troops, U.S. Special Operations forces suspended Afghan police and special forces training. Lax screening and security measures led to widespread abuse and corruption within Afghan law enforcement units, not to mention endangerment of our troops. In addition to a massive rescreening effort of 350,000 Afghan security forces, U.S. military leaders directed coalition force units to “create safe zones inside (Afghan National Security Forces) compounds where they can defend themselves if necessary.”
Unfortunately, the “safe zone” initiative didn’t work at Camp Bastion in September 2012, when an unprecedented attack by Taliban infiltrators left two Marines dead, 17 troops wounded and eight Harrier jets destroyed or damaged. Neither did “safe zones” stop the August 2014 slaying of U.S. Maj. Gen. Harold Greene at the hands of a Taliban infiltrator wearing an Afghan army uniform.
And no such “safe zones” have been created here at home for when Afghan trainees come to our shores and suddenly wander off.
Finally, after 152 Afghan trainees vanished between 2005-2017, our military ended its joint training program in May 2019. Where did they all go? Who knows?
“Of the 152 AWOL Afghan trainees, 83 either fled the United States after going AWOL or remain unaccounted for,” SIGAR reported.
That’s just the Afghan fugitives. Of the 320 total foreign trainees who abandoned their U.S. posts, 27 were from Yemen; 16 came from Turkey; 9 from Saudi Arabia; and 22 were from Iraq. Another 94 came from other countries, including Burundi, Ethiopia, and Tunisia.
These foreign military soldiers, pilots, and other personnel are granted special A-2 visas to receive training on American soil.
There are currently more than 5,100 foreign military personnel here on Pentagon-sponsored security cooperation training programs, including 852 from Saudi Arabia.
More info from Stars and Stripes:
Friday’s assailant, Ahmed Mohammed al-Shamrani, was at Naval Air Station Pensacola on one of more than 5,500 temporary visas issued to Saudi military personnel by the State Department in 2019, according to department data. As of Friday, there were 852 Saudis in the United States for Pentagon-sponsored training related to security cooperation. That represents 16% of the 5,181 students from 153 countries in these programs, according to Defense Department spokesperson Chris Garver. Pensacola is just one of more than 150 military schools and installations where these students study annually.
Overall, there were 5,181 foreign students from 153 countries in the United States today for "security cooperation" training, Garver adds. There are several levels of vetting involved before they are allowed to arrive.
— Dan Lamothe (@DanLamothe) December 6, 2019
“Several levels of vetting?”
Don’t believe the hype. As the October 2017 SIGAR report also noted:
Afghan trainees travel to the United States on A-2 visas. As noted above, A-2 visas are issued to diplomats and other foreign government officials traveling to the United States to engage solely in official duties or activities on behalf of their national governments.34 A-2 visa applicants may have their personal appearance (i.e., interview) waived by State Department consular officials.35 Moreover, even if consular officials require prospective Afghan trainees to appear in person, they are not allowed to require that the candidate
demonstrate an intent to return to Afghanistan following the completion of training as is the case for B1/B2 type visa applicants. According to ICE’s Counterterrorism and Criminal Exploitation Unit (CTCEU),36 the limited vetting of the A-2 applicants creates potential national security vulnerabilities for the United States. According to ICE, the CTCEU has no visibility on IMS’s [International Military Student] military records. This can pose a potential heightened risk to national security and public safety because it limits the information available to investigating agents searching for AWOL Afghan trainees. Additionally, all international military students in the United States on valid international training orders, including all Afghan trainees (who are far more likely than trainees from other countries to go AWOL) may be exempt from the provisions pertaining to registration and reporting of address as outlined in 8 U.S.C. § 1201. According to ICE, limited biographical and background information can make it difficult to locate the Afghan trainees once they have gone AWOL.
Let me make this clear: It is standard procedure to allow these foreign military trainees to skip the standard in person interview at a consular office.
(Side note: If the waiver of personal appearances by State Department consular officials sounds familiar, then you remember that such waivers through the Visa Express program were exactly how the vast majority of Saudi 9/11 hijackers waltzed through our front door.)
As I reported Friday after the shooting, our US military has been training Saudi airmen since 2012 at Sheppard Air Force Base, Texas; Eglin AFB, Fla., Seymour Johnson AFB, N.C. & Pensacola Naval Air Station, Fla.
Your Friday national insecurity fact of the day: Our US military has been training Saudi airmen since 2012 at Sheppard Air Force Base, Texas; Eglin AFB, Fla., Seymour Johnson AFB, N.C. & Pensacola Naval Air Station, Fla. Overdue for #extremevetting ==>https://t.co/xrTI9uXggd
— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) December 6, 2019
A former Randolph AFB airman reported that foreign deserters were commonplace on his base:
I was stationed at Randolph AFB, TX from 2006-2009. On average, 2-4 international students (all from Saudi) would go missing/disappear every month. They always caught them at the Canadian border 1-2 weeks later. Cc: @michellemalkin
Citizen revolt: Resist refugee resettlement dumps!
by Michelle Malkin
Should U.S. citizens have input into whether their neighborhoods are fundamentally and permanently transformed into United Nations refugee camps full of welfare dependents and tax burdens?
Government-funded charities that profit mightily from the federal refugee resettlement program say: “Hell, no!”
But President Donald Trump and growing numbers of informed Americans across the heartland are raising their voices to say: “Heavens, yes!”
This week, an extraordinary revolt took place in Bismarck, North Dakota, where an overflow crowd of residents braved subzero temperatures to register their opposition to allowing the Lutheran Social Services to dump any new refugees in their backyard.
Thanks to an executive order signed by Trump in September, local communities now have explicit opt-in rights to stem the lucrative tide of refugees coming largely from Third World countries and jihadist breeding grounds. Open borders legal groups are, of course, challenging the order in court. These zealots object to states and localities exercising self-determination when it comes to rejecting refugees because it would undermine “national immigration policy,” yet they promote illegal immigrant sanctuary policies in states and localities that create uncontrollable criminal anarchy.
While GOP Gov. Doug Burgum signaled his support for increased importation of refugees, Brian Bitner, chairman of the Burleigh County Commission, echoed the concerns of his constituents. “North Dakota is already the highest per capita state for refugee resettlement in terms of number of citizens, so in the absence of any sort of number, there’s no way we could know the cost to the state or the county, and I simply can’t support that,” Bitner told local media at the Bismarck protest.
Similar outbreaks of resistance have taken place in Maine, New Hampshire, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Vermont, Wyoming and Tennessee over the years. But many Americans remain alarmingly clueless about the four-decade-old, tax-funded racket lining the pockets of nine privileged, nonprofit contractors (and scores of their subcontracting partners like Bismarck’s LSS):
Church World Service
Ethiopian Community Development Council
Episcopal Migration Ministries
Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society
International Rescue Committee
S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants
Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
World Relief Corporation
As I report in “Open Borders Inc.,” the U.S. State Department pays each agency $2,125 per refugee for initial reception and placement; the nonprofits can take up to a 45% cut and use the rest for the initial resettlement costs. Subsidies for management costs are negotiated separately. Unknown thousands more per head are collected for post-placement services.
That’s just the tip of the iceberg of refugee resettlement costs imposed on American taxpayers. In the 2016 annual report to Congress by the Office of Refugee Resettlement, the agency reported that in the year prior, 26.7% of refugees received cash assistance from at least one federal program; 66.1% of refugees had received noncash assistance such as SNAP (food stamps). The Federation for American Immigration Reform crunched the numbers in 2018 and estimated the annual cost of refugee resettlement to U.S. taxpayers at $1.8 billion, and $8.8 billion over a five-year period. Using ORR data, FAIR estimated the cost per refugee to American taxpayers at just under $79,600 in the first five years after a refugee is resettled in the U.S. and also found that:
-In 2016, the State Department spent nearly $545 million to process and resettle refugees, including $140,389,177 on transportation costs.
-Of the $1.8 billion in resettlement costs, $867 billion was spent on welfare alone.
-$71 million will be spent to educate refugees and asylum-seekers, a majority of which will be paid by state and local governments.
Steven Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies zeroed in on the heavy costs of resettling Middle Eastern refugees. In their first five years in the United States, he found, “each refugee from the Middle East costs taxpayers $64,370—12 times what the UN estimates it costs to care for one refugee in neighboring Middle Eastern countries. The cost of resettlement includes heavy welfare use by Middle Eastern refugees; 91 percent receive food stamps and 68 percent receive cash assistance.”
In addition to food stamps and public housing, refugees collect money from Supplemental Security Income (for the elderly and disabled), welfare cash benefits from Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Medicaid, the federal school lunch program, and the Women, Infants and Children program.
Under the new Trump order, the resettlement agencies must obtain and submit evidence of local, county or state consent by Jan. 21, 2020 to protect their refugee cash flow. If you live in an economically depressed area, crime-ridden city or growth-clogged suburb targeted on the refugee resettlement map, now is the time to put boots on the ground to protect your community and country. As government watchdog Ann Corcoran of Refugee Resettlement Watch warns:
“This is not just a bureaucratic exercise! … For us it is a referendum on state’s rights and whether local citizens will have a say in whether their communities will be changed (forever!).”
America First or America Last? Speak now or kiss our sovereignty goodbye.