At Least 121 Murders By Illegal Aliens Committed In Four-Year Period
A 2015, US Senate Judiciary Committee document availed a minimum of 121 homicides were executed in a four-year bracket at the hands of convicted immigrants—they were not deported. These foreign-national criminals ultimately go free for two, main reasons: the US Supreme Court forbids permanent imprisonment, and/or their country of origin refuses return of these criminals—despite immigration judges calling for deportation.
Since the historical Supreme Court ruling of 2001, releasing convicted, immigrant criminals has been the standard. However, that procedure is under the proverbial microscope, as President Trump feels it’s crucial to deport these foreign lawbreakers expediently as possible lest recidivism’s apparent.
Trump’s position could be supported by evocative evidence within US Senate Judiciary Committee research. These documents entail information compiled by the DHS (Department of Homeland Security)—number of immigrants in the US, their location, deportation-success outcomes by immigration authorities and if said immigrants continued down a criminal path upon release.
Around 2015, the committee sent a letter to the DOJ (Department of Justice), the DOS (Department of State) and Homeland Security. This correspondence informed them that 121 murders “could have been avoided” between 2010 and 2014 if Obama Administration ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) had deported immigrant criminals as opposed to the catch-and-release system.
“This disturbing fact follows ICE’s admission that, of the 36,007 criminal aliens it released from ICE custody in Fiscal Year 2013, 1,000 have been re-convicted of additional crimes in the short time since their release,” the June 12, 2015, letter informed.
Regardless of Trump’s cautious stance, apparently a large handful of Miami locals remain confident in anyone and everyone wanting to relocate to the US and do whatever... (These activists probably took the time to do the research too, right?)
[Four-hundred protestors against President Trump's immigration call stood outside Miami-Dade government headquarters on February 7th. | Video: courtesy of Miami Herald and The McClatchy Company]
In addition to the cited, 121immigrant convicts, the letter availed that in 2014, ICE set 2,457 foreign criminals free in adherence to the Supreme Court decision prohibiting a no-long-than-six-months imprisonment of deportable, foreign nationals. The majority of said criminals are from 23 countries ICE called “recalcitrant”—they sustained their refusal to accept the return of the would-be deported. Most of 2014, foreign convicts haled from Cuba—1,183 to be precise (according to the letter). Other ICE-noted countries included Afghanistan, Algeria, China, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia and Zimbabwe.
When the el Nuevo Herald attempted to contact a committee spokeswoman, she did not disclose further information pertaining to the letter.
Usually, upon foreign nationals serving their time in detention, they’re put into the deportation process.
However, then-ICE Director Sarah Saldaña responded to the letter with stating that of the 121 immigrant convicts accused of “homicide-related offenses,” 33 got out on bond via an immigration-court decision. Twenty-four of them were released due to ICE being unsuccessful in acquiring the go-ahead to send foreign criminals back to their native countries within the Supreme Court’s six-month deadline.
More, immigrant-rights supporters oppose foreign nationals getting blamed for an influx in crime and claim the rationale does not correlate with studies. In 2015, Washington-headquartered AIC (American Immigration Council) published a detailed report entailing the primary discoveries in said studies.
“For more than a century, innumerable studies have confirmed two simple yet powerful truths about the relationship between immigration and crime,” the AIC report informed. “Immigrants are less likely to commit serious crimes or be behind bars than the native-born, and high rates of immigration are associated with lower rates of violent crime and property crime. This holds true for both legal immigrants and the unauthorized, regardless of their country of origin or level of education.”
In order to convince other countries to take back their would-be-deportee criminals, Trump conceptualized the immediate freeze on visa issuances to visitors and immigrants from the nations in question. While this option hasn’t been implemented yet, The President is aggressive in executive orders—e.g., the 120-day barring of refugees and the 90-day halt on seven Muslim-heavy countries. A Trump Administration-challenged court order lifted these efforts due to the chaos that followed...
During the presidential campaigns, Trump’s Phoenix speech entailed promises to rid the US of foreign-national criminals—even if their home countries wouldn’t take them back.
“There are at least 23 countries that refuse to take their people back after they’ve been ordered to leave the United States,” Trump said. “Including large numbers of violent criminals. They won’t take them back. So we say, ‘okay, we’ll keep them’—not going to happen with me, not going to happen with me.”
While Trump has yet to lay down the details of denying the visas...he’s heavily considering it. However, Trump’s temporary executive-order ban on the global-refugee program and Muslim-heavy countries is worded to the degree of the president forbidding US entry to foreign nationals if their country cannot provide specific, requested information.
And if the nationals’ countries do not cooperate in terms of disclosing information Washington wants, the secretary of state will provide Trump with a list of countries “recommended for inclusion on a presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of foreign nationals…from countries that do not provide the information requested,” the executive order informs.
Some have referred to this compliance-inducing tool as a weapon, which has yet to be widely practiced
In April 2015, former DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson told the Senate Judiciary Committee he did not agree with visa sanctions against recalcitrant countries. “I don’t necessarily believe that we ought to suspend immigration, travel from any of these countries because of this particular issue,” Johnson said back then.
The Senate Judiciary Committee’s letter notes the US can “promote compliance” with ICE-deportation efforts via denying diplomatic visas/visa of any nature to people of “recalcitrant countries that deny or delay accepting the return of one or more aliens.” The letter pontificated on Cuba being “perpetually on ICE’s list of recalcitrant countries because it refuses to take back” would-be-deportee Cubans—save the 2,746 shown on a roster agreed to by Washington and Havana in 1984.
Back in January 2017, when Obama rescinded the “wet-foot/dry-foot” policy, US officials stressed the new policy enabled the return and deportation of unprocessed Cubans who entered North America prior to its implementation. Officials were hazy on the new policy being applied to 35,000-plus Cuban convicts who’d been assigned deportation post 1984.
In the matter of foreign-national criminals, the committee letter elaborated on the 121 convicts set free between 2010 and 2014—those foreign nationals were charged with homicide upon being released from imprisonment. (This has significance in terms of Trump’s opposition to foreign convicts with priors, as some are connected to the murdering of US citizens.)
In Trump’s Phoenix immigration speech (August 2016), he referenced 21-year-old Sarah Root’s case—a young woman killed by an intoxicated, illegal immigrant. Trump added the incident involving Grant Ronnebeck—a 21-year-old Mesa, AZ, kid who was killed (apparently over a pack of cigarettes). His killer, Mexican-national Apolinar Altamirano, was in the process of being deported but was also set free on bond by an immigration-court judge.
More, Trump has also cited the most unfortunate Kate Steinle instance. ICE officials informed Congress of their attempts and ultimate failure to prevent López Sánchez from bonding out of jail. This was due to San Francisco authorities (the “sanctuary city”) being oblivous to an immigration detainer for the foreign-national criminal.