Poll: 40% Say Illegal Immigration Major Cause Of Unemployment
Published on Feb 8, 2013
Poll: 40% Say Illegal Immigration Major Cause Of Unemployment
Poll Shows Americans Against Illegal Immigration
EXCLUSIVE – POLLING DATA SHOWS GOP VOTERS THINK REPUBLICANS STANDING TOUGH ON IMMIGRATION MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE
Polling data compiled by Tea Party Patriots and provided exclusively to Breitbart News shows that a majority of Republican voters think Republicans standing strong on immigration is more important than repealing Obamacare, getting to the bottom of the Benghazi or IRS scandals—or anything else for that matter.
When asked by TPP’s pollster which issue they think is the important for Republicans in Congress to deal with, 34.6 percent of GOP voters said stopping the flow of illegal immigrants across our southern border. Stopping Obama’s “illegal overreach” with executive power came in a distant second with 24 percent of GOP voters saying that’s the most important, while 23 percent saying repealing Obamacare is the most important and just 7.2 percent say the IRS scandal is the most important issue and 2.8 percent say the Benghazi scandal is most important. A total of 8.4 percent of GOP voters said they don’t know or refused to answer.
The poll was conduced with 1,000 likely GOP voters on Thursday, July 24 via a combination of cell phones and landlines nationwide, with a margin of error of 3.2 percent.
When the GOP voters were asked why the illegal aliens are coming into America, 78.8 percent said they are coming because “they have been led to believe that they will be allowed to remain here legally” while just 13.6 percent said they are coming because they want to “flee violence in their home countries” and 7.6 percent said they don’t know.
Also interesting in the poll, 48.6 percent of GOP voters think Republican leaders in Congress should listen to their constituents primarily, 17.9 percent think they should to listen to their conscience, 12.7 percent think they should listen to low dollar donors, 7.1 percent to the Republican platform and 2.8 percent to their families. Just 2.5 percent of GOP voters think Republican leaders should entertain ideas from high-dollar donors.
A thousand children said to be fleeing the violence in Central America will be welcomed to Chicago, where local children are routinely in the cross-fire of gang-related grudges.
Mayor Rahm Emanuel, at the request of the Obama administration in which he formerly served, says he is working with local organizations to make room for up to one thousand additional unaccompanied children “traveling” from Central America to the U.S.-Mexico border in the coming year.
“The influx of unaccompanied child migrants is a growing humanitarian crisis that we can no longer ignore,” said Mayor Rahm Emanuel. “While we have our own challenges at home, we cannot turn our backs on children who are fleeing dangerous conditions. We will do our part to ensure that these children are given access to services and treated fairly and humanely.”
The city is also asking Chicago law firms to provide free legal assistance to the foreign children.
Emanuel on Wednesday said that his own grandfather left eastern Europe at age 13, all alone, to get away from the violence directed at Jews.
Likewise, “These kids are leaving violence,” the Chicago Sun-Times quoted Emanuel as saying. “There are 1,000 kids. We are not only a city of big shoulders. We’re a city of big hearts, and we welcome them and get ‘em on their way. And we will also make sure that the city of Chicago has universal pre-K, universal kindergarten, expanding after-school programs, expanding summer jobs, because the test and measure of this city is how we treat our children.”
Based on reporting by Chicago Tribune staff, there were 440 homicides in Chicago in 2013, down from the 500 counted by the FBI in 2012. So far this year, 223 people have been killed by the Tribune’s count, including an 11-year-old girl shot by a stray bullet at a sleepover with friends.
U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), an amnesty advocate who is pressing President Obama to stop deportations for most illegal aliens in the U.S., says he’s proud that Chicago is leading by example in “welcoming migrant children and working with them as their cases are resolved.”
The mayor’s office said that earlier this month, the federal government approached the Emanuel about the possibility of housing Central American children in a federally-funded facility containing one thousand beds. The federal General Services Administration would oversee and pay for the renovation of the facilities while the Department of Health and Human Services would fund support services for the children, including education, health care, food, security, and legal assistance.
A number of organizations, including the Heartland Alliance and the National Immigrant Justice Center, currently provide housing and legal services to hundreds of children housed at multiple sites in the Chicago area.
At the same time, the mayor is reaching out to organizations and institutions, such as the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago, that are willing to offer services to the unaccompanied minors.
“Cardinal George has called on the federal government to allow the Archdiocese of Chicago, including Catholic Charities and Maryville, to assist in this humanitarian crisis,” said Monsignor Michael Boland, President and CEO of Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Chicago.
“We, along with the Archdiocese and Maryville, are ready to work with the City in providing counseling, food and clothing, case management, legal assistance and housing to these children with the dignity, care and compassion that every person deserves.”
Story 1: Advanced Estimate: U.S. Economy Grew Based On Incomplete Data at 4% Rate in Second Quarter of 2014 — Wait To End of September For Final Estimate — Expect 2% or Less Growth Rate — Videos
Mark Zandi Discusses U.S. Second-Quarter GDP, Economy: Video
United States economy grows by 4%
US Dollar: 2Q US GDP Data May Outshine FOMC in Driving Volatility
KeiserReport: Liam Halligan on UK economy frauds (29July14)
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts: Fed Laundering Treasury Bonds in Belgium, Real GDP was Negative & More
Still Report #245 – U.S. GDP is a Lie
Published on May 2, 2014
Recently announced U.S. GDP numbers would be negative 4.6% if the effects of the Fed’s Quantitative Easing program were subtracted. As QE is tapered away, so will the artificial appearance of growth it produced. Please consider supporting us there for as little as $1 per month. Go to billstill.com, click on the Subscribe button. You can Unsubscribe at any time.
U.S. economic growth accelerated more than expected in the second quarter and the decline in output in the prior period was less steep than previously reported, bolstering views for a stronger performance in the last six months of the year.
Gross domestic product expanded at a 4.0 percent annual rate as activity picked up broadly after shrinking at a revised 2.1 percent pace in the first quarter, the Commerce Department said on Wednesday.
That pushed GDP above the economy’s potential growth trend, which analysts put somewhere between a 2 percent and 2.5 percent pace. Economists had forecast the economy growing at a 3.0 percent rate in the second quarter after a previously reported 2.9 percent contraction.
A separate report showing private employers added 218,000 jobs to their payrolls last month, a decline from June’s hefty gain of 281,000, did little to change perceptions the economy was strengthening.
U.S. stock futures added to gains and yields on U.S. Treasuries rose after the data. The U.S. dollar hit a seven-week high against the yen and an eight-month high against the euro.
The economy grew 0.9 percent in the first half of this year and growth for 2014 as a whole could average above 2 percent. The first quarter contraction, which was mostly weather-related, was the largest in five years.
Employment growth, which has exceeded 200,000 jobs in each of the last five months, and strong readings on the factory and services sectors from the Institute for Supply Management underpin the bullish expectations for the rest of the year.
The government also published revisions to prior GDP data going back to 1999, which showed the economy performing much stronger in the second half of 2013 and for that year as a whole than previously reported.
EYES ON THE FED
The GDP data, which was released only hours before Federal Reserve officials conclude a two-day policy meeting, could fuel debate on whether the central bank may need to raise interest rates a bit sooner than had been anticipated.
Growth in the second quarter was driven mainly by consumer spending and a swing in business inventories.
Consumer spending growth, which accounts for more than two-thirds of U.S. economic activity, accelerated at a 2.5 percent pace, as Americans bought long-lasting manufactured goods and spent a bit more on services.
Consumer spending had braked to a 1.2 percent pace in the first quarter because of weak healthcare spending.
Despite the pick-up in consumer spending, Americans saved more in the second quarter. The saving rate increased to 5.3 percent from 4.9 percent in the first quarter as incomes rose, which bodes well for future spending.
Inventories contributed 1.66 percentage points to GDP growth after chopping off 1.16 points in the first quarter.
The economy also received a boost from business investment, government spending and investment in home building.
Trade, however, was a drag for a second consecutive quarter as some of the increase in domestic demand was met by a surge in imports. Domestic demand rose at a 2.8 percent pace, the fastest since the third quarter of 2011. It increased at a 0.7 percent pace in the first quarter.
Solid demand, which underscores the economy’s firming fundamentals, led to some pick-up in price pressures in the second quarter, a welcome development for Fed officials who have long worried about inflation being too low.
A price index in the report rose at a 2.3 percent rate in the second quarter, the quickest in three years, after advancing at a 1.4 percent pace in the prior period.
A core price measure that strips out food and energy costs increased at a 2.0 percent pace, the fastest since the first quarter of 2012. It had increased at a 1.2 percent rate in the first quarter.
U.S. Second-Quarter GDP Expands at 4.0% Rate
Economy Grew at Best Six-Month Stretch in 10 Years in Second Half of 2013
ByERIC MORATH And NICK TIMIRAOS
he U.S. economy surged in the second quarter, more than offsetting a first-quarter contraction and putting growth back on an upward trajectory in 2014.
The U.S. economy rebounded strongly this spring after a first-quarter contraction, eking out positive growth over the past six months and raising hopes for sustained growth in the second half of 2014. Josh Zumbrun joins MoneyBeat with Paul Vigna.
Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of goods and services produced across the economy, advanced at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 4.0% in the second quarter, the Commerce Department said Wednesday. Economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal had forecast growth at a 3.0% pace for the quarter.
An upturn in inventory building by businesses and an acceleration in consumer spending led the broad gains and offset a larger drag from increased imports.
The solid improvement comes on the heels of a first quarter when the economy shrank at a 2.1% pace. While still the worst quarter of the recovery that began in mid-2009, the first-quarter figure reflects an upward revision from a previously estimated 2.9% contraction.
Over the past year, the economy grew 2.4%—slightly ahead of the 2.3% average annual gain from recovery’s start until the end of 2013, before an unusually cold winter socked the economy.
The first quarter “was an anomaly and growth will be much stronger through the rest of this year,” said PNC Financial Services Group economist Stuart Hoffman. “Consumers are spending thanks to job and income gains, and with borrowing costs still low businesses are investing to meet stronger demand.”
Household spending—roughly two-thirds of the economy—advanced at a 2.5% rate last quarter. That’s an increase from the first quarter’s modest 1.2% gain. Spending on total goods accounted for its highest contribution to GDP since late 2010, and spending on long-lasting durable goods was near a five-year high, led by a big jump in auto sales.
Annual revisions, also released Wednesday, showed the economy expanded at a 4% pace in the second half of 2013, the best six-month stretch in 10 years. But figures over the past five years, including new revisions back to 2011, continue to tell a familiar tale. Unable to string together several quarters of steady growth, the recovery that began in 2009 is still the weakest since World War II.
There is reason to be guarded about last quarter’s rebound. The initial reading on GDP relies on estimates of trade flows, health-care spending and other aspects of the economy and could be significantly revised in subsequent takes.
The U.S. second-quarter GDP increased at a 4% rate, well above expectations, raising hopes for sustained growth in the second half of 2014. WSJ’s Polya Lesova joins Simon Constable on the News Hub with the details. Photo: Getty
The strong advance in consumption is at least partially payback for a cold winter to start the year. If weather gets the blame for a bad first quarter, it deserves some credit for the second.
The second quarter was also strongly aided by businesses restocking. The change in private inventories added 1.66 percentage points to growth during the quarter. The gain mirrors the strong buildup in inventories that helped propel growth in the second half of last year, and stands in contrast to the reversal that contributed to the first-quarter contraction.
Some economists said the inventory boost raised questions over whether the strong pace of growth in the second-quarter gain was sustainable. Real final sales, a measurement of GDP that excludes changes to inventories, expanded at a 2.3% pace in the second quarter. After accounting for the 1% contraction in the first quarter, sales rose by almost 0.7% in the first half of 2014. That suggests the inventory gain may have been “excessive,” said Chris Low, chief economist at FTN Financial, “as if business put a little too much faith in the bounce-back-from-bad-weather story.”
The report showed the personal consumption expenditure price index, the Federal Reserve’s preferred inflation gauge, advanced at an annualized 2.3% in the second quarter.
The reading, reflecting increased costs for food and gasoline, was above the Fed’s 2% inflation target during a quarter for the first time since early 2012. But from a year ago, consumer inflation is up a milder 1.6%.
Market Talk
On GDP, a Word of Caution on the RevisionsThere’s a reasonable chance the 4% 2Q GDP number will change. Consider what has happened to 1Q13. Growth was initially reported to be occurring at an annual rate of 2.5%, before being revised down to 1.8% and then 1.1%. Wednesday’s latest set of revisions brought that figure back to 2.7%. (nick.timiraos@wsj.com)
GDP Catches Up with Jobs Growth A strong rebound in 2Q economic growth resolves the discrepancy between recent weak GDP readings and strong job numbers, BNP Paribas economists write, adding the rebound bodes well for July jobs data out Friday. “We will get another solid payrolls print of around 225,000 on Friday,” the firm says. Still, BNP Paribas notes that an average growth rate of 1% in 1H shows the economy is far from achieving the 2.1% to 2.3% growth rate forecast by the Fed for this year. (jonathan.house@wsj.com)
Market Talk is a stream of real-time news and market analysis that’s available on Dow Jones Newswires
Wednesday’s report also showed business spending on items such as equipment, buildings and intellectual property rose at a 5.5% pace from April to June. Spending on equipment increased at a 7% rate in the second quarter after declining in the first.
Residential fixed investment—spending on home building and improvements—increased at a 7.5% rate in the second quarter. The category had declined the prior two quarters. The decline that began last fall wasn’t actually due to a slowdown in home construction, but instead reflected a drop in brokers’ real-estate commissions after sales of previously owned homes slumped.
Trade was a drag on economic growth during the quarter despite a solid 9.5% increase in U.S. exports. That is because imports, which subtract from economic growth, rose 11.7%. Still, the number suggests renewed demand for foreign goods among U.S. consumers.
The government added to second-quarter growth. Government expenditures and investment rose at an 1.6% pace in the spring. Federal outlays fell for the seventh straight quarter but were more than offset by increased spending at the state and local level.
Table 1.1.1. Percent Change From Preceding Period in Real Gross Domestic Product
[Percent] Seasonally adjusted at annual rates
Last Revised on: July 30, 2014 – Next Release Date August 28, 2014
Line
2012
2013
2014
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
1
Gross domestic product
2.3
1.6
2.5
0.1
2.7
1.8
4.5
3.5
-2.1
4.0
2
Personal consumption expenditures
2.8
1.3
1.9
1.9
3.6
1.8
2.0
3.7
1.2
2.5
3
Goods
4.7
1.3
3.2
2.9
5.9
1.3
3.5
3.7
1.0
6.2
4
Durable goods
10.7
2.3
8.0
9.1
8.5
4.5
4.9
5.7
3.2
14.0
5
Nondurable goods
2.0
0.8
1.1
0.1
4.8
-0.2
2.8
2.7
0.0
2.5
6
Services
1.8
1.3
1.3
1.4
2.4
2.0
1.3
3.7
1.3
0.7
7
Gross private domestic investment
6.9
5.8
1.6
-5.3
7.6
6.9
16.8
3.8
-6.9
17.0
8
Fixed investment
9.1
4.4
3.1
6.6
2.7
4.9
6.6
6.3
0.2
5.9
9
Nonresidential
5.8
4.4
0.8
3.6
1.5
1.6
5.5
10.4
1.6
5.5
10
Structures
18.7
10.5
-1.4
-6.7
-11.5
7.3
11.2
12.8
2.9
5.3
11
Equipment
3.6
1.0
0.7
8.1
4.8
1.5
4.7
14.1
-1.0
7.0
12
Intellectual property products
0.7
5.1
2.6
5.1
6.5
-2.0
2.8
3.6
4.6
3.5
13
Residential
25.5
4.3
14.1
20.4
7.8
19.0
11.2
-8.5
-5.3
7.5
14
Change in private inventories
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
15
Net exports of goods and services
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
16
Exports
1.3
4.8
2.1
1.5
-0.8
6.3
5.1
10.0
-9.2
9.5
17
Goods
1.5
5.3
2.0
-3.1
-0.9
8.3
5.7
13.6
-11.9
12.9
18
Services
0.9
3.7
2.3
12.7
-0.8
2.0
3.6
2.3
-2.8
2.3
19
Imports
1.7
4.0
-0.6
-3.5
-0.3
8.5
0.6
1.3
2.2
11.7
20
Goods
2.0
4.0
-1.1
-4.8
0.5
8.5
0.1
0.9
2.5
13.3
21
Services
0.8
4.0
2.4
3.4
-4.1
8.5
2.8
3.5
1.0
4.2
22
Government consumption expenditures and gross investment
U.S. Economy Grew at 4% Rate in Second Quarter, Beating Expectations
“We made up some of the ground lost in the first three months of this year, but there’s nothing in today’s data to indicate that the economy is growing more strongly than it has for the past couple of years,” the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning nonprofit group focused on low- and middle-income workers, said in a release Wednesday.
More important economic data will be released this week. Besides the Labor Department’s latest figures on unemployment and payrolls to be announced Friday, the Federal Reserve’s policy-making committee continues meeting on Wednesday, with the central bank announcing its latest plans on Wednesday afternoon.
It’s a disappointing day so far…the S&P 500 rocketed up almost eight points at the open, but within a half hour began a slow but steady decent into negative territory. What happened?
First: On the strong Q2 GDP, up 4.0 percent, there were detractors the minute the report came out.
A lot of inventory building, some complained. But most felt the numbers didn’t change their outlook for the second half dramatically. Barclays is a good example: “We do not view the outperformance in this report as a signal that the outlook for growth has improved,” they said.
Second: There’s the inflation-fearing camp. Modest growth or not, many fear that interest rates could move dramatically on any sign the economy is putting together a consistent series of above-expectation economic stats.
Treasury yields are up this morning, and many are wondering if the Fed will make some comment about the possibility of a rate increase sooner than expectations (mid-to-late- 2015).
I’m not in that camp, but some are: Interest-rate sensitive stocks like Utilities, Telecom, Housing are all underperforming the market.
Third: There are continuing issues with the Ukraine. Reuters is reporting comments from NATO that the number of troops continue to increase along the Russian-Ukraine border.
Finally: Let’s drag out the “market is tired” argument and that it is long due for a 10 percent correction. Alan Greenspan, on a competing network this morning, said stocks were due for a “significant correction” at some point. Really, Mr. Greenspan? The market IS tired, but we have been hearing about a 10 percent correction for two years. Those that got out then, when the S&P was at 1400, are now watching stocks up 40 percent since then.
My take? Things are continuing to get better, but they are getting better at a very slow rate. And the data is still choppy. And that is good for the markets.
EMBARGOED UNTIL RELEASE AT 8:30 A.M. EDT, WEDNESDAY, JULY 30, 2014
BEA 14-34
* See the navigation bar at the right side of the news release text for links to data tables,
contact personnel and their telephone numbers, and supplementary materials.
National Income and Product Accounts
Gross Domestic Product: Second Quarter 2014 (Advance Estimate)
Annual Revision: 1999 through First Quarter 2014
Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property
located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 4.0 percent in the second quarter of 2014,
according to the "advance" estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the first quarter,
real GDP decreased 2.1 percent (revised).The Bureau emphasized that the second-quarter advance estimate released today is based on
source data that are incomplete or subject to further revision by the source agency (see the box on page 3
and "Comparisons of Revisions to GDP" on page 10). The "second" estimate for the second quarter,
based on more complete data, will be released on August 28, 2014.
The increase in real GDP in the second quarter primarily reflected positive contributions from
personal consumption expenditures (PCE), private inventory investment, exports, nonresidential fixed
investment, state and local government spending, and residential fixed investment. Imports, which are a
subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased.
Box.___________
Annual Revision of the National Income and Product Accounts
The estimates released today reflect the results of the annual revision of the national income and
product accounts (NIPAs) in conjunction with the "advance" estimate of GDP for the second quarter of
2014. In addition to the regular revision of estimates for the most recent 3 years and the first quarter of
2014, GDP and select components were revised back to the first quarter of 1999 (see the Technical
Note). More information is available in "Preview of Upcoming NIPA Revision" in the May Survey of
Current Business and on BEA's Web site. The August Survey will contain an article describing the annual
revision in detail.
________________
FOOTNOTE. Quarterly estimates are expressed at seasonally adjusted annual rates, unless otherwise
specified. Quarter-to-quarter dollar changes are differences between these published estimates. Percent
changes are calculated from unrounded data and are annualized. "Real" estimates are in chained (2009)
dollars. Price indexes are chain-type measures.
This news release is available on BEA's Web site along with the Technical Note
and Highlights related to this release.
________________
Real GDP increased 4.0 percent in the second quarter, after decreasing 2.1 percent in the first.
This upturn in the percent change in real GDP primarily reflected upturns in private inventory
investment and in exports, an acceleration in PCE, an upturn in state and local government spending, an
acceleration in nonresidential fixed investment, and an upturn in residential fixed investment that were
partly offset by an acceleration in imports.
The price index for gross domestic purchases, which measures prices paid by U.S. residents,
increased 1.9 percent in the second quarter, compared with an increase of 1.4 percent in the first.
Excluding food and energy prices, the price index for gross domestic purchases increased 1.7 percent,
compared with an increase of 1.3 percent.
Real personal consumption expenditures increased 2.5 percent in the second quarter, compared
with an increase of 1.2 percent in the first. Durable goods increased 14.0 percent, compared with an
increase of 3.2 percent. Nondurable goods increased 2.5 percent; it was unchanged in the first quarter.
Services increased 0.7 percent in the second quarter, compared with an increase of 1.3 percent in the
first.
Real nonresidential fixed investment increased 5.5 percent in the second quarter, compared with
an increase of 1.6 percent in the first. Investment in nonresidential structures increased 5.3 percent,
compared with an increase of 2.9 percent. Investment in equipment increased 7.0 percent, in contrast to
a decrease of 1.0 percent. Investment in intellectual property products increased 3.5 percent, compared
with an increase of 4.6 percent. Real residential fixed investment increased 7.5 percent, in contrast to a
decrease of 5.3 percent.
Real exports of goods and services increased 9.5 percent in the second quarter, in contrast to a
decrease of 9.2 percent in the first. Real imports of goods and services increased 11.7 percent,
compared with an increase of 2.2 percent.
Real federal government consumption expenditures and gross investment decreased 0.8 percent
in the second quarter, compared with a decrease of 0.1 percent in the first. National defense increased
1.1 percent, in contrast to a decrease of 4.0 percent. Nondefense decreased 3.7 percent, in contrast to an
increase of 6.6 percent. Real state and local government consumption expenditures and gross
investment increased 3.1 percent, in contrast to a decrease of 1.3 percent.
The change in real private inventories added 1.66 percentage points to the second-quarter change
in real GDP after subtracting 1.16 percentage points from the first-quarter change. Private businesses
increased inventories $93.4 billion in the second quarter, following increases of $35.2 billion in the first
quarter and $81.8 billion in the fourth quarter of 2013.
Real final sales of domestic product -- GDP less change in private inventories -- increased 2.3
percent in the second quarter, in contrast to a decrease of 1.0 percent in the first.
Gross domestic purchases
Real gross domestic purchases -- purchases by U.S. residents of goods and services wherever
produced -- increased 4.5 percent in the second quarter, in contrast to a decrease of 0.4 percent in the
first.
Disposition of personal income
Current-dollar personal income increased $208.0 billion in the second quarter, compared with an
increase of $176.6 billion in the first. The acceleration in personal income primarily reflected an upturn
in personal dividend income and a smaller decrease in farm proprietors' income that were partly offset
by a deceleration in wages and salaries.
Personal current taxes increased $15.2 billion in the second quarter, compared with an increase
of $24.4 billion in the first.
Disposable personal income increased $192.7 billion, or 6.2 percent, in the second quarter,
compared with an increase of $152.1 billion, or 4.9 percent, in the first. Real disposable personal
income increased 3.8 percent in the second quarter, compared with an increase of 3.5 percent in the first.
Personal outlays increased $138.8 billion in the second quarter, compared with an increase of
$76.1 billion in the first.
Personal saving -- disposable personal income less personal outlays -- was $682.9 billion in the
second quarter, compared with $629.0 billion in the first.
The personal saving rate -- personal saving as a percentage of disposable personal income -- was
5.3 percent in the second quarter, compared with 4.9 percent in the first. For a comparison of personal
saving in BEA's national income and product accounts with personal saving in the Federal Reserve
Board's financial accounts of the United States and data on changes in net worth, go to
www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/Nipa-Frb.asp.
Current-dollar GDP
Current-dollar GDP -- the market value of the nation's output of goods and services -- increased
6.0 percent, or $250.7 billion, in the second quarter to a level of $17,294.7 billion. In the first quarter,
current-dollar GDP decreased 0.8 percent, or $34.3 billion.
Box._____________
Information on the assumptions used for unavailable source data is provided in a technical note
that is posted with the news release on BEA's Web site. Within a few days after the release, a detailed
"Key Source Data and Assumptions" file is posted on the Web site. In the middle of each month, an
analysis of the current quarterly estimate of GDP and related series is made available on the Web site;
click on Survey of Current Business, "GDP and the Economy." For information on revisions, see
"Revisions to GDP, GDI, and Their Major Components."
_________________
Revisions for the first quarter of 2014
For the first quarter of 2014, real GDP is now estimated to have declined 2.1 percent; in the
previously published estimates, first-quarter GDP was estimated to have declined 2.9 percent. The 0.8-
percentage point upward revision to the percent change in first-quarter real GDP primarily reflected
upward revisions to private inventory investment, to nonresidential fixed investment, and to PCE.
Previous Estimate Revised
Real GDP............................... -2.9 -2.1
Current-dollar GDP..................... -1.7 -0.8
Real GDI............................... -2.6 -0.7
Gross domestic purchases price index... 1.3 1.4
Revision of the National Income and Product Accounts
The revised estimates reflect the results of the annual revision of the national income and product
accounts (NIPAs). In addition to the regular revision of estimates for the most recent 3 years and the
first quarter of 2014, this "flexible" annual revision results in revisions to current-dollar GDP beginning
with the first quarter of 1999. The reference year remains 2009. When the estimates for the reference
year (2009) are revised, the levels of the related index numbers and chained-dollar estimates are also
revised for the entire historical period; revisions to percent changes before the first quarter of 1999 are
small and mostly due to rounding.
Because of the additional data shown, tables 3, 11, and 12 of this release are each divided into
two separate tables -- 3A and 3B, 11A and 11B, and 12A and 12B. There are also a number of special
tables that compare the revised and previously published statistics for select periods:
* Table 1A shows the percent change in real GDP and related measures; table 1B shows revisions
to current-dollar GDP, to national income, and to personal income; table 2A shows contributions
to the percent change in real GDP; and table 4A shows the percent change in the chain-type price
indexes for GDP and related measures.
* Tables 7A and 7B show annual levels, percent changes, and revisions to percent changes for
current-dollar GDP and for real (chained-dollar) GDP, respectively.
* Table 12C shows revisions to corporate profits by industry.
With the release of the annual revision, statistics for select NIPA tables will be available on
BEA's Web site (www.bea.gov). Shortly after the GDP release, BEA will post a table on its Web site
showing the major current-dollar revisions and their sources for each component of GDP, national
income, and personal income. Additionally, the August 2014 Survey of Current Business will contain an
article describing these revisions. That issue will also contain an analysis of the current quarterly
estimate of GDP and related series ("GDP and the Economy").
Revisions to real GDP
For this annual revision, the most notable revisions are generally limited to the period from 2011
through the first quarter of 2014 and largely reflect the incorporation of newly available and revised
source data for the underlying components (see the box below). The revisions for earlier periods are
small.
* For 2011–2013, real GDP increased at an average annual rate of 2.0 percent; in the previously
published estimates, real GDP had increased at an average annual rate of 2.2 percent. From the
fourth quarter of 2010 to the first quarter of 2014, real GDP increased at an average annual rate
of 1.8 percent, the same rate as in the previously published estimates.
* The percent change in real GDP was revised down 0.2 percentage point for 2011, was revised
down 0.5 percentage point for 2012, and was revised up 0.3 percentage point for 2013.
o For 2011, the largest contributors to the downward revision to the percent change in real
GDP were a downward revision to personal consumption expenditures (PCE) and an
upward revision to imports.
o For 2012, the largest contributors to the downward revision were downward revisions to
PCE and to state and local government spending.
o For 2013, the largest contributors to the upward revision were upward revisions to PCE
and to state and local government spending; these revisions were partly offset by a
downward revision to private inventory investment.
* The revisions to the annual estimates for 2012 and 2013 reflect partly offsetting revisions to the
quarters within the year. For 2012, the annual rate of change in GDP was revised down 1.4
percentage points for the first quarter and was revised down 0.3 percentage point for the third
quarter, while the growth rate for the second quarter was revised up 0.4 percentage point; the
growth rate for the fourth quarter was unrevised. The upward revision to the percent change in
real GDP for 2013 reflects upward revisions to the first, third, and fourth quarters that were
partly offset by a downward revision to the second quarter.
* For the first quarter of 2011 through the first quarter of 2014, the average revision (without
regard to sign) to the percent change in real GDP was 0.6 percentage point. The revisions did
not change the direction of the change in real GDP (increase or decrease) for any of the quarters.
* For the expansion from the second quarter of 2009 to the first quarter of 2014, real GDP
increased at an average annual rate of 2.1 percent, the same rate as in the previously published
estimates.
* Current-dollar GDP was revised down for all 3 years: $15.9 billion, or 0.1 percent, for 2011;
$81.4 billion, or 0.5 percent, for 2012; and $31.6 billion, or 0.2 percent, for 2013.
Revisions to price measures
* Gross domestic purchases -- From the fourth quarter of 2010 to the first quarter of 2014, the
average annual rate of increase in the price index for gross domestic purchases was revised up
from 1.6 percent to 1.7 percent.
* Personal consumption expenditures -- From the fourth quarter of 2010 to the first quarter of
2014, the average annual rate of increase in the price index for PCE was 1.7 percent, the same
rate as in the previously published estimates; the increase in the "core" PCE price index (which
excludes food and energy) was revised up from 1.5 percent to 1.6 percent.
Revisions to income and saving measures
* National income was revised down $43.4 billion, or 0.3 percent, for 2011, was revised up $97.9
billion, or 0.7 percent, for 2012, and was revised up $34.7 billion, or 0.2 percent, for 2013.
o For 2011, downward revisions to corporate profits and to nonfarm proprietors' income
were partly offset by an upward revision to net interest.
o For 2012, upward revisions to net interest, to nonfarm proprietors' income, and to
corporate profits were partly offset by a downward revision to supplements to wages and
salaries.
o For 2013, upward revisions to nonfarm proprietors' income and to net interest were partly
offset by downward revisions to farm proprietors' income and to wages and salaries.
* Corporate profits was revised down $61.1 billion, or 3.3 percent, for 2011, was revised up $13.3
billion, or 0.7 percent, for 2012, and was revised up $4.8 billion, or 0.2 percent, for 2013.
* Personal income was revised up $10.7 billion, or 0.1 percent, for 2011, was revised up $143.9
billion, or 1.0 percent, for 2012, and was revised up $32.2 billion, or 0.2 percent, for 2013.
* For 2011–2013, the average annual rate of growth of real disposable personal income was
revised up 0.1 percentage point from 1.7 percent to 1.8 percent.
* The personal saving rate (personal saving as a percentage of disposable personal income) was
revised up from 5.7 percent to 6.0 percent for 2011, was revised up from 5.6 percent to 7.2
percent for 2012, and was revised up from 4.5 percent to 4.9 percent for 2013.
Gross domestic income (GDI) and the statistical discrepancy
* For 2011–2013, real GDI increased at an average annual rate of 2.6 percent; in the previously
published estimates, real GDI had increased at an average annual rate of 2.5 percent. From the
fourth quarter of 2010 to the first quarter of 2014, real GDI increased at an average annual rate of
2.2 percent; in the previously published estimates, real GDI had increased at an average annual
rate of 2.1 percent.
* The statistical discrepancy is current-dollar GDP less current-dollar GDI. GDP measures final
expenditures -- the sum of consumer spending, private investment, net exports, and government
spending. GDI measures the incomes earned in the production of GDP. In concept, GDP is
equal to GDI. In practice, they differ because they are estimated using different source data and
different methods.
* As a result of the annual revision, the statistical discrepancy as a percentage of GDP was revised
up from -0.3 percent to -0.2 percent for 2011, was revised down from -0.1 percent to -1.3 percent
for 2012, and was revised down from -0.8 percent to -1.3 percent for 2013.
New and revised source data
This annual revision incorporated data from the following major federal statistical sources:
Source Data Agency Data Years Covered by Data and
Vintage of Data
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Census Bureau Annual surveys of merchant wholesale trade 2011 (revised)
Annual surveys of retail trade 2012 (new)
Monthly indicators of manufactures, merchant wholesale
trade, and retail trade 2011–2013 (revised)
Service annual survey 2011 and 2012 (revised)
2013 (new)
Annual surveys of state and local government finances Fiscal year (FY) 2011 (revised)
FY 2012 (new)
Monthly survey of construction spending (value put in
place) 2011–2013 (revised)
Quarterly services survey 2011–2013 (revised)
Current population survey/housing vacancy survey 2011 and 2012 (revised)
2013 (new)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Office of Management and
Budget Federal Budget FY 2013 and 2014 (revised)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Internal Revenue Service Tabulations of tax returns for corporations 2011 (revised) 2012 (new)
Tabulations of tax returns for sole proprietorships and
partnerships 2012 (new)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
BLS Quarterly census of employment and wages 2011–2013 ( revised)
Survey of occupational employment 2012 (new)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Department of Agriculture Farm statistics 2011–2013 (revised)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
BEA International transactions accounts 1999–2013 (revised)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Changes in methodology and presentation
The annual revision also incorporated improvements to estimating methodologies and to the
presentation of the NIPA estimates, including the following:
* Beginning with the estimates for 1999, the presentation of foreign transactions in the NIPAs is
changed to reflect the comprehensive restructuring of BEA's international transactions accounts
(ITAs), released in June. The new presentation of both goods and services in the foreign
transactions tables is consistent with the corresponding items in the ITAs. The definition of
exports and imports of travel is broadened to include travel for health and for education and
expenditures by short-term workers; these services had previously been included in the exports
and imports of "other" private services. The new presentation of foreign transactions enhances
the quality and the usefulness of BEA's international accounts statistics and brings them into
closer alignment with new international statistical guidelines.
* The presentation of the pension sector is expanded to include a table of transactions of defined
contribution pension plans and a table that presents transactions of both defined benefit and
defined contribution pension plans. (Tables presenting the transactions associated with defined
benefit pension plans were introduced in last year's comprehensive revision.)
* * *
BEA's national, international, regional, and industry estimates; the Survey of Current Business;
and BEA news releases are available without charge on BEA's Web site at www.bea.gov. By visiting
the site, you can also subscribe to receive free e-mail summaries of BEA releases and announcements.
* * *
Next release -- August 28, 2014 at 8:30 A.M. EDT for:
Gross Domestic Product: Second Quarter 2014 (Second Estimate)
Corporate Profits: Second Quarter 2014 (Preliminary Estimate)
Comparisons of Revisions to GDP
Quarterly estimates of GDP are released on the following schedule: the "advance" estimate, based on
source data that are incomplete or subject to further revision by the source agency, is released near the end of the
first month after the end of the quarter; as more detailed and more comprehensive data become available,
the "second" and "third" estimates are released near the end of the second and third months, respectively.
The "latest"” estimate reflects the results of both annual and comprehensive revisions.
Annual revisions, which generally cover the quarters of the 3 most recent calendar years, are usually carried
out each summer and incorporate newly available major annual source data. Comprehensive (or benchmark)
revisions are carried out at about 5-year intervals and incorporate major periodic source data, as well as
improvements in concepts and methods that update the accounts to portray more accurately the evolving U.S.
economy.
The table below shows comparisons of the revisions between quarterly percent changes of current-dollar
and of real GDP for the different vintages of the estimates. From the advance estimate to the second estimate (one
month later), the average revision to real GDP without regard to sign is 0.5 percentage point, while from the
advance estimate to the third estimate (two months later), it is 0.6 percentage point. From the advance estimate to
the latest estimate, the average revision without regard to sign is 1.3 percentage points. The average revision
(with regard to sign) from the advance estimate to the latest estimate is 0.3 percentage point, which is larger
than the average revisions from the advance estimate to the second or to the third estimates. The larger average
revisions to the latest estimate reflect the fact that comprehensive revisions include major improvements, such as
the incorporation of BEA’s latest benchmark input-output accounts. The quarterly estimates correctly indicate the
direction of change of real GDP 97 percent of the time, correctly indicate whether GDP is accelerating or
decelerating 72 percent of the time, and correctly indicate whether real GDP growth is above, near, or below trend
growth more than four-fifths of the time.
Revisions Between Quarterly Percent Changes of GDP: Vintage Comparisons
[Annual rates]
Vintages Average Average without Standard deviation of
compared regard to sign revisions without
regard to sign
____________________________________________________Current-dollar GDP_______________________________________________
Advance to second.................... 0.2 0.5 0.4
Advance to third..................... .2 .7 .4
Second to third...................... .0 .3 .2
Advance to latest.................... .3 1.3 1.0
________________________________________________________Real GDP_____________________________________________________
Advance to second.................... 0.1 0.5 0.4
Advance to third..................... .1 .6 .4
Second to third...................... .0 .2 .2
Advance to latest.................... .3 1.3 1.0
NOTE. These comparisons are based on the period from 1983 through 2010.
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm
Story 1: Senator Jeff Session To Congress: Stand Up To Obama’s Lawlessness and Nullification of Immigration Law and Be Counted — American People Massively Call Congress — Stand Up With Sessions And Call Your Representatives and Senators! — Videos
Sessions to Congress: Block Obama’s Executive Orders on Amnesty, or Face Cantor’s Fate
Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) 7.28.2014 Obama’s Executive
US Senate 7.24.2014 Jeff Sessions & Ted Cruz enter a collique on Obama’s executive amnesty
It’s now or never for opponents of President Barack Obama’s lawlessness on illegal immigration.
Saying America faces a “perilous hour,” and members of Congress are entering a “momentous week” when it comes to the future of the separation of powers, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) urged his colleagues on Monday to “be counted” and “stand up” to Obama’s “lawless actions, and sponsor legislation that will block him” from granting amnesty to millions more illegal immigrants.
He also urged colleagues to “oppose any border supplemental that does” not prevent Obama from using federal money to implement more executive actions on immigration. Simply put, Sessions said, there is “no middle ground” when it comes to Obama’s potential nullification of federal immigration laws.
Obama has indicated that he will enact more executive actions and grant work permits–in contravention of federal law–to possibly eight million more illegal immigrants once Congress leaves for its August recess after this week. Sessions has been urging Congress to support bills like Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-TX) that would prevent Obama from granting temporary amnesty to future illegal immigrants.
“Our response now is of great import,” Sessions said on the Senate floor. “It will define the scope of executive and congressional powers for years to come. If President Obama is not stopped in this action, and he exceeds his powers by attempting to execute such a massive amnesty contrary to law, the moral authority for any immigration henceforth will be eviscerated.”
Saying every member of Congress will face “a time of choosing” this week in which they will be asked to support or oppose legislation that would block Obama’s executive amnesty, Sessions asked, “Will we answer that call? Where will history record each of us stood at this important time?”
“No lawmaker should support any border bill that does not expressly prohibit these planned executive actions by the president and that prohibits any expenditure of funds to implement them,” Sessions said.
He reminded lawmakers in Congress that, “all of us were elected by Americans to serve them and to serve and honor their Constitution,” and Congress’s message to the American people should be clear: “We stand for law, we stand for Constitution, we stand for an honorable, lawful immigration system that treats everyone fairly and serves the national interest of the people of the United States.”
To Sessions, that means marking an end to “this Congress’s acquiescence to executive overreach.” He emphasized that those who refuse to take simple action to stop Obama’s executive amnesty will have voted to enable Obama’s lawlessness.
Sessions said it is a “stark” and “perilous” hour and emphasized that he has never seen “a situation in which a president–weeks in advance–has announced that he’s going to take action that clearly violates law.” Sessions said Obama is taking America into “exceedingly dangerous waters” and a constitutional crisis by “preparing to assume for himself the absolute power to set immigration law in America” with the mentality of, “I’ll just enforce what I wish to enforce” and “determine who may enter and who may work, no matter what the law says, by the millions.”
Sessions said Obama’s actions “would undermine the very sovereignty of the nation” and amount to an “open borders” policy that even the National Journal said would be “explosive.”
“Anyone the world over will get the message: get into America by any method you can, and you will never have to leave,” Sessions said.
He also said Americans “will not accept nullification of their laws passed by their elected representatives,” and that is why “it’s not too late” to stop Obama’s lawlessness.
“It is absolutely not too late for us to restore a lawful system that treats applicants who come to America fairly and serves the national interest,” Sessions said. “This can be done.”
He also said that recent election results have shown Americans are getting “roused up” because of illegal immigration and “once activated, their power will be felt.” Sessions noted that Americans have been begging Congress for 40 years to enforce its immigration laws, and “they will not sit back and allow Obama to implement through unlawful fiat what they have defeated through the democratic process.”
Sessions said ultimately preventing Obama from enacting more executive amnesty “will be good for the president, really, because it will stop him from taking a step that will mar permanently his presidency and the office of the president.”
Saying that the wheels were spinning off the Obama administration’s policies all over the world, Sessions said blocking Obama’s executive actions “will avoid a major government disruption at a time the nation faces many threats” and “protect the rule of law and the constitutional order whereby Congress makes the laws and the president executes them, whether he likes them or not.”
Sessions said the last thing the country needs while it faces so many crises abroad is a “major, internal battle with the president over illegal actions that he’d like to take.”
‘God bless Jeff Sessions,’ Rush Limbaugh says: Today in Alabama politics
Alabama lawmaker Jeff Sessions’ ongoing battle against the Obama administration’s immigration policies continue and his efforts are garnering attention from the leading conservative radio talk show host in the nation.
On Monday’s radio show, conservative icon Rush Limbaugh singled out Alabama’s junior Senator for his efforts to prevent any plans by Obama to expand amnesty programs to millions of those in the country illegally.
“If we’re going to have open immigration and borders, when Jeff Sessions – God bless Jeff Sessions – is begging everybody to call their congressmen and senators to stop what Obama is planning on doing just by the stroke of his pen of legalizing 5 to 6 million immigrants – this border crisis now, just saying, ‘To hell with it.’ Just granting amnesty. Sessions claims Obama is going to effectively end immigration enforcement. He’s going to nullify immigration law – just wipe it out, and in the process fundamentally change the United States.”
Limbaugh’s comments come just days after Sessions and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas,called on Americans to flood Capitol Hill with calls to oppose any efforts to expand amnesty efforts.
The American people have risen up in response to a rallying cry from Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Ted Cruz (R-TX), overloading the phone lines on Capitol Hill to pressure their members of Congress to fight against President Obama’s planned executive amnesty for millions of illegal aliens.
“I was on hold with the Capitol Hill switchboard about a minute or so each time I called my Representative and my two Senators,” Catharine Trauernicht, a Tea Party activist in Virginia, told Breitbart News Monday. “Typically, my calls are answered right away, but I always know that citizens have sprung into action when the switchboard recording comes on and says, ‘All of our operators are assisting other callers at this time.’”
When called by Breitbart News Monday at about 1:30 p.m., the Capitol Hill switchboard line was similarly busy.
“This shows the American people are going to resist,” a Sessions aide told Breitbart News. “The crescendo will grow. They are only beginning to be heard. They will get louder in the coming days.”
The calls are coming in response to Sen. Sessions, who last week asked the American people to rise up and pressure their elected leaders to stop the president from moving forward with any new executive amnesty. Obama has already granted executive amnesty to upwards of 800,000 illegal aliens through the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program which was initiated in 2012, and this year Obama is threatening to expand DACA to five to six million illegal aliens.
“The American people have begged and pleaded for years for our laws to be enforced,” Sessions said in his statement calling for the American people to rise up. “We have people in our own country living in violence, fear and poverty every single day. They have demanded an immigration policy that puts their jobs, wages and communities first. Every citizen should pick up the phone and ask of their congressional representative: where do you stand?”
The deluge comes after Sessions’s call to melt the phone lines was reported and picked up by the Drudge Report over the weekend.
Sessions specifically has called on lawmakers to back legislative efforts by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN). Cruz and Blackburn have offered Senate and House companion bills that Senate Budget Committee ranking member Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) has called on all members of Congress to back, and if they won’t Sessions says they are “complicit in the nullification of our laws and basically the nullification of border enforcement.”
Cruz and Blackburn have introduced legislation in the Senate and House respectively that would block President Obama’s administration from expanding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program that administratively granted amnesty to upwards of 800,000 illegal aliens who say they arrived in America as minors. Their bill would bar funding of the documents the administration needs to produce to carry out such an order.
Their argument is that the current border crisis—in which about 60,000 illegal alien minors are being sheltered in U.S. facilities around the country—is a direct result of the promise of amnesty the illegal aliens expect they will get if they get inside America’s borders successfully.
After Sessions’s call for citizen action, Cruz joined leaders from the grassroots group Tea Party Patriots to echo the call during an organizing conference call Sunday evening. Cruz called on Tea Partiers nationwide to back the Sessions plan to ask citizens to call their lawmakers.
Tea Party Patriots has, on its Facebook page Monday, published a 1-800 number that directs callers to the Capitol Hill switchboard.
“Call Congress NOW,” Tea Party Patriots posted, “and tell your Representative not to give Obama a dime to solve his border failures until Congress stops funding Obama’s executive amnesty!” Tea Party Patriots posted on its Facebook page.
NumbersUSA, a grassroots group against amnesty, similarly directed two million of its three million members to call Congress Monday morning. The group, like Tea Party Patriots, made a 1-800 number for its members to call.
On Monday morning, Sandy Rios the host of Sandy Rios in the Morning on American Family Radio talk—a show syndicated across 150 stations to five million listeners nationwide—backed the Sessions call, pushing Americans to call their members of Congress.
“Bankrupting your country, undermining its health and security is not a Christian virtue,” Rios told Breitbart News. “In spite of Bible verses taken out of context by misguided members of the Evangelical Immigration Table, the Bible is clear that people are responsible first to take care of their own.”
GOP internal debate: Is party repeating mistakes of 1998?
By Byron York
For anyone who was around, it’s hard to compare 1998 — the year of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, the Starr Report, and Bill Clinton‘s impeachment — with any other year. Yet there are reasons both Republicans and Democrats are thinking about 1998 as they head into this fall’s elections.
It’s the second midterm of a two-term Democratic president. Republicans scored a big victory in the president’s first midterm but failed to stop his re-election bid. Now, the GOP is increasingly frustrated by the White House; there are accusations of lawlessness and rumors of impeachment. There’s talk of making the midterms a referendum on the president.
That’s what scares some Republican strategists. Back in 1998, there was an intense internal debate among Republicans over how much to make the midterms about President Bill Clinton. The strategists who favored attacking the president won the day, but in the end their strategy didn’t work out. Now, there is an intense internal debate among Republicans over how much to make the 2014 midterms about President Barack Obama.
Of course, there were crazy circumstances in 1998. Bill Clinton, under investigation for all sorts of misdeeds, had been caught lying, both under oath and to the American people, about a sexual relationship with a White House intern. In September of ’98, independent counsel Kenneth Starrsent a report to the GOP-controlled Congress that was essentially a road map for impeachment.
Congress followed the map. But before impeachment came the midterms. Many top Republicans felt that all GOP candidates had to do was run ads bashing Clinton and tying him to Democratic candidates. Victory would follow.
But other Republicans — including some close to Rep. John Boehner, who at the time was still a relatively junior member of the House — felt Republicans should campaign on their accomplishments since winning the majority in 1994.
“Boehner was of the opinion that we need to prove what we had done in the last four years as a majority,” says one strategist involved in the discussions. “Unemployment going down, growth going up, the budget balanced.” Republicans on Boehner’s side put together a document known as “the playbook” to sketch out an issue-based campaign.
But the people who ran the party’s central campaign apparatus had other ideas. They wanted a Clinton-focused campaign based on whether the scandal-plagued president should be “rewarded” with midterm victories. And that’s what they got.
“In every election, there is a big question to think about,” said one ad run by the National Republican Congressional Committee. “This year, the question is: Should we reward … Bill Clinton? And should we reward not telling the truth?”
The Republican majority barely survived the election. Some top party strategists expected a GOP pickup of 20 seats in the House. Instead, Democrats picked up five seats, leaving Republicans still in charge but by the thinnest of margins.
Democrats had successfully argued that Republicans were so obsessed with getting Clinton that they weren’t paying enough attention to the concerns of the American people.
Now, 16 years later, Republicans are again arguing among themselves. Of course, some circumstances are different; among other things, 1998 was a time of general prosperity and growth, Clinton’s job approval rating was far higher than Obama’s is today, and Obama hasn’t had an independent counsel building an impeachment case against him.
Still, the GOP base is infuriated with Obama, particularly his abuse of executive power. And although Speaker Boehner has shown zero interest in the topic, a few Republican lawmakers are mentioning impeachment. Some party veterans worry that an Obama-focused midterm campaign will yield the same lackluster results as 1998.
Of course, Democrats would love to see Republicans blow their own chances. From the White House down to the party fundraising machine, Democrats have been trolling 24-7 in a transparent effort to goad Republicans into a self-destructive impeachment attempt. “They are desperate to reprise ’98,” says the GOP veteran of his Democratic adversaries. “Not just impeachment, but this whole idea that we’re going to make it all about the president again.”
Dissatisfaction with Barack Obama will play a role in November. A president’s job approval rating is a key factor in midterm results, and Obama’s now stands at just under 42 percent in the RealClearPolitics average of polls. But voters know why they’re unhappy with the president. They’d be more likely to vote for Republicans if they felt GOP candidates had a clear plan to address the problems, especially the economic woes, that still beset millions of Americans.
Illegal immigrants protest outside White House, with little fear of repercussions
Illegal immigrant demonstrators were protesting outside the White House on Monday – but don’t expect America’s immigration officers to intervene.
An Immigration and Customs Enforcement official indicated that even if the protesters end up getting arrested by D.C. police, they’d have to be serious criminals for ICE to get involved.
“Unless the individuals meet ICE’s enforcement priorities, it’s unlikely that the agency would get involved in the case,” the official told FoxNews.com.
Under a policy that’s been in effect for several years, ICE focuses deportation mostly on serious criminals and – in some cases — those caught in the act of crossing the border. The agency prioritizes deportation for felons, repeat offenders, gang members and others with a serious criminal record. But the agency largely gives a pass to other undocumented residents.
This is why illegal immigrant activists can protest outside the White House without worrying too much about ICE.
They did so at lunchtime on Monday, marching across Lafayette Park to the White House and advocating a reprieve for illegal immigrant parents who brought their children to the U.S. – and whose children have benefited from a separate reprieve issued in 2012 by the Department of Homeland Security.
According to The Washington Times, illegal immigrant protesters also planned to demonstrate outside the White House on Monday afternoon, to call on immigration groups to boycott any administration meetings until illegal immigrants are included in those talks.
Becoming the Party of Work How the GOP can help struggling Americans, and itself.
BySenator Jeff Sessions
According to a new Washington Post/ABC News poll, seven in ten voters believe that the Republican party is “out of touch with the concerns of most people in the United States today.”
What follows is a plan for how the GOP can win back their trust — and a build a conservative majority in the process.
But first, a little history.
When Americans went to the polls in 2012, the following was true: Work-force participation had sunk to its lowest level in 35 years, wages had fallen below 1999 levels, and 47 million Americans were on food stamps. Yet Mitt Romney, the challenger to the incumbent president, lost lower- and middle-income voters by an astonishing margin. Among voters earning $30,000 to $50,000, he trailed by 15 points, and among voters earning under $30,000 he trailed by 28 points.
And what did the GOP’s brilliant consultant class conclude from this resounding defeat? They declared that the GOP must embrace amnesty. The Republican National Committee dutifully issued a report calling for a “comprehensive immigration reform” that would inevitably increase the flow of low-skilled immigration, reducing the wages and living standards of the very voters whose trust the GOP had lost.
Over the past four decades, as factories were shuttered and blue-collar jobs were outsourced or automated, net immigration quadrupled. Yet the corporate-consultant class has pronounced that an insufficient level of immigration is the problem. A more colossal misreading of the political moment has rarely occurred.
Perhaps the most important political development now unfolding in the U.S. is the public’s growing loss of faith in our political and financial elites of both parties. To open the ears of disaffected voters, the GOP must break publicly from the elite immigration consensus of Wall Street and Davos. Republicans have a clear path to building a conservative majority if they free themselves from the corporate consultants and demonstrate to the American public that the GOP is the only party aligned with the core interests, concerns, and beliefs of everyday hardworking citizens.
But the immigration “principles” offered by House GOP leaders imply that record immigration levels must be increased further to meet “the needs of employers.” One such GOP proposal — to provide the food industry with half a million low-skilled workers each year — was polled by Rasmussen. Nearly 70 percent of independent voters opposed it.
“Most business leaders have long favored more open immigration. Different businesses want different kinds of people,” a prominent GOP fundraiser declared on TV. “A restaurant may want waiters and cooks; a hospital wants nurses and doctors; a university wants physicists; a business like Exelon needs more engineers.” Asked by the interviewer about hiring U.S. workers for open jobs, he replied that many of those now unemployed are “unable to compete for them.”
Is that the message of a winning party? It might win a majority of votes at a dinner party in a gated community in Bel Air, but it is an act of profound delusion to think that plan can form the basis of a nationwide Republican resurgence.
Democrats in Washington have already cast their lot. A recent report from the Center for Immigration Studies shows that all net employment gains from 2000 to 2013 — a period of record legal immigration — went to immigrant workers, and yet the immigration plan championed by the White House and congressional Democrats would triple the number of immigrants given permanent legal status over the next decade, and it would double the annual flow of guest workers to compete for jobs in every sector of the U.S. economy. The Democrats’ plan delivers for international corporations, open-borders groups, and even workers now living in other countries — all at the expense of American workers.
So Republicans have a choice. They can either join the Democrats as the second political party in Washington advocating uncontrolled immigration, or they can offer the public a principled alternative and represent the American workers Democrats have jettisoned. Republicans can either help the White House enact an immigration plan that will hollow out the American middle class, or they can finally expose the truth about the White House plan and detail the enormous harm it will inflict.
Republicans could then illustrate how, on every policy front, the Left embraces an agenda that benefits only the fortunate few. Their agenda includes: energy restrictions that destroy jobs and drive up costs; maze-like administrative rules that only the largest companies can navigate; nationalized health care that shrinks the work force; Federal Reserve stimulus, which helps big firms at the expense of small savers; taxes and regulation that close plants and send work overseas; massive spending that makes Washington a boomtown while impoverishing the nation; bureaucratic interference in schools and homes; intrusive government; a surging welfare state; endless deficits; and an increasingly open-borders immigration plan. Each of these policies directly harms working Americans. Each of these policies serves the political interests of Democrats while entailing lower pay, fewer hours, and higher unemployment for dedicated American workers.
Wherever the policies of the Left have been faithfully implemented, as in Detroit, human tragedy has followed. The future offered by the Left — a shrinking work force struggling to fund a growing welfare state — is not only unsustainable but uncompassionate. Compassion demands that we spare no effort in helping millions now jobless to realize the dream of financial independence. This is the urgent economic task of the 21st century.
Too often, Republicans have offered a passive reply to the Left’s refrain that the GOP does not care for those in need. The usual GOP responses — that the Left is engaged in “class warfare,” or is not presenting “credible solutions,” or is “kicking the can down the road” — fail to rebut the underlying slander. Instead, Republicans should hold the Left accountable for the social and moral harm its policies have inflicted on every community that has suffered for decades under its disastrous policy regime.
The GOP cannot win a bidding war with Democrats, carried from election cycle to election cycle in perpetuity, about who is willing to embrace the most generous amnesty and the most expansive immigration policy. Moreover, polling shows that by a margin of two to one Americans wish to see immigration curbed, and that by a margin of three to one those earning under $30,000 — the very group the GOP is hemorrhaging — favor a reduction over an increase.
Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III was born in Selma, Alabama, the son of Abbie (née Powe) and Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, Jr.[2] His father owned a general store and then a farm equipment dealership. Sessions has English, and some Scots-Irish, ancestry.[3][2]
After attending school in nearby Camden, Sessions studied at Huntingdon College in Montgomery, graduating with aBachelor of Arts degree in 1969. He was active in the Young Republicans and was student body president there.[4]Sessions attended the University of Alabama School of Law and graduated with his J.D. in 1973.[5]
Sessions entered private practice in Russellville and later in Mobile, where he now lives. He also served in the Army Reserve in the 1970s, achieving the rank of captain.
Sessions and his wife Mary have three grown children, Mary Abigail, Ruth Walk, and Sam, as well as six grandchildren, Jane Ritchie, Jim Beau, Gracie, Alexa, Sophia, and Hannah.
In 1986, Reagan nominated Sessions to be a judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama.[6] Sessions judicial nomination was recommended and actively backed by Republican Alabama Senator Jeremiah Denton.[7] A substantial majority of the American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, which rates nominees to the federal bench, rated Sessions “qualified,” with a minority voting that Sessions was “not qualified.”[8]
Thomas Figures, a black Assistant U.S. Attorney, testified that Sessions said he thought the Klan was “OK until I found out they smoked pot.” Sessions later said that the comment was not serious, but apologized for it.[10] Figures also testified that on one occasion, when the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division sent the office instructions to investigate a case that Sessions had tried to close, Figures and Sessions “had a very spirited discussion regarding how the Hodge case should then be handled; in the course of that argument, Mr. Sessions threw the file on a table, and remarked, ‘I wish I could decline on all of them,'” by which Figures said Sessions meant civil rights cases generally. After becoming Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, Sessions was asked in an interview about his civil rights record as a U.S Attorney. He denied that he had not sufficiently pursued civil rights cases, saying that “when I was [a U.S. Attorney], I signed 10 pleadings attackingsegregation or the remnants of segregation, where we as part of the Department of Justice, we sought desegregation remedies.”[11]
Figures also said that Sessions had called him “boy.”[6] He also testified that “Mr. Sessions admonished me to ‘be careful what you say to white folks.'”[12]
Sessions responded to the testimony by denying the allegations, saying his remarks were taken out of context or meant in jest, and also stating that groups could be considered un-American when “they involve themselves in un-American positions” in foreign policy. Sessions said during testimony that he considered the Klan to be “a force for hatred and bigotry.” In regards to the marijuana quote, Sessions said the comment was a joke but apologized.[10]
In response to a question from Joe Biden on whether he had called the NAACP and other civil rights organizations “un-American”, Sessions replied “I’m often loose with my tongue. I may have said something about the NAACP being un-American or Communist, but I meant no harm by it.”[8]
On June 5, 1986, the Committee voted 10–8 against recommending the nomination to the Senate floor, with Republican Senators Charles Mathias of Maryland andArlen Specter of Pennsylvania voting with the Democrats. It then split 9–9 on a vote to send Sessions’ nomination to the Senate floor with no recommendation, this time with Specter in support. A majority was required for the nomination to proceed.[13] The pivotal votes against Sessions came from Democratic Senator Howell Heflin of Alabama. Although Heflin had previously backed Sessions, he began to oppose Sessions after hearing testimony, concluding that there were “reasonable doubts” over Sessions’ ability to be “fair and impartial.” The nomination was withdrawn on July 31, 1986.
Sessions became only the second nominee to the federal judiciary in 48 years whose nomination was killed by the Senate Judiciary Committee.[10]
Sessions was quoted then as saying that the Senate on occasion had been insensitive to the rights and reputation of nominees.[14][15]
One law clerk from the U.S. District Court in Mobile who had worked with Sessions later acknowledged the confirmation controversy, but stated that he observed Sessions as “a lawyer of the highest ethical and intellectual standards.”[16]
After joining the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sessions remarked that his presence there, alongside several of the members who voted against him, was a “great irony.”[14] When Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania left the GOP to join the Democratic Party on April 28, 2009, Sessions was selected to be the Ranking Member on the Senate Judiciary Committee. At that time, Specter said that his vote against Sessions’ nomination was a mistake, because he had “since found that Sen. Sessions is egalitarian.”[17]
Alabama Attorney General and U.S. Senate
Sessions was elected Attorney General of Alabama in November 1994. In 1996, Sessions won the Republican primary for U.S. Senate, after a runoff, and then defeated Democrat Roger Bedford 53%–46% in the November general election.[4] He succeeded Howell Heflin, who had retired after 18 years in the Senate. In 2002, Sessions won reelection by defeating Democratic State Auditor Susan Parker. In 2008, Sessions defeated Democratic State SenatorVivian Davis Figures (sister-in-law of Thomas Figures, the Assistant U.S. Attorney who testified at Sessions’ judicial confirmation hearing) to win a third term. Sessions received 63 percent of the vote to Figures’ 37 percent. Sessions is seeking a fourth term in 2014[18] and is uncontested in both the Republican primary and the general election.
Sessions was only the second freshman Republican senator from Alabama since Reconstruction and gave Alabama two Republican senators, a first since Reconstruction. Sessions was easily reelected in 2002 becoming the first (or second, if one counts his colleague Richard Shelby, who switched from Democrat to Republican in 1994) Republican reelected to the Senate from Alabama.
Political positions
Sessions was ranked by National Journal as the fifth-most conservative U.S. Senator in their March 2007 Conservative/Liberal Rankings.[19] He backs conservative Republican stances on foreign policy, taxes, and social issues. He opposes abortion and illegal immigration.
Sessions was a supporter of the “nuclear option,” a tactic considered by then-Senate Majority LeaderBill Frist in the spring of 2005 to change longstanding Senate rules to stop Democratic filibusters of some of George W. Bush’s nominees to the federal courts. When the “Gang of 14” group of moderate Senators reached an agreement to allow filibusters under “extraordinary circumstances,” Sessions accepted the agreement but argued that “a return to the tradition of up-or-down votes on all judicial nominees would… strengthen the Senate.”[21]
In 2005, Sessions spoke at a rally in Washington, D.C. in favor of the War in Iraq that was held in opposition to an anti-war protest held the day before. Sessions said of the anti-war protesters: “The group who spoke here the other day did not represent the American ideals of freedom, liberty and spreading that around the world. I frankly don’t know what they represent, other than to blame America first.”[23]
In the 109th Congress, Sessions introduced legislation to increase the death gratuity benefit for families of servicemembers from $12,420 to $100,000.[24] The bill also increased the level of coverage under the Servicemen’s Group Life Insurance from $250,000 to $400,000. Sessions’ legislation was accepted in the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2005.[25]
Sessions was one of only three senators to vote against additional funding for the VA medical system. He opposed the bill due to cost concerns and indicated that Congress should instead focus on “reforms and solutions that improve the quality of service and the effectiveness that is delivered.”[26]
Crime and security
On October 5, 2005, he was one of nine Senators who voted against a Senate amendment to a House bill that prohibited cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment of individuals in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government.[27]
Sessions has taken a strong stand against any form of citizenship for illegal immigrants. Sessions was one of the most vocal critics of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007. He is a supporter of E-Verify, the federal database that allows businesses to electronically verify the immigration status of potential new hires,[28]and has advocated for expanded construction of a Southern border fence.[29]
He voted for an amendment to the 2008 budget resolution, offered by Republican Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, which would have placed a one-year moratorium on the practice of earmarking.
Sessions was one of 25 senators to vote against the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (the bank bailout), arguing that it “undermines our heritage of law and order, and is an affront to the principle of separation of powers.”[31]
Sessions opposed the $837 billion stimulus bill, calling it “the largest spending bill in the history of the republic.”[32] He also expressed skepticism about the $447 billion jobs bill recently proposed by President Obama, and disputed the notion that the bill would be paid for and not add to the national debt.[33]
Marriage
Sessions has been an opponent of same-sex marriage and has earned a zero rating from the Human Rights Campaign, the United States’ largest LGBT Advocacy group, for the 108th, 109th, and 110th Congress.[34] He voted against the Matthew Shepard Act, which added acts of bias-motivated violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity to federal hate-crimes law,[35] and a congressional resolution calling on members of the Ugandan Parliament to reject the proposed “Kill-the-Gays Bill.”[34] Sessions voted in favor of advancing the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004 and 2006.[35]
Sessions has also said regarding the appointment of a gay Supreme Court justice, “I do not think that a person who acknowledges that they have gay tendencies is disqualified, per se, for the job”[38] but that “it would be a big concern that the American people might feel uneasy about.”[39]
Following Senator Ted Cruz‘s 21-hour speech opposing the Affordable Care Act, Sessions joined Cruz and 17 other Senators in a failed vote against cloture on a comprehensive government funding bill that would have continued funding healthcare reform. [42]
While serving as the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee in the 110th Congress, Sessions was the senior Republican who questioned Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Barack Obama‘s nominee to succeed retiring Justice David Souter. Sessions focused on Sotomayor’s views on empathy as a quality for a judge, arguing that “empathy for one party is always prejudice against another.”[43] Sessions also questioned the nominee about her views on the use of foreign law in deciding cases,[44] as well as her role in the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF). On July 28, 2009, Sessions joined five Republican colleagues in voting against Sotomayor’s nomination in the Judiciary Committee. The committee approved Sotomayor by a vote of 13–6.[45] Sessions also voted against Sotomayor when her nomination came before the full Senate. He was one of 31 senators (all Republicans) to do so, while 68 voted to confirm the nominee.[46]
Sessions also served as the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee during the nomination process for Elena Kagan, President Obama’s nominee to succeedretired Justice John Paul Stevens. Sessions based his opposition on the nominee’s lack of experience, her background as a political operative (Kagan had said that she worked in the Clinton White House not as a lawyer but as a policy adviser[47]), and her record on guns, abortion, and gay rights. Sessions pointed out that Kagan “has a very thin record legally, never tried a case, never argued before a jury, only had her first appearance in the appellate courts a year ago.”[48]
Sessions focused the majority of his criticism on Kagan’s treatment of the military while she was dean of Harvard Law School. During her tenure, Kagan reinstated the practice of requiring military recruiters to coordinate their activities through a campus veterans organization, rather than the school’s Office of Career Services. Kagan argued that she was trying to comply with a law known as the Solomon Amendment, which barred federal funds from any college or university that did not grant military recruiters equal access to campus facilities. Sessions asserted that Kagan’s action was a violation of the Solomon Amendment and that it amounted to “demeaning and punishing the military.[49] He also argued that her action showed a willingness to place her politics above the law.
On July 20, 2010, Sessions and five Republican colleagues voted against Kagan’s nomination. Despite this, the Judiciary Committee approved the nomination by a 13–6 vote. Sessions also voted against Kagan in the full Senate vote, joining 36 other senators (including one Democrat) in opposition. 63 senators voted to confirm Kagan. Following the vote, Sessions remarked on future nominations and elections, saying that Americans would “not forgive the Senate if we further expose our Constitution to revision and rewrite by judicial fiat to advance what President Obama says is a broader vision of what America should be.”[50]
Abortion
Sessions is pro-life and was one of 37 Senators to vote against funding for embryonic stem cell research.[51]
Cannabis
Sessions is staunchly against legalizing cannabis for either recreation or medicine. “I’m a big fan of the DEA”, he said during a hearing with the Senate Judiciary Committee.[52] Sessions was “heartbroken” and found “it beyond comprehension” when President Obama claimed that cannabis is not as dangerous as alcohol.[53]
During his career, his largest donors have come from the legal, health, real estate and insurance industries.[55] From 2005 to 2010, the corporations employing donors who gave the most to his campaign were the Southern Company utility firm, Balch & Bingham law firm, Harbert Management investment firm, Drummond Company coal mining firm, and WPP Group, a UK-based communications services company.[56]
Story 1: Illegal Alien Teenagers “Obama Will Take Care of Us”, American People ” We Will Take of Obama and Democratic Party in November Elections and Impeach Obama in 2015! — Videos
Democrats Urge For More Support And Money For Campaign.
Illegals And The Democratic Voting Strategy
Top Obama Aide Can’t Rule Out Impeachment
Impeach Obama Now
Poll: 33% say impeach Obama
Sessions: America Must Fight Obama’s Planned Executive Amnesty, Work Permits For 5-6M Illegals
Sessions: Congress Must Stop President’s Planned Amnesty Orders
US Senate 7.24.2014 Jeff Sessions & Ted Cruz enter a collique on Obama’s executive amnesty
Rep. Steve Stockman, Shocked By What He Saw On
U.S. – Mexico Border
Mark Levin: Rep. Bob Goodlatte says “We are not working on or drawing up articles of impeachment”…
Andy McCarthy Talks Obama Impeachment – TheBlaze
Andrew C. McCarthy: Faithless Execution: Building a Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment
The Case for Impeaching Barack Obama (Part 1)
The Case for Impeaching Barack Obama (Part 2)
77% want illegals sent home, 81% say it’s a serious issue
BY PAUL BEDARD
A huge majority of Americans, 81 percent, believe the newimmigration crisis of unaccompanied children streaming over the U.S.-Mexico border is serious, and almost as many want them gone — some even if it’s not safe to return, according to a new poll.
In an Economist/YouGov.com survey, however, the public isn’t heartless in how they view the plight of the children, with 66 percent expressing sympathy for their situation that drove them north, where U.S. Border Control officers are catching the new arrivals for immigration processing.
But while there is an understanding among many Americans that some of the children are fleeing violence in El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, a majority, 57 percent, believe the illegal immigrants are coming to America because they believe “that the U.S. government is or will be granting amnesty to undocumented immigrant children,” said the new poll.
The poll is the latest to show that the nation doesn’t believe the president’s immigration policies are working. And it is proof that most want the flow of illegals into the United States slowed or shut off.
While 77 percent said they want the illegals returned, there are different degrees in how fast it should be done. For example, 10 percent said that Border Control should just return the children to the Mexican border. Another 32 percent said that the children should be returned home “regardless of conditions in their home country,” and 35 percent said they should be returned “only if” conditions are safe.
And for those allowed to stay temporarily, the public is split evenly on whether unaccompanied children should be housed in their state or in another state.
The poll also revealed that the crisis has become a drag on President Obama. “The approval rating of the president on immigration, like his approval ratings on many other issues, is negative. A majority disapproves, and only a third approve. But the evaluation of the president is even worse among those who would deport the child migrants as soon as possible: only 16 percent in that group approve of how Barack Obama is handling immigration. Those who want the children to stay until they can be returned safely approve of the president’s performance,” said the poll analysis.
The Democrats’ impeachment fundraising extravaganza
By Byron York
In an almost farcical twist on the recent political debate, the ObamaWhite House has joined the Democratic fundraising apparatus in what appears to be a campaign to encourage Republicans to impeach the president.
The first lady was first to broach the subject, in a Thursday evening fundraising speech in Chicago. “If we lose these midterm elections, it’s going to be a whole lot harder to finish what we started,” Obama said, “because we’ll just see more of the same out in Washington — more obstructions, more lawsuits, and talk about impeachment.”
Top White House aide Pfeiffer really got the ball rolling Friday morning at a Christian Science Monitor reporters’ breakfast. “I saw a poll today that had a huge portion of the Republican Party base saying they supported impeaching the president,” Pfeiffer said. “A lot of people in this town laugh that off. I would not discount that possibility.” Asked whether an impeachment battle might be a “good thing” for the president’s popularity, Pfeiffer said, “We take it very seriously and I don’t think it would be a good thing. But I think it would be foolish to discount the possibility that Republicans would at least consider going down that path.”
A few hours later, at the White House briefing, Earnest spoke at length about the alleged impeachment threat. “Do you really believe that the president could be impeached?” Earnest was asked.
“Well, I think that there are senior members of the Republican political party or certainly prominent voices in the Republican Party who are calling for exactly that …” Earnest said. “There are some Republicans, including some Republicans who are running for office, hoping they can get into office so that they can impeach the president. That is apparently a view that they hold, because it’s one that they have repeatedly expressed publicly.”
At another point in the briefing, Earnest noted that “there are some prominent members of the Republican Party who have articulated their support for articles of impeachment. That is the view that they’ve articulated. What we’re focused on is the business of the American people.”
A few hours later, Pelosi and the Democratic fundraising machine joined in. “Sorry to email you late on a Friday, but I need your urgent support,” Pelosi emailed. “Yesterday, for the first time in history, Congress voted to sue a sitting president. Today, the White House alerted us that they believe ‘Speaker [John] Boehner … has opened the door to impeachment …'”
“With everything happening right now, I’m a little disappointed to see that you haven’t had a chance to chip in to defend President Obama,” Pelosi continued. “We could use your support today. ALL GIFTS TODAY TRIPLE-MATCHED!”
A couple of hours later, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent out another mass email. “The White House just announced that they believe John Boehner’s lawsuit could lead to the impeachment of President Barack Obama,” the DCCC said. “We are now on full RED ALERT at Democratic Headquarters. We are scrambling to defend the President in every way we can at this critical moment.”
“According to our records, you haven’t chipped in to fight back,” the email continued. “Can we count on you at this critical moment? ALL GIFTS TODAY TRIPLE-MATCHED!”
Another couple of hours later — after 10pm in the East — the DCCC tried again. “If you’re wondering why you’re getting all this email on a Friday night, it’s simple,” the email read. “THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT OBAMA IS NOW A REAL POSSIBILITY.”
“No other president in history has had to face the prospect of being taken to court by Congress. And the White House alerted us today that it could lead to impeachment. These historic (and totally unfounded) attacks require an historic response — and that’s exactly what you’re doing right now. We are now in the range of $1,000,000 raised since Republicans voted to authorize the lawsuit (that was just since yesterday!). Midnight deadline: ALL GIFTS TODAY TRIPLE-MATCHED!”
There are some Republican backbenchers who would indeed like to impeach the president, just as there were (more senior and more organized) Democratic lawmakers who hoped to impeachGeorge W. Bush after Democrats won control of Congress in the 2006 elections. Back then Pelosi, the new Speaker, said flatly, “Impeachment is off the table.” Now, Boehner has said he “disagrees” with former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin‘s call for impeachment, and many observers see his lawsuit against the president as an effort to placate GOP lawmakers while stopping far short of impeaching the president. But Boehner has not made a far-reaching, definitive statement comparable to declaring impeachment “off the table.” He might now be driven to do so, making the Democrats’ impeachment fundraising festival appear even more ridiculous than it already does.
Senate Budget Committee ranking member Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) is putting a call out to the American people: He needs help to kill President Barack Obama’s plans to grant executive amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.
Sessions wants Americans to melt Congress’ phone lines, demanding their members make a precondition of any border crisis bill that Obama’s executive order amnesty via the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and any future plans be stopped.
“The American people have begged and pleaded for years for our laws to be enforced,” Sessions said in his statement. “We have people in our own country living in violence, fear and poverty every single day. They have demanded an immigration policy that puts their jobs, wages and communities first. Every citizen should pick up the phone and ask of their congressional representative: where do you stand?”
Sessions said that it would be wrong for any member of the House or Senate to support any border crisis bill that doesn’t end DACA and block the president from expanding it.
“No Member—House or Senate, Democrat of Republican—should support any bill with respect to the border crisis that does not include language explicitly prohibiting the Administration from taking such action,” Sessions said. “Congress must foreclose any possibility of these unlawful executive actions before congressional funding is granted. This is an essential precondition.”
Sessions cites several recent reports from major news organizations like the National Journal, Time magazine and The Hill that detail how the White House is considering expanding DACA to grant amnesty via executive order to millions more illegal aliens.
“It has now been extensively reported that these executive actions will likely expand his Deferred Action program (DACA) to apply to an additional 5-6 million adult illegal immigrants,” Sessions said. “The existing DACA program has been widely misunderstood. The executive action did not, as The Hill writes today, only result in ‘deferred deportations for young undocumented immigrants.’ Illegal immigrants in the interior of the U.S. have already, as a practical matter, been immune from enforcement under this Administration. DACA applies to individuals up to 30 years of age and provides actual amnesty papers, photo ID and work permits to illegal immigrants—who can then take any job in America.”
Sessions said that expanding DACA to another 5-6 million illegal immigrants “would effectively end immigration enforcement in America.”
White House pursuing plan to expand immigrant rights
By CHRISTI PARSONS, BRIAN BENNETT, LISA MASCAROcontact the reporters
Even as President Obama grapples with the crisis of immigrant children arriving at the Southwest border, White House officials are laying the groundwork for a large-scale expansion of immigrant rights that would come by executive action within weeks.
Officials signaled strongly Friday that Obama’s move would shield from deportation large numbers of immigrants living in the country illegally, as advocacy groups have demanded.
Roughly 5 million of the estimated 11 million people who entered the country without legal authorization or overstayed their visas could be protected under a leading option the White House is considering, according to officials who discussed the proposals on condition of anonymity.
Obama said last month that because Congress had failed to act on comprehensive immigration reform, he would take executive action to “fix as much of our immigration system as I can on my own.”
That move will come by the end of the summer, White House senior advisor Dan Pfeiffer told reporters Friday. Some officials had advocated waiting until after the November midterm election.
Any such move would prompt a major clash with congressional Republicans, and at least some White House officials appeared to relish the prospect that the GOP might overreach in its response and act in a politically self-destructive manner.
When the decision is announced, it will “increase the angry reactions from Republicans,” Pfeiffer said.
“I would not discount the possibility” that Republicans would seek to impeach Obama over his next immigration moves, he said, adding that House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) had “opened the door to impeachment” by his plans to sue Obama for allegedly exceeding his executive authority.
Pfeiffer made his comments at a breakfast for reporters sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor.
Boehner repeatedly has ruled out calls for impeachment proceedings, and his lawsuit against Obama has been widely seen as an effort to provide an alternative for Republicans infuriated by what they see as too much unilateral action by the president.
But the open references to impeachment at the White House on Friday suggest that administration officials are trying to shape the political battleground in advance — portraying Republicans as obstructionist before launching a broad-sweeping executive action on a front where conservative sensitivities are particularly keen: immigration policy.
The White House is entertaining a range of possibilities that would speed up deportations in some cases but forestall them in many others.
Obama could use his executive powers to expedite deportations in response to the current border crisis, in an effort to clear the large numbers of unaccompanied minors gathering daily in the Rio Grande Valley in south Texas.
At the same time, he seems likely to act to prevent deportations of many of the immigrants already living, working and raising children in the U.S.
One option would allow immigrants who are parents of U.S. citizens to apply for temporary legal status which would let them work legally in the U.S. Because children born in the country automatically receive U.S. citizenship, that option could affect about 5 million people, researchers estimate.
A second option would be to allow temporary legal status for the parents of young people already granted deportation deferrals by the Obama administration. That would affect a smaller, but still sizable, number of people.
So far, more than 520,000 people have received permits to stay and work in the U.S. under the administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which was created in 2012 for young people who were brought to the U.S. as children.
Leading Republicans, including Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, already have called for ending the deferred action program, and any move to expand it by including parents would be certain to draw a furious response from conservatives.
Wary of the president’s potential course of action, Republicans were both irritated by Pfeiffer’s threat and critical of what they saw as an effort to stir up Democratic voters and financial donors.
The campaign arm of the House Democratic leadership began a fundraising drive featuring Pfeiffer’s impeachment forecast within hours of his making it.
“We have a humanitarian crisis at our border, and the White House is making matters worse with inattention and mixed signals,” said Boehner’s spokesman, Michael Steel.
“It is telling, and sad, that a senior White House official is focused on political games, rather than helping these kids and securing the border,” he said.
As his aides worked on the longer-term immigration plan, Obama on Friday met at the White House with the presidents of Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, hoping to enlist their help in stemming the flow of young migrants.
An estimated 57,000 unaccompanied minors, mostly from Central America, have crossed into the U.S. from Mexico since last October.
Obama told the presidents that children who don’t have “proper claims” to admission to the U.S. will have to go back home.
Aides said the leaders also agreed on the need to address poverty and violence in Central America.
“The American people and my administration have great compassion for these children,” Obama told reporters, with the other presidents at his side. “But I also emphasized to my friends that we have to deter a continuing influx of children putting themselves at risk.”
How to do that — and how to pay for it — continued to stymie Congress.
Republicans, who balked at the administration’s request for $3.7 billion to increase the number of deportation courts, bolster border security and care for the children who have arrived, proposed a scaled-back plan Friday for less than $1 billion. Senate Democrats have proposed $2.7 billion. Neither is expected to win support from both chambers.
With Congress only a few days from its long August break, money is running out to care for the youths and process their immigration cases.
Border Patrol agents have been working overtime, and Customs and Border Protection has racked up large bills to provide food and transportation to handle the influx.
If Congress doesn’t approve more spending, agency officials will have to divert money from programs that speed up cross-border trade and cargo, Customs and Border Protection chief Gil Kerlikowske said in a C-SPAN interview.
Money, though, is only part of the problem.
House Republicans have insisted on amending a 2008 law that guarantees hearings before unaccompanied children can be returned to their home countries. Senate Democrats mostly oppose that idea.
The White House has sent mixed messages, initially saying Congress should change the law, then backing down after opposition from Senate Democrats. White House officials now say Congress should approve the additional funds first.
Republicans have also been split on immigration, with many conservatives arguing that Congress should not act because the administration cannot be trusted to enforce the immigration laws.
But a majority of GOP lawmakers appeared prepared to break ranks with the conservatives and move ahead for a vote next week.
“The vast majority of our members want to solve this and do it in a targeted way that actually addresses the problem,” Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), the incoming GOP whip, said after a closed session Friday of House Republicans.
Under the House Republican proposal, Congress would reimburse states for deploying National Guard troops, as Republican Gov. Rick Perry of Texas has done, and speed up processing of the children’s immigration claims. The House proposal would also allow law enforcement personnel to operate on public lands beyond what is now allowed, a long-standing issue in some border states.
“If we do nothing, the president is going to blame us for doing nothing,” said Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.). “We have to step up and show we’re going to do this in an orderly, lawful, compassionate way.”
CHILDREN CROSSING BORDER: ‘OBAMA WILL TAKE CARE OF US’
Border Patrol vet says immigrants ‘coached’ on how to game system
In an exclusive interview with WND and Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, a 13-year Border Patrol veteran revealed many in the recent surge of illegal immigrants, including unaccompanied minors, are coming prepared to game the U.S. immigration system, even repeating the mantra, “Obama will take care of us.”
“I don’t usually get into the political part of it,” explained Chris Cabrera, now a vice president in the National Border Patrol Council Local 3307, “but I find it odd that their whole thing is, ‘We are going to get amnesty when we get here. Where is my permiso? Where is my permission to go north so I can get my medical care and my schooling and all that? President Obama is going to take care of us and make sure we’re all OK.’
“Whether it’s the adults or the young kids, one thing we consistently hear is, ‘Obama will take care of us,’” Cabrera said.
Does Barack Obama WANT to be impeached? Sound off in the WND Poll.
He also suggested the tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors illegally entering the United States appear to have been coached on what to say when they cross the border.
“The ‘magic words’ are something along the lines of ‘asylum,’ or ‘political asylum’ or to say ‘fighting in my home country,’” Cabrera said. “They know these words … because we can’t send them home, because it’s too dangerous back there.”
The only way to stop the flow of illegal immigration and child smuggling across the border, he said, is to eliminate the entitlement mentality with a return to strict, border enforcement.
“What needs to be done is 100-percent detention and 100-percent removal,” Cabrera said.
Cabrera’s comments backed up statements made earlier in the week by Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., who told a national TV audience the children were coming through Mexico from Central America by Obama’s “invitation.”
“I think we’re overlooking the obvious here,” Inhofe told MSNBC’s Chuck Todd on Thursday. “I went down and talked to these kids. … These kids were here in this country at the invitation of the president. I think everyone knows it, nobody says it.”
Todd asked Ihhofe to clarify his comments.
“[Through] his DACA, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, [Obama] is making it sound as if, ‘Come here, we’ll take care of you,’ and they all believe this,” Ihhofe said. “I talked to them individually, and I speak enough Spanish that I could do this. All of them were programmed to say that they had relatives here, they’re invited to come up here, they’re going to stay here – at the same time the HHS says, ‘We’re not going to send them back.’ So long as they have that assurance, more are coming in.”
Watch the interview with Inhofe below:
Cabrera also confirmed to Stockman an earlier WND story revealing no biometric identification measures are taken on illegal immigrant minors detained at the border, not even fingerprints, allowing them to easily be lost within the U.S. once processed.
“It’s always been a policy within the Border Patrol,” he said. “Those 14 years old or younger are considered children, and no photographs are taken of them, and that’s how it’s always been.”
Cabrera continued to explain that the difference today is the number of unaccompanied minors the Border Patrol is detaining coming across the border illegally.
“We’ve never had the number of unaccompanied children like this crossing the border illegally and just turning themselves in, like we’re seeing now,” he said.
Cabrera also indicated that the paperwork required for each immigrant is “very long and involved.” It takes a Border Patrol agent between two-and-a-half to three hours, sometimes even four hours per person.
“When you start multiplying three hours times 1,200 to 1,500 persons in custody, it’s just overwhelming,” he said. “The McAllen Border Patrol station has hit in the recent past 1,500 a day, and sector-wide, from Rio Grande City to Brownsville, we’ve seen up to 3,500 [immigrants] a day.”
He confirmed FEMA agents are now involved, working with the Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, of the Department of Homeland Security to relocate the unaccompanied minors to detention centers.
“Once we finish the processing, the unaccompanied minors are handed over to ICE,” he said. “But now FEMA has stepped in, along with the Americorps young men and women especially working with the younger children. The Coast Guard is assisting too, using some of their aircraft to transport them around the country.”
Cabrera acknowledged a change in policy in which the detained illegal immigrant unaccompanied minors are being shipped out of Border Patrol detention facility in vans, instead of buses, “to keep it under the radar and maintain a lower profile.”
WND inquired where the Central American unaccompanied minors who entered the country illegally were being shipped after they left the Border Patrol facility.
“Previously, four or five years ago, the Border Patrol very heavily scrutinized where detained illegal agents were being sent after being processed by us into the United States,” he explained. “I believe now it’s so crowded and overrun that nobody in the Border Patrol has the time or the resources to do it. Some are taken to another Border Patrol processing center and from there to a detention center. Some are taken to buses and trains and let go, but from there nobody really knows where they go.”
He did indicate that detained, illegal immigrant, unaccompanied minors must have some tie to a family member or family friend to be released by ICE into the U.S.
“We can’t release a 12-year-old or a 14-year-old on his or her own recognizance, but the checks going into determining how close a relative or even if the person is a relative don’t seem to me to be sufficiently rigorous,” Cabrera said.
He was especially concerned for the children being released into the open population.
“If you are going to release a child, we ought to know if the person we are relying upon is not a pedophile or a criminal,” Cabrera insisted. “You have to be 100-percent sure, because if something happens to this kid, and we released him to that person, we are responsible for it. This is a child. They are emotionally fragile and physically fragile and anything can happen to them.”
Cabrera explained that usually the children coming across the Rio Grande carry with them some written information designed to be handed over to the Border Patrol identifying relatives currently living in the United States.
“Usually they will have all their personal information written on a piece of paper,” he said. “They will have a backup in their wallet, or in their shoe, or sewn into their clothes. Some of them will write it on the back of their belt, so they know the information won’t get lost. And when they get apprehended, they know to tell the Border Patrol processing agent, ‘Here, this is where I am going. This is my mother, my father, my brother, my sister,’ so they can call and try to make contact.”
Cabrera acknowledged the difficulty of verifying the personal family information.
“We don’t know who wrote that paper, obviously,” he said. “We have no way of verifying who this supposed family really is, and as a Border Patrol agent, we never even see this person come in because the unaccompanied minor is going to be picked up by that family member in the United States somewhere or other down the line.” http://www.wnd.com/2014/07/children-crossing-border-obama-will-take-care-of-us/
CONGRESSMAN AT BORDER: ‘OBAMA BEGGING TO BE IMPEACHED’
Witnesses shocking procedures for handling illegal immigrants
“For all I know, Obama is preparing to process 5 million illegal immigrant kids and teenagers into the United States,” Stockman said upon observing border operations near McAllen, Texas.
“He wants us to impeach him now,” Stockman theorized, “before the midterm election because his senior advisers believe that is the only chance the Democratic Party has to avoid a major electoral defeat. Evidently Obama believes impeachment could motivate the Democratic Party base to come out and vote.”
Does Barack Obama WANT to be impeached? Sound off in the WND Poll.
Accompanied by a WND film crew, Stockman began the evening by stopping at a massive Department of Homeland Security detention facility a mile or two north of the Mexican border, only to be encountered by seven or eight armed Border Patrol agents who approached him and WND for questioning.
Though polite, a Border Patrol supervisor speaking from behind the chain-link fence that surrounded the facility refused to allow Stockman to tour the facility.
Through the chain-linked fence, the WND film crew took video of an active hangar-like open building cooled by two massive fans in which teenage illegal immigrants were being searched for concealed weapons as they were being processed into the detention facility.
Within minutes, as Stockman began asking questions of the Border Patrol supervisor, the hanger-like intake facility was shut down and emptied of illegal immigrant teenagers being processed by more than a dozen Border Patrol agents.
“We release all detainees under 14 years of age without taking any biometric identification, including no fingerprints,” the Border Patrol agent explained to Stockman. “We are prevented by law from taking fingerprints or other biometric information on these kids.”
The Border Patrol supervisor could not identify for Stockman the law in question.
“Then how do you know who these children under 14 years old are?” Stockman asked. “How do you know if you are releasing these kids to people who are truly family members in the United States or to pedophiles or other criminals posing as family members?”
“We only know who these children are by what they tell us,” the Border Patrol supervisor admitted. “Truthfully, we don’t really have any idea who they might be or where they came from other than what we can observe from questioning them. You’re right. If they give us false information, we have no way to know it or to follow it up without biometrics.”
Stockman asked what information the Border Patrol has on the people in the United States who claim to be relatives.
“That’s not what our department handles,” the Border Patrol supervisor again admitted.
Back in the vehicle, frustrated at seeing the facility going into rapid shutdown mode once he and the WND film crew set up to film, Stockman expanded on the impeachment theme.
Stockman observed that rather than begin impeachment proceedings now, what the House of Representatives should do is to take away money from the Obama administration.
“The only way we’re going to stop Obama from opening the border is to take away the money he needs to operate,” Stockman concluded. “What we should do is shut down the White House.”
In a four-hour tour of McAllen roads leading to the Rio Grande that began at midnight, WND observed dozens of Border Patrol lock-up vehicles, with one marked “LICE” in large hand-written letters, transporting illegal immigrant detainees to destinations unknown to WND.
Every time WND’s vehicle approached the Rio Grande, Border Patrol trailed behind to engage in questioning once WND and Rep. Stockman stopped.
“Be careful, it’s a busy night out here,” one Border Patrol agent advised.
In another stop about a mile north of the border, WND observed a Border Patrol vehicle with an agent manning what appeared to be a 10-foot antenna scanning the surrounding open territory.
“It’s taking high-definition night-vision photographs,” the Border Patrol agent explained, as he dodged into the shadows to avoid being filmed in the bright lights of the WND film crew.
In a night in which Stockman described law enforcement presence on the McAllen border as “heavily active and in plain view,” the congressman and WND observed several Department of Public Safety state troopers patrolling the border in conjunction with the ever-present white-and-green-marked Border Patrol vehicles.
On Friday, Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., told WND in a cell-phone call from the airport that she and Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, are planning to join Stockman at the border in McAllen, arriving at noon Saturday.
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES (AUTOGRAPHED) (HARDCOVER) WITH FREE IMPEACH OBAMA BUMPER STICKER
In what promises to be the biggest summer blockbuster among current events titles, investigative reporters Aaron Klein and Brenda Elliott deliver what amounts to a rough draft of the articles of impeachment against Barack Obama — an indictment that goes well beyond today’s headlines about IRS-gate, Reportergate and Benghazi-gate.
A journalistic investigation documenting the probable causes for the impeachment of President Barack Obama.
In this devastating probe, New York Times bestselling authors Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott expose the high crimes, misdemeanors and other offenses that Obama has committed against the United States Constitution and the limits of his office.
The authors show how Obama has fundamentally abused the powers of his presidency and has done serious, sustained and impeachable injury to American society.
Among the offenses documented in the book:
How ObamaCare is not only unconstitutional but illegally bypasses Congress, infringes on states’ rights, and marks an unprecedented and unauthorized expansion of IRS power.
How Obama has sidestepped Congress and already granted largely unreported de facto amnesty for millions of illegal aliens using probably illicit interagency directives and executive orders.
How the Obama administration recklessly endangered the public by releasing from prison criminal illegal aliens at a rate far beyond what is publicly known.
The president’s personal role in the September 11, 2012 Benghazi attacks, with new evidence about what was transpiring at the U.S. mission prior to the assaults – possibly impeachable activities in and of themselves.
Illicit edicts on gun control actions in addition to the deadly “Fast and Furious” gun-running operation intended, the book shows, to collect fraudulent gun data.
From “fusion centers” to drones to alarming Department of Homeland Security power grabs, how U.S. citizens are fast arriving at the stage of living under a virtual surveillance regime.
New evidence of rank corruption, cronyism and possible impeachable offenses related to Obama’s first term “green” funding adventures misusing public funds.
How Obama has weakened America both domestically and abroad by emboldening our enemies, tacitly supporting a Muslim Brotherhood revolution, spurning our allies, and minimizing the threat of Islamic fundamentalism.
And more!
About the Authors
Aaron Klein is a New York Times bestselling author, journalist and radio host. He is a senior reporter for WND and hosts the No. 1 weekend show “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” on New York’s WABC Radio, the nation’s largest talk station. His previous books include “Fool Me Twice,” “Red Army,” “The Manchurian President,” “The Late Great State of Israel” and “Schmoozing With Terrorists.”
Brenda J. Elliott is an award-winning historian, researcher and New York Times bestselling author. She is the blogger who created RezkoWatch (RW), TheRealBarackObama (RBO) and RBO2. She has appeared on hundreds of local and national radio shows, has contributed to numerous articles and publications and is the co-author of “Fool Me Twice,” “Red Army” and “The Manchurian President.”
CAUGHT ON TAPE: COYOTE ON JET SKI SMUGGLES MOTHER AND CHILD INTO TEXAS
by BRANDON DARBY
A Mexican human smuggler was caught on tape by Breitbart Texas as he used a jet ski to bring a Central American woman and her infant into the U.S. illegally. The exclusive video shows the the smuggler, also known as a coyote, bringing the woman and infant across the Rio Grande River and then driving his jet ski back to Mexico alone. The woman and infant can be seen emerging from high grass on the U.S. side of the river. She then walked in plain view of U.S. authorities until a Border Patrol agent arrived and took the pair into custody.
The event occurred at Anzalduas Park in Mission, Texas. A dam immediately downstream of the area creates a small lake and Mexican smugglers routinely ride jet skis to smuggle humans and narcotics in the region. U.S. law enforcement is often powerless to stop the smugglers unless they set foot on U.S. soil.
Border Patrol agent Albert Spratte, speaking to Breitbart Texas as a spokesperson for the agents’ union, can be seen in the video describing the frequent occurrences of smuggling in the region.
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 46% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Obama’s job performance. Fifty-two percent (52%) disapprove (see trends).
The latest figures include 23% who Strongly Approve of the way Obama is performing as president and 41% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -18.
Results are updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update).
Georgia Republicans finally have a Senate candidate after Tuesday’s hard-fought runoff. We’ll see how winner David Perdue stacks up against Democrat Michelle Nunn at noon Eastern today.
To get a sense of longer-term job approval trends for the president, Rasmussen Reports compiles our tracking data on a full month-by-month basis.
Rasmussen Reports has been a pioneer in the use of automated telephone polling techniques, but many other firms still utilize their own operator-assisted technology (see methodology).
Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 500 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. To reach those who have abandoned traditional landline telephones, Rasmussen Reports uses an online survey tool to interview randomly selected participants from a demographically diverse panel. The margin of sampling error for the full sample of 1,500 Likely Voters is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Results are also compiled on a full-week basis and crosstabs for full-week results are available for Platinum Members.
The number of children crossing the U.S. border alone has doubled since last year. Answers to key questions on the crisis.
OPEN GRAPHIC
By moving decisions on refugee claims to Honduras, the plan aims to slow the rush of minors crossing into the United States illegally from El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, which has overwhelmed the border this year. More than 45,000 unaccompanied minors from those three nations have arrived since Oct. 1, straining federal resources to the point that some agencies will exhaust their budgets by next month, the secretary of Homeland Security has said.
Many of the children, particularly in Honduras, are believed to be fleeing dangerous street gangs, which forcibly recruit members and extort home and business owners. The United Nations estimates that 70,000 gang members operate in the three nations.
Administration officials stressed that no decision had been made to move forward, saying the idea was one of many being discussed by officials at the White House and the Departments of State, Homeland Security, Justice, and Health and Human Services.
Among the factors surrounding the decision are how many people in Honduras would be eligible to apply for the program, and how many would probably be approved.
The proposal, prepared by several federal agencies, says the pilot program under consideration would cost up to $47 million over two years, assuming 5,000 applied and about 1,750 people were accepted. If successful, it would be adopted in Guatemala and El Salvador as well.
It is unclear how the administration determined those estimates, given that since Oct. 1 more than 16,500 unaccompanied children traveled to the United States from Honduras alone.
Children would be interviewed by American immigration employees trained to deal with minors, and a resettlement center would be set up in the Honduran capital, Tegucigalpa, with assistance from international organizations like the International Organization for Migration.
The plan would be similar to a recent bill introduced by Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake of Arizona, who proposed increasing the number of refugee visas to the three Central American countries by 5,000 each.
According to the draft, the administration is considering opening the program to people under 21. It also suggested offering entry on emergency humanitarian grounds — known as humanitarian parole — to some of the applicants who did not qualify for refugee status.
Photo
A crime scene in San Pedro Sula, Honduras, where a 7-year-old was found tortured and murdered.CreditMeridith Kohut for The New York Times
That would most likely cause an outcry among critics who believe President Obama has been too soft on immigration. But officials called it “highly unlikely” that people who were denied refugee status would be considered for parole, which is generally offered in isolated emergencies.
Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which supports tighter controls on immigration, said that the proposal would increase, not stem, the flood of migrants from Central America trying to get into the United States.
“It’s clearly a bad idea,” Mr. Krikorian said. “Orders of magnitude more people will apply for refugee status if they can just do it from their home countries.”
He added that the proposal would allow people to claim to be refugees from their countries with “nothing more than a bus ride to the consulate. We’re talking about, down the road, an enormous additional flow of people from those countries.”
The preliminary plan could create a thorny challenge for the administration because the definition of a refugee is legally specific, and children fleeing street gangs could have a hard time qualifying.
Under American law, refugees are people fleeing their country of origin based on fears of persecution by reason of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.
The only category that would seem to apply is “social group,” experts said, but there is disagreement on what that means. Some contend that children could count as a group, but others say the refugee requirements are stricter, and would not apply to people fleeing general crime and violence.
“What is a social group?” said Muzaffar Chishti, director of migration policies for the Migration Policy Institute’s New York office. “This is going to create a huge deal of debate. You will see a lot of law developing on it.”
Still, the draft of the plan noted that 64.7 percent of the unaccompanied minors who applied for asylum this year got it, which suggests that immigration officials have found their claims of imminent danger credible.
Photo
Migrants traveling north through Mexico toward the United States on a northbound freight train known as “The Beast,” because of rampant accidents and violent crime.CreditMeridith Kohut for The New York Times
With that in mind, the draft proposal suggested that 35 percent to 50 percent of the applicants in Honduras could be considered for relief, a figure the White House said was inflated. The early draft, the White House said, was the most generous and least likely of the options the administration is considering. How many people are accepted is critical, because refugees qualify for public assistance upon arrival in the United States.
One of the issues under debate is whether the program should be limited to children who have at least one relative in the United States, so that the government would not be saddled with custodial issues. Whether that relative would have to have legal residency is another issue that was addressed but not resolved.
Under Senator McCain’s proposal, refugee applicants would be processed at home, and child migrants arriving in the United States illegally could be deported quickly.
Kevin Appleby, director of Migration and Refugee Services at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, said the plan would be welcome, as long as it did not substitute for protections Central American children currently receive under American law.
“This program would certainly be a formal acknowledgment by the administration that these children are refugees,” Mr. Appleby said. “That’s huge, because they have yet to utter that word.”
When a similar plan was adopted in Haiti, as a way to keep people from taking to the high seas, he said, it was ultimately criticized because Haitians already in the United States did not receive help. “It ended up being counterproductive to the goal,” Mr. Appleby said.
Stacie Blake, the director of government relations for the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, an advocacy group, said the processing of potential refugees in Central America could be handled by the United States or by the United Nations, which makes refugee determinations in many other countries. She said some of the people designated as refugees in Honduras could end up in countries other than the United States.
“It’s a way to help folks avoid life-threatening escapes and journeys,” Ms. Blake said. “It’s a good idea. It’s a tested idea.”
The Honduran Foreign Ministry referred requests for comment to its embassy in Washington, which said that, due to the president’s visit to Washington, its ambassador was not immediately available for comment.
On Friday, Mr. Obama is scheduled to meet with the presidents of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador at the White House in an effort to urge the Central American leaders to do more to help stem the flow of children fleeing their countries for the United States.
Obama will take executive action on immigration after summer, adviser says
The move could trigger impeachment proceedings against President Obama, said his senior adviser, Dan Pfeiffer. A spokesman for the House speaker called the impeachment comments ‘political games.’
ByFrancine Kiefer, Staff writer
President Obama will go ahead with a “very significant” executive action on immigration after the summer – a move that may well trigger impeachment proceedings against him, senior Obama adviser Dan Pfeiffer told reporters at a Monitor breakfast Friday.
“The president acting on immigration reform will certainly up the likelihood that [Republicans] would contemplate impeachment at some point,” said Mr. Pfeiffer, who has been at the Obama White House since its inception.
A lot of people in Washington laughed off Sarah Palin’s call to impeach the president for executive overreach, Pfeiffer said, but “I would not discount that possibility.” Polling shows strong support for the idea among the GOP base, he said, adding that House Speaker John Boehner (R) of Ohio has opened the door to the possibility with his lawsuit against Obama.
Speaker Boehner has flatly denied an interest in impeachment, saying, “I disagree” with those who support it. Next week, the GOP-controlled House is expected to pass a resolution to sue the president for executive overreach on the Affordable Care Act, or “Obamacare.”
In 2012, Obama signed a memo authorizing deferred action on the deportation of certain children of illegal immigrants – the so-called “DREAMers.” Republicans cite it as an example of executive overreach and say it has encouraged the influx of unaccompanied minors from Central America. Tea party favorite Sen. Ted Cruz (R) of Texas has urged his colleagues to reject emergency funding for the current border crisis unless the Obama administration rolls back the deferred action.
But while some may have thought the child-migrant crisis might discourage the president from further executive action on immigration, it is having the opposite effect. It has raised awareness of immigration as an issue and increased “the urgency” that the public feels in fixing it, Pfeiffer said. That gives the administration “broad permission” to take action, he said.
Given the “broken Congress,” Pfeiffer said, Obama plans to move ahead with another action after he hears advice from the attorney general and the Homeland Security secretary. His criteria will be that any executive action be on “solid legal footing” and have maximum impact.
Immigrant groups want the president to use his “prosecutorial discretion” to extend temporary protection from deportation to the millions of illegal migrants who would have qualified for a “path to citizenship” under the Senate’s bipartisan immigration reform, which has gone nowhere in the House. Politico reports he’s considering subsets of that group, based on criteria such as family ties, how long they have been in the country, and work history.
The White House, Pfeiffer said, is also considering what impact an action could have on the politics of reform going forward.
After the announcement of an action, he said, Republicans will have a choice: “Are they going to go back and try to pass comprehensive immigration reform – [after] which the president will rip up whatever executive action he does the day they pass that? Or are they basically going to set themselves up for the next two and a half years here to be arguing to elect a Republican in order to deport all these people?”
On the child-migrant crisis, Pfeiffer said Obama still supports changing a 2008 child-trafficking law that has become a sticking point in his request to Congress for $3.7 billion in emergency funding. That law has had the unintended effect of creating a huge backlog of immigration cases for unaccompanied minors in the courts. Republicans and some Democrats in Congress support changing the law to expedite the cases and deportations, but many Democrats say changing the law would deprive endangered children of their due process.
The administration is talking with members of Congress about a change. But that issue, Pfeiffer said, should not hold up funding.
On a related issue, he neither denied nor confirmed a New York Times account that the White House is considering a plan to accept refugees from Honduras whose applications are processed in that country.
Obama Announces Plans For Executive Action On Immigration
resident Barack Obama announced Monday he’s done waiting for the House of Representatives to pass an immigration bill, and plans to take executive action to change deportation policies.
In remarks from the White House, Obama said that given the House’s decision not to move forward with a bill, he will act on his own, refocusing resources to border enforcement and looking into changes he can make to deportation policy.
“If Congress will not do their jobs, at least we can do ours,” he said.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) told Obama last week that his chamber would not vote this year on immigration reform, Obama said. The Senate passed a comprehensive bill one year ago, but Boehner quickly said he would not allow a vote on that legislation. He did, however, say the House would work to address immigration reform in its own way.
Meanwhile, Democrats and immigration reform advocates urged Obama to slow deportations, which hit a record high in the 2012 fiscal year. Although the high numbers have also come with an increased focus on priorities set by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (such as convicted criminals and repeat border-crossers), advocates say there’s plenty to be done that would make the process more humane for people with longstanding ties to the country.
Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson had been working on a review of deportation policies, but it was put on hold in May at the president’s request, to give the House time to pass its own bill — to no avail.
Boehner said in a statement that he told Obama last week it would be tough for the House to move forward given distrust of the president. They spoke last week at a reception celebrating American golf players.
“Until that changes, it is going to be difficult to make progress on this issue,” he said. “The crisis at our southern border reminds us all of the critical importance of fixing our broken immigration system. It is sad and disappointing that –- faced with this challenge –- President Obama won’t work with us, but is instead intent on going it alone with executive orders that can’t and won’t fix these problems.”
Republicans have been critical of Obama’s previous executive actions on immigration, claiming he subverted the law by giving relief to undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as children. Boehner is currently planning a lawsuit against Obama for executive overreach, which may include that immigration action.
Obama said that if House Republicans don’t want him to take executive action, they should pass legislation.
“If House Republicans are really concerned about me taking too many executive actions, the best solution to that is to passing bills,” he said. “Pass a bill. Solve a problem. Don’t just say no on something that everybody agrees needs to be done.”
The president announced he will send more resources to the border to detain and deport undocumented immigrants, although interior enforcement will continue as well. The border has increasingly become a point of contention given the current influx of unaccompanied minors crossing illegally. The White House requested $2 billion from Congress to deal with the crisis, and for the authority to “fast track” screenings and deportations of unaccompanied minors.
Obama criticized Republicans who say they can’t do anything on immigration because of the crisis, and said they’re using it as “their newest excuse.”
“Their argument seems to be that because the system is broken, we shouldn’t make an effort to fix it,” he said. “It makes no sense. It’s not on the level. It’s just politics, plain and simple.”
Story 1: D is for Deportation of All 30-50 Million Illegal Aliens — Political Elitist Establishment of Both Parties Want Open Borders Vs. American People Want Immigration Law Enforcement — Videos
John Boehner: Obama ‘AWOL’ on border crisis
Immigration deal may hang on 2008 law
Malzberg | Mark Krikorian to discuss his recent piece for, Hitting the Boiling Point over the Border
Sessions Details How Immigration Enforcement Is In ‘A State Of Collapse’
Mark Levin defends Justin Amash from Chamber of Commerce attacks
Jeb Bush joins immigration debate
Krauthammer’s Take: Jeb Bush ‘Leading From The Chin’ On Immigration
Sen. Cruz responds to Jeb Bush immigration comments
Conservative Heads Explode Over Jeb Bush Immigration Comments
Glenn Beck Tears Apart Jeb Bush: ‘Maybe It’s Time to Stop Listening to the Bushes’
How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Walsh – 1
How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Walsh – 2
HOW THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION INFLATES DEPORTATION STATISTICS
For the last few years, the Obama Administration has claimed that it’s deporting a record number of illegal aliens. But, the Administration is adding numbers to its overall deportation statistics that have not been historically included in the total number of annual deportations. Here’s a look at how the Obama Administration has artificially inflated the number of deportations.
Removal numbers have traditionally consisted of legal immigrants who have committed crimes, those who overstay visas, or illegal aliens caught inside the country.
The immigration statistics yearbook states that removals are the compulsory and confirmed movement of an inadmissible or deportable alien out of the United States based on an order of removal.
An alien who is removed has administrative or criminal consequences placed on subsequent reentry owing to the fact of the removal.
In the past, removal numbers did not include “returns,” who are Mexican nationals caught illegally crossing the border by the Border Patrol and returned.
According to the yearbook, returns are the confirmed movement of an inadmissible or deportable alien out of the United States not based on an order of removal.
Most of the voluntary returns are of Mexican nationals who have been apprehended by the U.S. Border Patrol and are returned to Mexico.
The Obama administration has started counting certain “returns” as “removals” in order to artificially inflate the numbers and create a “record level” of deportations.Specifically, those caught by the Border Patrol who are shuttled to a different town along the border before they are returned are being dishonestly counted as deportations. This has falsely increased the number of total removals by more than 100,000 for the past two years.
In fact, if we count removals and returns together historically, then the Obama administration numbers are not close to “record-setting.” In the 1990s, the totals of returns and removals were well over one million. For example, according to the yearbook of immigration statistics, in 1996, removals and returns numbered more than 1.6 million, up from more than 1.3 million in 1995.
In an October 2011 roundtable with Hispanic reporters, President Obama himself said the deportation numbers were artificially high because they include those caught at the border:
“The statistics are actually a little deceptive because what we’ve been doing is, with the stronger border enforcement, we’ve been apprehending folks at the borders and sending them back. That is counted as a deportation, even though they may have only been held for a day or 48 hours, sent back – that’s counted as a deportation.”
On January 31, 2013, White House domestic policy chief Cecilia Muñoz – formerly the Senior Vice President for the Office of Research, Advocacy and Legislation at the National Council of La Raza – blamed Congress for the “record” number of deportations carried out by the Obama administration:
“The government’s job is to do what Congress tells it to do. Congress, under the immigration laws that we’ve got now, Congress requires us to remove people who are removable and gives DHS, frankly, a whole lot of resources to do that job. DHS’s job is to make sure they make the best possible decisions on how they use those resources.”
The Washington Post Reveals the Fraud
In December 2010, the Washington Post revealed that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had included more than 19,000 illegal immigrants who had exited the country in the previous fiscal year in its deportation statistics for the current (2010) fiscal year.
On February 22, 2010, ICE Detention and Removal Operations issued a memo stating that, despite record deportations of criminals, the overall number of removals was down.
According to the memo, while ICE was on pace to achieve “the Agency goal of 150,000 criminal alien removals” for the year ending September 30th, total deportations were set to barely top 310,000, “well under the Agency’s goal of 400,000” and nearly 20 percent below the 2009 total of 387,000.
The memo also explained how ICE would inflate the number: increasing detention space to hold more illegal immigrants while they await deportation proceedings; sweeping prisons and jails to find more candidates for deportation and offering early release for those willing to go quickly; and a surge in efforts to catch illegal immigrants who lied on immigration or visa applications or reentered the U.S. after being deported.
The memo also encouraged field directors to “maximize” participation in the Mexican Interior Repatriation Program (MIRP), a bilaterally voluntary program that attempts to quickly return Mexican nationals found unlawfully in the Sonora Arizona desert region of the U.S. to their places of origin in the Mexican interior. The program is run by ICE, the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Mexican Ministry of the Interior.
Under this program, aliens caught by U.S. Border Patrol agents are turned over to ICE to carry out the returns.
Since MIRP’s inception in 2004, the program had never started earlier than July 7th each year.
In 2010, the first group returned to Mexico on June 1st. By starting in June, ICE tallied 6,527 returns that in the past would have been handled and counted by the U.S. Border Patrol.
In total, 23,384 Mexicans between June and September of that year accepted flights back to Mexico City and then a bus ticket to their home town at a cost of almost $15 million. An ICE spokesman claimed the agency started the program early because of available funds and a timely agreement between the U.S. and Mexico.
According to the Washington Post, internal emails showed that when ICE officials realized in the final weeks of the fiscal year, which ended September 30th, that ICE’s numbers would fall short of the previous year’s mark, they quietly directed immigration officers to bypass immigration courts whenever possible and encourage eligible foreign nationals to agree to voluntarily return to their countries without a negative mark on their immigration record.
This allowed hundreds of immigrants who typically would have gone before an immigration judge to contest deportation offenses such as drunk driving, domestic violence and misdemeanor assault to leave the country without a statutory civil or criminal bar for applying for legal residence or traveling to the U.S. in the future.
According to the emails, once ICE met its goals for 2010, it directed agents to stop offering voluntary returns and revert to business as usual.
According to an October 1, 2010 email obtained by the Washington Post, an acting ICE assistant director cheered field directors on to the finish line: “We are just 106 shy of 390,000. However, we still get to count closed cases through Monday, October 4th so… keep having your folks concentrate on closing those cases.”
Prior to the Obama administration, when an alien exited the country in a fiscal year, but their case remained open, that departure was counted in the year in which it took place, or not at all.
Starting in 2009, ICE stopped counting deportations for the fiscal year ending September 30th in the first few days of October. Any deportations that take place in one fiscal year but are confirmed after October 5th are added to the next fiscal year’s statistics.
Based on the new accounting approach, ICE was able to 19,422 removals from 2009 in the 2010 statistics. In 2010, 373,440 other people were deported.
If ICE had not included the 19,422 departures, removals would have fallen by almost 16,000 from the previous year and by about 20,000 in 2009.
At a news conference on October 6, 2010, ICE Director John Morton said that no unusual practices were used to break the previous year’s mark: “When the secretary tells you that the numbers are at an all-time high, that’s straight, on the merits, no cooking of the books. It’s what happened.” However, Chris Crane, President of the ICE Union, stated that offering voluntary return was not a common practice and that it was “breaking the rules to break the record.”
On October 5, 2011, Secretary Napolitano announced that a “record” 195,000 convicted criminals had been removed in 2010. However, DHS’s Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS) reported that only 168,532 convicted criminal aliens were removed in 2010. Napolitano also announced that there were 392,862 aliens removed from the country in 2010, while OIS reported 387,242 removals.
The primary reason for the difference is that Napolitano is using the numbers reported by ICE, which uses different methodology than the OIS whose numbers are arguably more accurate.
OIS has used a consistent methodology to calculate immigration statistics, while ICE has changed its methodology for the sole reason of meeting numerical outputs.
The only possible reason to reject the OIS numbers is to give the appearance that DHS is deporting illegals in record numbers. Although OIS does not keep track of paroles and deferments, its numbers are a more accurate reflection of this administration’s failure to enforce immigration laws.
According to OIS statistics, the number of removals from 2009 has decreased by 7,923 and returns have decreased by 109,759. The number of arrests made by DHS has decreased 66% from about 1.8 million in 1999 to about 600,000 in 2010. While prosecutions increased slightly in the years prior to 2005, the general trend has been downward for at least ten years.
Padding the Numbers: The Alien Transfer Exit Program
Since 2011, the Obama administration has counted removals from the Alien Transfer Exit Program (ATEP) as ICE deportations, which artificially inflates ICE removal numbers. According to a source in a Border Patrol field office, “the only reason this group [in the ATEP] program is in detention at all is for the purpose of padding ICE’s year-end removal statistics.”
Created in 2008, ATEP is a program that moves Mexican nationals apprehended in one Border Patrol Sector to another Sector before removing them to Mexico. There are no penalties or bars attached when illegal immigrants are sent back via ATEP and they can simply attempt re-entry. As a result, illegal immigrants who are subject to ATEP can return to the U.S. numerous times only to be counted as removals each successive time they reenter illegally and are apprehended at the border.
From 2008 to 2011, apprehensions through ATEP were counted in the U.S. Border Patrol’s statistics, not ICE’s statistics. However, in 2011, the Obama administration started including ATEP apprehensions by CBP in ICE’s deportation statistics.
In the first seven months of 2012, ICE reported 221,656 arrests (ICE apprehensions in the interior of the country), yet reported 334,249 removals (deportations). The 112,000 additional removals were from the ATEP (72,030) and an unknown source (40,000). Thus, ICE removal statistics had over 112,000 deportations included that previously had never been counted in its deportation statistics. In 2008, official ICE removals totaled 369,221; in 2009, 389,834; in 2010, 392,862; in 2011, 396,906; and in 2012, 409,849.
However, when ATEP removals are subtracted from ICE’s removals total, the 2011 number drops from 396,906 to roughly 360,319, and the 2012 number drops from 409,849 to 324,299.
Therefore, if the ATEP removal numbers are subtracted from ICE’s 2011 removal numbers, total removals are 2.5% below 2008 levels, 7.5% below 2009 levels, and 8.3% below 2010 levels.
If the ATEP removal numbers are subtracted from ICE’s 2012 removal numbers, total removals are 12% below 2008 levels, 16.9% below 2009 levels, and 17.5% below 2010.
Year
ICE Reported Total
Actual Total (excluding ATEP Removals)
2008
369,221
n/a
2009
389,843
n/a
2010
392,862
n/a
2011
396,906
360,319
2012
409,849
324,299
Padding the Numbers: The Mexican Interior Repatriation Program
From 2009 through 2011, the Obama Administration resumed a voluntary humanitarian interior repatriation program called the Mexican Interior Repatriation Program (MIRP). First initiated in 2004, MIRP voluntarily returned Mexican nationals apprehended by the U.S. Border Patrol in the Yuma and Tucson sectors.
Since 2008,MIRP statistics have been included in ICE’s overall removal numbers. Without this program, the deportations statistics would be tallied by the U.S. Border Patrol instead of ICE.
Since 2004, more than 116,000 Mexican nationals have been returned under MIRP. In 2009, MIRP returned 10,560 illegal Mexican nationals. MIRP accounted for 2.7 percent of ICE removals (389,834).
In 2010, MIRP returned a record 23,384 illegal Mexican nationals. Over 6,500 of those illegal Mexican nationals were included by running the program five weeks longer than it had previously run. MIRP accounted for over 6 percent of ICE removals in 2010 (392,862).
In 2011, MIRP returned 8,893 illegal Mexican immigrants. MIRP accounted for just over 2 percent of ICE removals in 2011 (396,906).
When both ATEP and MIRP removals are subtracted from ICE’s published removal totals, the 2011 removal total drops from 396,906 to roughly 351,426 – 4.9% below 2008 levels, 10% below 2009 levels, and 11.5% below 2010 levels.
Year
ICE Reported Total
Actual Total (excluding ATEP and/or MIRP Removals)
2008
369,221
n/a
2009
389,843
379,274
2010
392,862
369,478
2011
396,906
351,426
2012
409,849
324,299
FY 2013 ICE Immigration Removals
Overview
In addition to its criminal investigative responsibilities, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) shares responsibility for enforcing the nation’s civil immigration laws with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). ICE’s role in the immigration enforcement system is focused on two primary missions: (1) the identification and apprehension of criminal aliens and other removable individuals located in the United States; and (2) the detention and removal of those individuals apprehended in the interior of the U.S., as well as those apprehended by CBP officers and agents patrolling our nation’s borders.
In executing these responsibilities, ICE has prioritized its limited resources on the identification and removal of criminal aliens and those apprehended at the border while attempting to unlawfully enter the United States. This report provides an overview of ICE Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 civil immigration enforcement and removal operations:
In FY 2013:
ICE conducted a total of 368,644 removals.
ICE conducted 133,551 removals of individuals apprehended in the interior of the U.S.
82 percent of all interior removals had been previously convicted of a crime.
ICE conducted 235,093 removals of individuals apprehended along our borders while attempting to unlawfully enter the U.S. 1
59 percent of all ICE removals, a total of 216,810, had been previously convicted of a crime.
ICE apprehended and removed 110,115 criminals removed from the interior of the U.S.
ICE removed 106,695 criminals apprehended at the border while attempting to unlawfully enter the U.S.
98 percent of all ICE FY 2013 removals, a total of 360,313, met one or more of ICE’s stated civil immigration enforcement priorities. 2
Of the 151,834 removals of individuals without a criminal conviction, 84 percent, or 128,398, were apprehended at the border while attempting to unlawfully enter the U.S. and 95 percent fell within one of ICE’s stated immigration enforcement priorities.3
The leading countries of origin for those removed were Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador.
Border Removal: An individual removed by ICE who is apprehended while attempting to illicitly enter the United States at or between the ports of entry by a CBP officer or agent. These individuals are also referred to as recent border crossers.
Criminal Offender: An individual convicted in the United States for one or more criminal offenses. This does not include civil traffic offenses.
Immigration Fugitives: An individual who has failed to leave the United States based upon a final order of removal, deportation or exclusion, or who has failed to report to ICE after receiving notice to do so.
Interior Removal: An individual removed by ICE who is identified or apprehended in the United States by an ICE officer or agent. This category excludes those apprehended at the immediate border while attempting to unlawfully enter the United States.
Other Removable Alien: An individual who is not confirmed to be a convicted criminal, recent border crosser or fall under another ICE civil enforcement priority category. This category may include individuals removed on national security grounds or for general immigration violations.
Previously Removed Alien: An individual previously removed or returned who has re-entered the country illegally again.
Reinstatement of Final Removal Order: The removal of an alien based on the reinstatement of a prior removal order, where the alien departed the United States under an order of removal and illegally reentered the United States [INA § 241(a)(5)]. The alien may be removed without a hearing before an immigration court.
Removal: The compulsory and confirmed movement of an inadmissible or deportable alien out of the United States based on an order of removal. An individual who is removed may have administrative or criminal consequences placed on subsequent reentry owing to the fact of the removal.
n FY 2013, ICE conducted 133,551 removals of individuals apprehended in the interior of the United States. ICE focused interior enforcement operations on convicted criminals with an emphasis on those convicted of the most serious crimes. 82 percent of all removals from the interior of the U.S. were previously convicted of a criminal offense. 72 percent of the convicted criminals removed from the interior were convicted of an ICE Level 1 or Level 2 offense. *
* Level 1 offenders are those aliens convicted of “aggravated felonies,” as defined in § 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, or two (2) or more crimes each punishable by more than 1 year, commonly referred to as “felonies.” Level 2 offenders are aliens convicted of any other felony or three (3) or more crimes each punishable by less than 1 year, commonly referred to as “misdemeanors.” Level 3 offenders are aliens convicted of “misdemeanor” crime(s) punishable by less than 1 year.
INTERIOR CRIMINAL REMOVALS BY LEVEL
LEVEL
NUMBER
PERCENTAGE
Level 1
52,935
48%
Level 2
26,203
24%
Level 3
30,977
28%
Many of the criminal aliens removed from the interior of the U.S. also fell into other ICE priority categories. 60 percent of ICE’s interior criminal alien removals were previously removed from the U.S. or were immigration fugitives, and 63 percent of all interior Level 3 removals had been previously removed or had absconded from the immigration courts.
FY 2013 Level 3 Interior Removals
INTERIOR REMOVAL BREAKDOWN
Convicted Criminal
Level 1
52,935
Level 2
26,203
Level 3
30,977
Immigration Fugitives
2,742
Repeat Immigration Violators
10,358
Other Removals
10,336
In FY 2013, Mexico continued to be the leading country of origin for those removed, followed by Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador.
FY 2013 TOP 10 COUNTRIES OF REMOVAL BY CITIZENSHIP
Hoping to stem the recent surge of migrants at the Southwest border, the Obama administration is considering whether to allow hundreds of minors and young adults from Honduras into the United States without making the dangerous trek through Mexico, according to a draft of the proposal.
If approved, the plan would direct the government to screen thousands of children and youths in Honduras to see if they can enter the United States as refugees or on emergency humanitarian grounds. It would be the first American refugee effort in a nation reachable by land to the United States, the White House said, putting the violence in Honduras on the level of humanitarian emergencies in Haiti and Vietnam, where such programs have been conducted in the past amid war and major crises.
Critics of the plan were quick to pounce, saying it appeared to redefine the legal definition of a refugee and would only increase the flow of migration to the United States.
By moving decisions on refugee claims to Honduras, the plan is aimed at slowing the rush of minors crossing into the United States illegally from El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, which has overwhelmed the Southwest border this year. More than 45,000 unaccompanied minors from those three nations have arrived since Oct. 1, straining federal resources to the point that some agencies will exhaust their budgets by next month, the secretary of Homeland Security has said.
Many of the children, particularly in Honduras, are believed to be fleeing dangerous street gangs, which forcibly recruit members and extort home and business owners. The United Nations estimates that 70,000 gang members operate in the three nations.
Administration officials confirmed that they are considering the idea, although they stressed that no decision has been made to move forward. They said the idea is one of many being discussed by officials at the White House and the Departments of State, Homeland Security, Justice, and Health and Human Services.
Among the factors surrounding the decision are how many people in Honduras would be eligible to apply for the program, and how many would likely be approved.
The proposal, prepared by several federal agencies, says the pilot program under consideration would cost up to $47 million over two years, assuming 5,000 applied and about 1,750 people were accepted. If successful, it would be adopted in Guatemala and El Salvador as well.
It is unclear how the administration determined those estimates, given that since Oct. 1 more than 16,500 unaccompanied children traveled to the United States from Honduras alone.
Children would be interviewed by American immigration employees trained to deal with minors, and a resettlement center would be set up in the Honduran capital, Tegucigalpa, with assistance from international organizations like the International Organization for Migration.
The plan would be similar to a recent bill introduced by Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake of Arizona, who proposed increasing the number of refugee visas to the three Central American countries by 5,000 each.
According to the draft, the administration is considering opening the program to people under 21. It also suggested offering entry on emergency humanitarian grounds — know as humanitarian parole — to some of the applicants who did not qualify for refugee status.
That would likely cause an outcry among critics who believe that President Obama has been too soft on immigration. But officials called it “highly unlikely” for people who were denied refugee status to be considered for parole, which is generally offered in isolated instances for emergencies.
Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which supports tighter controls on immigration, argued that the proposal would increase, not stem, the flood of migrants from Central America trying to get into the United States.
“It’s clearly a bad idea,” Mr. Krikorian said. “Orders of magnitude more people will apply for refugee status if they can just do it from their home countries.”
He added that the proposal would allow people to claim to be refugees from their countries with “nothing more than a bus ride to the consulate. We’re talking about, down the road, an enormous additional flow of people from those countries.”
The preliminary plan could create a thorny challenge for the administration because the definition of a refugee is legally specific, and children fleeing street gangs could have a hard time qualifying.
Under American law, refugees are people fleeing their country of origin based on fears of persecution by reason of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.
The draft of the plan noted that 64.7 percent of the unaccompanied minors who applied for asylum this year got it, which suggests that immigration officials have found their claims of imminent danger credible.
With that in mind, the draft proposal suggested that 35 to 50 percent of the applicants in Honduras could be considered for relief, a figure the White House said was inflated. The early draft, the White House said, was the most generous and least likely of the options the administration is considering. How many people are accepted is critical, because refugees qualify for public assistance upon arrival in the United States.
Under Senator McCain’s proposal, refugee applicants would be processed at home, and child migrants arriving in the United States illegally could be deported quickly.
Kevin Appleby, director of Migration and Refugee Services at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, said the plan would be welcome, as long as it does not substitute for protections Central American children currently receive under American law.
“This program would certainly be a formal acknowledgment by the administration that these children are refugees,” Mr. Appleby said. “That’s huge, because they have yet to utter that word.”
When a similar plan was adopted in Haiti, as a way to keep people from taking to the high seas, he said, it was ultimately criticized because Haitians already in the United States did not receive help.
“It ended up being counterproductive to the goal,” Mr. Appleby said.
Stacie Blake, the director of government relations for the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, an advocacy group, said the processing of potential refugees in Central America could be handled by the United States government or by the United Nations, which makes refugee determinations in many other countries. She said some of the people designated as refugees in Honduras could end up in countries other than the United States.
“It’s a way to help folks avoid life-threatening escapes and journeys,” Ms. Blake said. “It’s a good idea. It’s a tested idea.”
On Friday, Mr. Obama is scheduled to meet with the presidents of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador at the White House in an effort to urge the Central American leaders to do more to help stem the flow of children fleeing their countries for the United States.
Fred Bauer’s thoughtful piece today on the home page is worth reading. He describes the dangers of today’s condition of “bad-faith open borders,” where “illegal immigrants are de jure rejected but de facto accepted.”
One issue he didn’t address was why we’re in that situation. The reason for it is the same reason we have so much trouble achieving “sustainable harmony” on immigration: Each side sees the current stalemate as preferable to letting the other side prevail.
The core issue is whether there should be any limit placed on immigration. Supporters of immigration limits (high or low is not the issue here) obviously want the de jure prohibition against illegal immigration to be a de factoone too, with the laws consistently enforced. The other side is objectively (if not rhetorically) opposed to any meaningful limits on immigration, and so would prefer the de facto situation to become the de jure one.
This situation persists because the pro-limits side knows the de jure limits do at least exercise some control over the number of people moving here from abroad, even if they’re not well enforced. The anti-limits side has as its goal the admission of as many people from abroad as possible, so a limbo status for them is fine so long as they’re able to physically remain in the country. As Lincoln might have put it, both parties deprecate bad-faith open borders, but one of them would promote it rather than accept limits, and the other would accept it rather than let the borders be opened altogether.
Until there is consensus in the political class that capping immigration is morally acceptable (I would say mandatory, but I’ll settle for acceptable), passing further legislation on the other questions — how many, what qualifications — is almost irrelevant.
Jeb Bush Just Disqualified Himself For The Republican Nomination For President
Jeb Bush and Clint Bolick, Vice President for Litigation at the Goldwater Institute in Phoenix, Arizona, yesterday published an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal that should, once and for all, disqualify Bush for the Republican nomination for President.
Titled “The Solution to Border Disorder,” Bush and Bolick claim that “the best antidote to illegal immigration is a functioning system of legal immigration” and they repeat the falsehood that Central American children entering the US illegally “are trying to escape horrific gang violence and dire conditions in their native countries,” before making the US Chamber of Commerce case for revising America’s immigration system to be “economically driven.” (link to the Bush-Bolick piece at the end of this article)
Current law already allows 1 million legal immigrants and 700,000 guest workers to enter the country each year. With over a million legal immigrants slated to enter this country at a time when American workforce participation is at its lowest level in decades we are trying to figure out exactly what could be the economic rationale for allowing even the present level of legal immigration into this country.
If there’s a tech labor shortage in America, that requires bringing in more foreign labor, why is it that Microsoft has just announced the largest layoff in the company’s history?
On July 17, Microsoft announced that it will eliminate up to 18,000 jobs over the next year; about 12,500 professional and factory jobs will be cut. Microsoft did not detail exactly where the remaining jobs would be cut, but according to the UK’s Daily Mail, the company said the first wave of layoffs would affect 1,351 jobs in the Seattle area.
Alabama’s principled conservative Senator Jeff Sessions got it right when he wrote, “prominent amnesty advocates, including Mark Zuckerberg and top Obama administration officials, have argued that amnesty is a civil right. Mr. Zuckerberg’s motivation is not elusive. He heads a lobbying group representing many of his industry’s wealthiest CEOs, and their companies wish to extract generous guest-worker programs from Congress. Similar efforts are underway from other CEOs seeking new workers for everything from manufacturing to construction to restaurant jobs. Presumably, Mr. Zuckerberg believes it is more advantageous to frame the group’s lobbying as a civil-rights crusade than as a corporate crusade for lower-cost foreign labor.”
The drive for an amnesty bill is being supported by numerous billionaires, and Big Business CEOs, including New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg, Fox News’ Rupert Murdoch and Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg.
And as The Daily Caller’s White House correspondent Neil Munro documented, “Since 2007, progressive and business groups have spent more than $1.5 billion on advocacy and lobbying to pass an immigration bill, despite massive unemployment, stalled salaries and negative polls.”
The goal of all this Big business spending and influence peddling is quite simple: Hold American wages down to increase shareholder value.
As Munro noted, the Senate’s Gang of Eight comprehensive immigration bill (which Bush and Bolick supported in a previous Wall Street Journal op-ed) would expand legal immigration and open America’s borders to some 30 million additional legal immigrants, plus millions of temporary guest workers, over the next decade.
“That influx would import roughly one immigrant or guest-worker for every American aged 11 to 21, or one immigrant for every American teenager in 2012,” says Munro.
CHQ Chairman Richard A. Viguerie said it best in his new book TAKEOVER: “No matter who else gets in the Republican presidential primaries, Jeb Bush will remain the ‘great white hope’ of the Republican establishment.”
In addition to supporting all of the major policy goals of Big Business from Common Core to amnesty for illegal aliens, a Bush candidacy also holds out the hope of millions of dollars in consulting business and lucrative lobbying contracts for a small but powerful coterie of Bush family supporters and acolytes. No one else in America, save Hillary Clinton, starts the 2016 political season with a larger Rolodex of Washington insider supporters than does Jeb Bush. A Jeb Bush election as President would ensure that the Republican establishment stays in power for at least another decade, and it would also ensure that, no matter if Jeb or the Democrat wins, the Bigs – Big Business and Big Government – will prevail.
If you are the parent or grandparent of a child who will be entering the workforce in the next decade you owe it to your children and grandchildren to oppose Jeb Bush if he runs for President
House group wants faster deportations, Guard on border
Boehner’s working group on the border crisis has unveiled a $1.5 billion set of recommendations, which include changing a 2008 law to make it easier to deport Central American kids.
A set of border-security recommendations from a Republican working group appointed by House Speaker John Boehner would cut the cost of addressing the humanitarian crisis involving immigrant children from the $3.7 billion requested by President Barack Obama to $1.5 billion.
The House GOP proposal calls for, among other ideas, revising a 2008 anti-trafficking law to make it easier to deport unaccompanied immigrant children from Central America; deploying the National Guard to the U.S.-Mexico border to help take care of the children in order to allow Border Patrol agents to focus on their other responsibilities; and allowing the Border Patrol unfettered access to all federal lands. The unaccompanied children would remain in federal custody until they could get expedited immigration hearings.
“It’s not ‘Obama light’ because the priorities are completely different than what the president has laid out,” said Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz., a member of Boehner’s ad hoc group on the border crisis. “It’s dealing with our priorities of securing the border.”
However, the House GOP’s insistence on changing the Trafficking Victims Protection and Reauthorization Act of 2008 is expected to face fierce opposition from House and Senate Democrats, who mostly have been mobilizing against the idea.
The disagreement makes it unlikely that the GOP-led House and the Democrat-led Senate will come to terms on the president’s request for emergency spending before Congress leaves July 31 for a five-week break from Capitol Hill.
On Wednesday, Boehner, R-Ohio, wrote a letter to Obama asking the president to publicly clarify his position on amending the 2008 law. Obama has said his administration needs more flexibility in dealing with the tens of thousands of unaccompanied children from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras.
Salmon said the group’s ideas were generally well-received Wednesday by the House GOP conference and that the Republican Study Committee, which is the House’s conservative caucus. But he said he did hear concerns that the Senate might try to couple a House bill with comprehensive immigration reform legislation or that Obama might just pick and choose which parts of the law to enforce.
“We still have a responsibility to do our job, and we have an opportunity to end the catch-and-release policies of this administration and keep people detained until they are adjudicated and heading home,” Salmon said. “And that will do immense wonders for conquering the problem.”
Immigration-reform advocates panned the House working group’s security-centric recommendations.
“It’s not surprising, and it’s going nowhere,” said Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, a national group that champions comprehensive immigration reform. “The likelihood is that Congress is going to leave on the summer vacation doing absolutely nothing to fix this emergency.”
However, Salmon said his understanding was that the plan is for the House to act this month.
In open ground near Erez five terrorists come out of a tunnel shortly after six in the morning. They surface near the security fence and only a few hundred yards from the nearest community. An IAF aircraft intercepts them, killing all five, with no Israelis wounded. …
Near Kibbutz Nir Am, a second group of terrorists surface on the Israeli side of the border.
It is not clear if they emerge from a different tunnel or a branch of the one that served the other squad, nor is the number of gunmen confirmed. The sizable squad is able to surprise a passing army jeep, ambushing it with an anti-tank missile and inflicting Israeli casualties. But with the help of Nahal troops the force is able to kill the operatives and thwart an infiltration to civilian areas or an abduction attempt.
The intense fighting in the Shuja’iyya neighborhood in the eastern Gaza Strip has also continued into Monday. Overnight, the IDF forces killed 10 terrorists in a series of incidents. At least one terror tunnel was uncovered in the neighborhood. …
A senior military source said Monday morning that “we have reached the positions we wanted. There were a number of incidents. The forces continued to deal with the tunnels tonight.”
Since the beginning of Operation Protective Edge, the IDF has attacked some 2,800 terror targets – including a hit on the head of Hamas’ reconnaissance unit.
The IDF released photographs of terrorists firing from civilian areas in the Shuja’iya neighborhood where the heavy fighting took place yesterday.
Names of a number of the 13 soldiers killed yesterday have been released.
Carmeli was an American citizen from Texas. Another American citizen Max Steinberg from California was also killed.
A summary of the first 13 days of Operation Protective Edge.
13 soldiers killed in Gaza; PM says Hamas tunnels could have caused ‘catastrophe’
PM asserts Israel will neutralize Hamas, either militarily or diplomatically; 13 Golani Brigade soldiers killed overnight in heavy fighting focused on Hamas stronghold of Shejaiya, where Palestinians report 60 killed
The Times of Israelliveblogged events as they unfolded through Sunday, the 13th day of Operation Protective Edge. The IDF announced Sunday evening that 13Golani Brigade soldiers died overnight in fighting in Gaza, raising the Israeli army death toll to 18. The soldiers were killed in heavy combat in the Hamas stronghold ofShejaiya, which also left 60 Palestinians dead, Gaza Health Ministry officials said. Israel said the neighborhood is a Hamas stronghold, and that the army had warned residents to evacuate it. At day’s end, PM Netanyahu vowed that Hamas would be neutralized, and US Secretary said he was heading to Cairo in a ceasefire bid.http://www.timesofisrael.com/as-israel-hunts-for-terror-tunnels-after-soldiers-killed-abbas-to-meet-hamas-chief-for-ceasefire-talks/
Wafa hospital in Gaza was used for Hamas and Jihad operating and commanding rooms
The military reports that Wafa hospital in Shuja’iyya was used for Hamas and Jihad operating and commanding rooms, and that in the past few days, fire was opened at military forces from inside the hospital. The attack was executed after many advance notices were given to international organizations. Secondary explosions sounded at the hospital, which indicate weaponry was stored there.
IDF attacked a few terror sites in El-Wafa hospital in Gaza, after continuous fire was shot from the hospital compound in the past few days. IDF requested to also evacuate Shifa hospital in Gaza, where senior level Hamas activists are estimated to be hiding.
The Government Action Coordinate has noticed international organizations as well as the hospital directory again and again of the upcoming attacks. “The shooting increased in the past hours, jeopardizing our forces, therefore IDF decided to attack terror sites operating in the hospital compound”, IDF reported.
The decision to attack the hospital compound has been contemplated for a few days now, for the risk of hurting civilians. Nonetheless, in these days the last of the civilians left the hospital, which was deserted and which has in fact become a weaponry center. IDF intelligence reports that ammunition and weapon warehouses operate in the hospital.
From the top floors of the hospital small-arms and antitank missile shootings were executed at soldiers and on-field forces. IDF report that Hamas is responsible for the attacking of the hospital, for the reason that it turns the hospitals and schools into army bases. According to sources in Gaza, since Operation “Protective Edge” began, 652 Palestinians were killed and over 4,000 were injured – most of them civilians. More than 200 thousand people have abandoned their houses.
A senior level military source said earlier today that IDF are gaining control of Shuja’iyya neighborhood. The battles take place there because there is a strong Hamas alignment operating there.
Army strikes hundreds of Gaza targets as ground units continue to destroy tunnels
Tens of thousands attend funeral of Los Angeles native Max Steinberg, who was killed in Gaza..
Three IDF soldiers were killed in battle with terrorists in south Gaza early on Wednesday and several others were air lifted to hospital with injuries, the IDF said.
he three have been named as: Lt. Paz Eliyahu, 22, a Paratroopers soldier from Kibbutz Evron; St.-Sgt. Li Mat, 19, from Eilat; and Stf.-Sgt. Shahar Duaber, a 20-year-old Paratrooper from Kibbutz Ginegar.The three Paratroopers were killed when an explosive detonated in their vicinity. On Tuesday evening, two IDF soldiers were killed in Gaza Lt. Natan Cohen, 23-years-old from Modi’in, and captain Dmitri Levitas, 26-years-old from Jerusalem. The total number of IDF casualties stands at 32 since the start of the ground offensive against Hamas. Two soldiers have been seriously injured, 10 moderately inured, and 20 lightly injured in Gaza battles over the past 24 hours.
Israel’s Operation Protective Edge entered its 16th day on Wednesday, marking the 6th day of the IDF’s ground incursion into the Gaza Strip. The IDF said that after days of consideration it attacked the Wafa Hospital compound. The military claimed the hospital has been a hotbed of terrorists activities, with gun and anti-tank missile fire originating from the site. The al Wafa hospital was evacuated last week after a number of phone call warnings from the IDF. An IDF official said that destroying the tunnels was the heart of IDF’s current activities, and more and more fighting was seen around their entrances.
Rockets fired toward Israel from Gaza continued all day on Wednesday. A Thai worker became the third civilian fatality in Israel since Operation Protective Edge began when a mortar shell fired from the Gaza Strip hit a greenhouse in a farming community in Ashkelon Coast Regional Council.
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon spoke at a news conference before leaving Israel for Jordan.
US secretary of state john Kerry arrived in Israel on Wednesday in an effort bring an end to fighting between Israel and Hamas. He met with UN’s Ban Ki Moon in Jerusalem and met with PM Benjamin Netanyahu before traveling to Ramallah for talks with Abbas.
FAA extended the ban on US flights to Israel by 24 hours meanwhile Former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg flew to Israel on Tuesday in protest of the Federation Aviation Administration’s decision to halt American flights to and from the country.
Tens of thousands of mourners paid their final respects to Sgt. Max Steinberg, the slain IDF soldier who was laid to rest on Mt. Herzl in Jerusalem on Wednesday. Steinberg, the Los Angeles native who immigrated to Israel and enlisted in the Israel Defense Forces as a lone soldier, was among the 13 soldiers killed in the Gaza Strip on Sunday.
The three have been named as: Lt. Paz Eliyahu, 22, a Paratroopers soldier from Kibbutz Evron; St.-Sgt. Li Mat, 19, from Eilat; and Stf.-Sgt. Shahar Duaber, a 20-year-old Paratrooper from Kibbutz Ginegar.The three Paratroopers were killed when an explosive detonated in their vicinity. On Tuesday evening, two IDF soldiers were killed in Gaza Lt. Natan Cohen, 23-years-old from Modi’in, and captain Dmitri Levitas, 26-years-old from Jerusalem. The total number of IDF casualties stands at 32 since the start of the ground offensive against Hamas. Two soldiers have been seriously injured, 10 moderately inured, and 20 lightly injured in Gaza battles over the past 24 hours.
Israel’s Operation Protective Edge entered its 16th day on Wednesday, marking the 6th day of the IDF’s ground incursion into the Gaza Strip. The IDF said that after days of consideration it attacked the Wafa Hospital compound. The military claimed the hospital has been a hotbed of terrorists activities, with gun and anti-tank missile fire originating from the site. The al Wafa hospital was evacuated last week after a number of phone call warnings from the IDF. An IDF official said that destroying the tunnels was the heart of IDF’s current activities, and more and more fighting was seen around their entrances.
Rockets fired toward Israel from Gaza continued all day on Wednesday. A Thai worker became the third civilian fatality in Israel since Operation Protective Edge began when a mortar shell fired from the Gaza Strip hit a greenhouse in a farming community in Ashkelon Coast Regional Council.
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon spoke at a news conference before leaving Israel for Jordan.
US secretary of state john Kerry arrived in Israel on Wednesday in an effort bring an end to fighting between Israel and Hamas. He met with UN’s Ban Ki Moon in Jerusalem and met with PM Benjamin Netanyahu before traveling to Ramallah for talks with Abbas.
FAA extended the ban on US flights to Israel by 24 hours meanwhile Former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg flew to Israel on Tuesday in protest of the Federation Aviation Administration’s decision to halt American flights to and from the country.
Tens of thousands of mourners paid their final respects to Sgt. Max Steinberg, the slain IDF soldier who was laid to rest on Mt. Herzl in Jerusalem on Wednesday. Steinberg, the Los Angeles native who immigrated to Israel and enlisted in the Israel Defense Forces as a lone soldier, was among the 13 soldiers killed in the Gaza Strip on Sunday.
The Israel Defense Forces differs from most armed forces in the world in many ways. Differences include the mandatory conscription of women and its structure, which emphasizes close relations between the army, navy, and air force. Since its founding, the IDF has been specifically designed to match Israel’s unique security situation. The IDF is one of Israeli society’s most prominent institutions, influencing the country’s economy, culture and political scene. In 1965, the Israel Defense Forces was awarded the Israel Prize for its contribution to education.[11] The IDF uses several technologies developed in Israel, many of them made specifically to match the IDF’s needs, such as the Merkavamain battle tank, Achzaritarmoured personnel carrier, high tech weapons systems, the Iron Dome missile defense system, Trophyactive protection systemfor vehicles, and the Galil and Tavor assault rifles. The Uzi submachine gun was invented in Israel and used by the IDF until December 2003, ending a service that began in 1954. Following 1967, the IDF has closemilitary relations with the United States,[12] including development cooperation, such as on the F-15I jet, THEL laser defense system, and the Arrow missile defense system.
The IDF traces its roots to Jewish paramilitary organizations in the New Yishuv, starting with the Second Aliyah (1904 to 1914).[13] The first such organization was Bar-Giora, founded in September 1907. It was converted to Hashomer in April 1909, which operated until the British Mandate of Palestine came into being in 1920. Hashomer was an elitist organization with narrow scope, and was mainly created to protect against criminal gangs seeking to steal property. During World War I, the forerunners of the Haganah/IDF were the Zion Mule Corps and the Jewish Legion, both of which were part of the British Army. After the Arab riots against Jews in April 1920, the Yishuv’s leadership saw the need to create a nationwide underground defense organization, and the Haganah was founded in June of the same year. The Haganah became a full-scale defense force after the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine with an organized structure, consisting of three main units—the Field Corps, Guard Corps, and the Palmach. During World War II the successor to the Jewish Legion of World War I was the Jewish Brigade.
The IDF was founded following the establishment of the State of Israel, after Defense Minister and Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion issued an order on 26 May 1948. The order called for the establishment of the Israel Defense Forces, and the abolishment of all other Jewish armed forces. Although Ben-Gurion had no legal authority to issue such an order, the order was made legal by the cabinet on 31 May.[14]
The two other Jewish underground organizations, Irgun and Lehi, agreed to join the IDF if they would be able to form independent units and agreed not to make independent arms purchases. This was the background for the dispute which led to the Altalena Affair, following a confrontation regarding the weapons purchased by the Irgun. This resulted in a battle between Irgun members and the newly created IDF. It ended when the ship carrying the arms was shelled. Following the affair, all independent Irgun and Lehi units were either disbanded or merged into the IDF. The Palmach, a strong lobby within the Haganah, also joined the IDF with provisions, and Ben Gurion responded by disbanding its staff in 1949, after which many senior Palmach officers retired, notably its first commander, Yitzhak Sadeh.
Operation Gazelle, Israel’s ground maneuver, encircles the Egyptian Third Army, October 1973
Immediately after the 1948 war, the Israel Defense Forces shifted to low intensity conflict against Arab Palestinian guerrillas. In the 1956 Suez Crisis, the IDF’s first test of strength after 1949, the new army proved itself by capturing the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, which was later returned. In the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel conquered the Sinai Peninsula, Gaza Strip, West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and Golan Heights from the surrounding Arab states, changing the balance of power in the region as well as the role of the IDF. In the following years leading up to the Yom Kippur War, the IDF fought a war of attritionagainst Egypt in the Sinai and a border war against the PLO in Jordan, culminating in the Battle of Karameh.
The surprise of the Yom Kippur War and its aftermath completely changed the IDF’s procedures and approach to warfare. Organizational changes were made[by whom?] and more time was dedicated to training for conventional warfare. However, in the following years the army’s role slowly shifted again to low-intensity conflict, urban warfare and counter-terrorism. It was involved in the Lebanese Civil War, initiatingOperation Litani and later the 1982 Lebanon War, where the IDF ousted Palestinian guerilla organizations from Lebanon. Palestinian militancy has been the main focus of the IDF ever since, especially during the First and Second Intifadas, Operation Defensive Shield, and the Gaza War, causing the IDF to change many of its values and publish the IDF Spirit. The Islamic Shia organization Hezbollah has also been a growing threat, against which the IDF fought an asymmetric conflict between 1982 and 2000, as well as a full-scale war in 2006.
Etymology
The Israeli cabinet ratified the name “Israel Defense Forces” (Hebrew: צְבָא הַהֲגָנָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל), Tzva HaHagana LeYisra’el, literally “army for the defense of Israel,” on 26 May 1948. The other main contender wasTzva Yisra’el (Hebrew: צְבָא יִשְׂרָאֵל). The name was chosen because it conveyed the idea that the army’s role was defense, and because it incorporated the name Haganah, upon which the new army was based.[16] Among the primary opponents of the name were Minister Haim-Moshe Shapira and the Hatzohar party, both in favor of Tzva Yisra’el.[16]
All branches of the IDF answer to a single General Staff. The Chief of the General Staff is the only serving officer having the rank of Lieutenant General (Rav Aluf). He reports directly to the Defense Minister and indirectly to thePrime Minister of Israel and the cabinet. Chiefs of Staff are formally appointed by the cabinet, based on the Defense Minister’s recommendation, for three years, but the government can vote to extend their service to four (and in rare occasions even five) years. The current chief of staff is Benny Gantz. He replaced Gabi Ashkenazi in 2011.
Structure
The IDF includes the following bodies (those whose respective heads are members of the General Staff are in bold):
Structure of the Israel Defense Forces (click to enlarge)
Israeli officers of the Paratrooper Battalion 890 in 1955 with Moshe Dayan (standing, third from the left).Ariel Sharon is standing, second from the left and commando Meir Har Zion is standing furthest left.
Soldiers of the “Yanshuf” (Owl) Battalion, which specializes in CBRNwarfare
Unlike most world armies, the IDF uses the same rank names in all corps, including the air force, and navy. All enlisted ranks, as well as some of the officer and NCO ranks, may be given as a result of time spent in service, and not for accomplishment or merit.
For ground forces’ officers, rank insignia were brass on a red background; for the air force, silver on a blue background; and for the navy, the standard gold worn on the sleeve. Officer insignia were worn on epaulets on top of both shoulders. Insignia distinctive to each service were worn on the cap (see fig. 15).
Enlisted grades wore rank insignia on the sleeve, halfway between the shoulder and the elbow. For the army and air force, the insignia were white with blue interwoven threads backed with the appropriate corps color. Navy personnel wore gold-colored rank insignia sewn on navy blue material.
From the formation of the IDF until the late 1980s, sergeant major was a particularly important warrant officer rank, in line with usage in other armies. However, in the 1980s and 1990s the proliferating ranks of sergeant major became devalued, and now all professional NCO ranks are a variation on sergeant major (rav samal) with the exception of rav nagad.
All translations here are the official translations of the IDF’s website.[17]
Conscripts (Hogrim) (Conscript ranks may be gained purely on time served)
The Israel Defense Forces has several types of uniforms:
Service dress (Madei Alef – Uniform “A”) – the everyday uniform, worn by enlisted soldiers.
Field dress (Madei Bet – Uniform “B”) – worn into combat, training, work on base.
The first two resemble each other but the Madei Alef is made of higher quality materials in a golden-olive while the madei bet is in olive drab.[18][19] The dress uniforms may also exhibit a surface shine[19]
Officers / Ceremonial dress (madei srad) – worn by officers, or during special events/ceremonies.
Dress uniform and Mess dress – worn only abroad. There are several dress uniforms depending on the season and the branch.
The service uniform for all ground forces personnel is olive green; navy and air force uniforms are beige (tan). The uniforms consist of a two-pocket shirt, combat trousers, sweater, jacket or blouse, and shoes or boots. The navy has an all white dress uniform. Green fatigues are the same for winter and summer and heavy winter gear is issued as needed. Women’s dress parallels the men’s but may substitute a skirt for the trousers.
IDF female infantry soldiers
Headgear included a service cap for dress and semi-dress and a field cap or bush hat worn with fatigues. IDF personnel generally wear berets in lieu of the service cap. Berets are now worn on the left shoulder under the epaulett daily and on the head only for ceremonial purposes. There are many Beret colors issued to IDF Servicemen and Women. Paratroops are issued a maroon beret, Golani brown, Givati purple, Kfir Camouflage, Combat Engineers gray, IDF Naval and Air force personnel also have berets. Blue-grey for the IDF Air Corps and Navy-blue for the IDF Naval Forces. Other beret colors are: black for armored corps, Grey for mechanized infantry and turquoise artillery personnel; olive drab for infantry; grey for combat engineers; and purple for the Givati Brigade and brown for the Golani Brigade. For all other army personnel, except combat units, the beret for men was green and for women, black. Women in the navy wore a black beret with gold insignia. Males in the navy once wore a blue/black beret but replaced it with the US Navy’s sailor hat.
Some corps or units have small variations in their uniforms – for instance, military policemen wear a white belt and police hat, Naval personnel have dress whites for parades, Paratroopers are issued a four pocket Tunic (shirt) meant to be worn untucked with a pistol belt cinched tight around the waist over the shirt. Similarly, while most IDF soldiers are issued black leather boots, some units issue reddish-brown leather boots for historical reasons — the paratroopers, combat medics, Nahal and Kfir brigades, as well as some SF units (Sayeret Matkal, Oketz, Duvdevan, Maglan, Counter-Terror School). Women were also formerly issued sandals, but this practice has ceased.
IDF soldiers have three types of insignia (other than rank insignia) which identify their corps, specific unit, and position.
A pin attached to the beret identifies a soldier’s corps. Soldiers serving in staffs above corps level are often identified by the General Corps pin, despite not officially belonging to it, or the pin of a related corps. New recruits undergoing basic training (tironut) do not have a pin. Beret colors are also often indicative of the soldier’s corps, although most non-combat corps do not have their own beret, and sometimes wear the color of the corps to which the post they’re stationed in belongs. Individual units are identified by a shoulder tag attached to the left shoulder strap. Most units in the IDF have their own tags, although those that do not, generally use tags identical to their command’s tag (corps, directorate, or regional command).
While one cannot always identify the position/job of a soldier, two optional factors help make this identification: an aiguillette attached to the left shoulder strap and shirt pocket, and a pin indicating the soldier’s work type (usually given by a professional course). Other pins may indicate the corps or additional courses taken. Finally, an optional battle pin indicates a war that a soldier has fought in.
Service
163rd IAF Flight Course Graduates
IAF Flight academy graduates receive their ranks as air force officers
Military service routes
The military service is held in three different tracks:
Regular service (שירות חובה) – mandatory military service which is held according to the Israeli security service law.
Permanent Service (שירות קבע) – military service which is held as part of a contractual agreement between the IDF and the permanent position holder.
Reserve service (שירות מילואים) – a military service in which citizens are called for active duty of at most a month every year, for training activities and ongoing defense activities and especially for the purpose of increasing the military forces in case of a war.
Sometimes the IDF would also hold pre-military courses (קורס קדם צבאי or קד”צ) for soon to be regular service soldiers.
Special service routes
Shoher (שוחר), a person enrolled in pre-military studies (High School, Technical College up to Eng degree, some of the קד”ץ courses) – after completing the 12th study year will do a 2 month boot-camp and, if allowed, enter a program of education to qualify as a Practical engineer, with at least two weeks of training following each study year. Successful candidates will continue for an Engineering Bachelor degree. Shoher will be enrolled into regular service if he dropped out before finished his P.A. education or in any finishing education stage (after High School, after P.A. or after receiving the Bachelor degree).
Shoher will have the ability to serve in R&D units without having the engineering credentials if an officer finds him as worthy and could recommend him for the R&D units, R&D unit have the option to provide “על תקן מהנדס” certificate for few selected personal to allow person to work on life saving or flight equipment without having an Eng. license (the certificate isn’t valid for medical R&D machinery), the certificate is provided by the highest in command in the research field (as an example for the Air Force it is the Chef of Equipment Group).
Civilian working for the IDF (אזרח עובד צה”ל), a civilian working for the military.
The Israeli Manpower Directorate (אגף משאבי אנוש) at the Israeli General Staff is the body which coordinates and assembles activities related to the control over human resources and its placement.
National military service is mandatory for all Israeli citizens over the age of 18, although Arab (but not Druze) citizens are exempted if they so please, and other exceptions may be made on religious, physical or psychological grounds (see Profile 21). The Tal law, which exempts ultra-orthodox Jews from service, has been the subject of several court cases as well as considerable legislative controversy.
Men serve three years in the IDF, while women serve two. The IDF women who volunteer for several combat positions often serve for three years, due to the longer period of training. Women in other positions, such as programmers, who also require lengthy training time, may also serve three years. Women in most combat positions are also required to serve in the reserve for several years after they leave regular service.
Some distinguished recruits are selected to be trained in order to eventually become members of special forces units. Every brigade in the IDF has its own special force branch.
Career soldiers are paid on average NIS 23,000 a month, fifty times the NIS 460 paid to conscripts.[20]
Permanent service is designed for soldiers who choose to continue serving in the army after their regular service, for a short or long period, and in many cases making the military their career. Permanent service usually begins immediately after the mandatory Regular service period, but there are also soldiers who get released from military at the end of the mandatory Regular service period and who get recruited back to the military as Permanent service soldiers in a later period.
Permanent service is based on a contractual agreement between the IDF and the permanent position holder. The service contract defines how long the soldier’s service would be, and towards the end of the contract period a discussion may rise on the extension of the soldier’s service duration. Many times, regular service soldiers are required to commit to a permanent service after the mandatory Regular service period, in exchange for assigning them in military positions which require a long training period.
In exchange for the Permanent service, the Permanent service soldiers receive full wages, and when serving for a long period as a permanent service soldier, they are also entitled for a pension from the army. This right is given to the Permanent service soldiers in a relatively early stage of their life in comparison to the rest of the Israeli retirees.
Officers in reserve duty before parachuting exercise. Reserve service may continue until the age of 51[22]
After personnel complete their regular service, the IDF may call up men for:
reserve service of up to one month annually, until the age of 43–45 (reservists may volunteer after this age)
active duty immediately in times of crisis
In most cases, the reserve duty is carried out in the same unit for years, in many cases the same unit as the active service and by the same people. Many soldiers who have served together in active service continue to meet in reserve duty for years after their discharge, causing reserve duty to become a strong male bonding experience in Israeli society.
Although still available for call-up in times of crisis, most Israeli men, and virtually all women, do not actually perform reserve service in any given year. Units do not always call up all of their reservists every year, and a variety of exemptions are available if called for regular reserve service. Virtually no exemptions exist for reservists called up in a time of crisis, but experience has shown that in such cases (most recently, the 2006 Lebanon War) exemptions are rarely requested or exercised; units generally achieve recruitment rates above those considered fully manned.
The Israel Border Police (Magav) is responsible for security in urban or rural areas
Legislation (set to take effect by 13 March 2008) has proposed reform in the reserve service, lowering the maximum service age to 40, designating it as a purely emergency force, as well as many other changes to the structure (although the Defence Minister can suspend any portion of it at any time for security reasons). The age threshold for many reservists whose positions are not listed, though, will be fixed at 49.[dated info]
Non-IDF service
Other than the National Service (Sherut Leumi), IDF conscripts may serve in bodies other than the IDF in a number of ways.
The combat option is Israel Border Police (Magav – the exact translation from Hebrew means “border guard”) service, part of the Israel Police. Some soldiers complete their IDF combat training and later undergo additionalcounter terror and Border Police training. These are assigned to Border Police units. The Border Police units fight side by side with the regular IDF combat units though to a lower capacity. They are also responsible for security in heavy urban areas such as Jerusalem and security and crime fighting in rural areas.
The unisex Caracal Battalion, which serves in routine security missions
IDF infantry instructors, a common role for women in the IDF[23]
Israel is the only nation to conscript women and assign some of them to infantry combatant service which places them directly in the line of enemy fire.[24]
Civilian pilot and aeronautical engineer Alice Miller successfully petitioned the High Court of Justice to take the Israeli Air Force pilot training exams, after being rejected on grounds of gender. Though president Ezer Weizman, a former IAF commander, told Miller that she would be better off staying home and darning socks, the court eventually ruled in 1996 that the IAF could not exclude qualified women from pilot training. Even though Miller would not pass the exams, the ruling was a watershed, opening doors for women in new IDF roles. Female legislators took advantage of the momentum to draft a bill allowing women to volunteer for any position, if they could qualify.[25]
In 2000, the Equality amendment to the Military Service law stated that the right of women to serve in any role in the IDF is equal to the right of men.[26] Women have taken part in Israel’s military before and since the founding of the state in 1948.[27] Women started to enter combat support and light combat roles in a few areas, including the Artillery Corps, infantry units and armored divisions. A few platoons named Karakal were formed for men and women to serve together in light infantry. By 2000 Karakal became a full-fledged battalion. Many women would also join the Border Police.[25]
In June 2011, Maj. General Orna Barbivai became the first female major general in the IDF, replacing head of the directorate Maj. General Avi Zamir. Barbivai stated, “I am proud to be the first woman to become a major general and to be part of an organization in which equality is a central principle. 90 percent of jobs in the IDF are open to women and I am sure that there are other women who will continue to break down barriers.”[28][29]
In 2013, the IDF announced they would, for the first time, allow a (MTF) transgender woman to serve in the army as a female soldier.[30]
Minorities in the IDF
Non-Jewish minorities tended to serve in one of several special units: the Minorities Unit, also known as Unit 300; the Druze Reconnaissance Unit; and the Trackers Unit, which comprised mostly Negev Bedouins. In 1982 the IDF general staff decided to integrate the armed forces by opening up other units to minorities, while placing some Jewish conscripts in the Minorities Unit. Until 1988 the intelligence corps and the air force remained closed to minorities.
Although Israel, being a Jewish state, has a majority of Jewish soldiers, large numbers of Druze and Circassian men are subject to mandatory conscription to the IDF just like Israeli Jews.[31] Originally, they served in the framework of a special unit called “The Minorities’ Unit”, which still exists today, in the form of the independent Herev (“Sword”) battalion. However, since the 1980s Druze soldiers have increasingly protested this practice, which they considered a means of segregating them and denying them access to elite units (like sayeret units). The army has increasingly admitted Druze soldiers to regular combat units and promoted them to higher ranks from which they had been previously excluded. In recent years, several Druze officers have reached ranks as high as Major General and many have received commendations for distinguished service. In proportion to their numbers, the Druze people achieve much higher—documented—levels in the Israeli army than other soldiers. Nevertheless, some Druze still charge that discrimination continues, such as exclusion from the Air Force, although the official low security classification for Druze has been abolished for some time. The first Druze aircraft navigator completed his training course in 2005; his identity is protected as are those of all air force pilots. During the Israeli War of Independence, many Druze who had initially sided with the Arabs deserted their ranks to either return to their villages or side with Israel in various capacities.[32]
Military service is a tradition among some of the Druze population, with most opposition in Druze communities of the Golan Heights; 83 percent of Druze boys serve in the army, according to the IDF’s statistics.[33] According to the Israeli army, 369 Druze soldiers have been killed in combat operations since 1948.[34]
Bedouins and Israeli Arabs
Bedouin soldiers in 1949
Israeli Arab soldiers, serving in theGalilee in 1978
Bedouin Desert Reconnaissance Battalion, visiting an Arab school
By law, all Israeli citizens are subject to conscription. The Defense Minister has complete discretion to grant exemption to individual citizens or classes of citizens. A long-standing policy dating to Israel’s early years extends an exemption to all other Israeli minorities (most notably Israeli Arabs). However, there is a long-standing government policy of encouraging Bedouins to volunteer and of offering them various inducements, and in some impoverished Bedouin communities a military career seems one of the few means of (relative) social mobility available. Also, Muslims and Christians are accepted as volunteers, even at an age greater than 18.[35]
From among non-Bedouin Arab citizens, the number of volunteers for military service—some Christian Arabs and even a few Muslim Arabs—is minute, and the government makes no special effort to increase it. Six Israeli Arabs have received orders of distinction as a result of their military service; of them the most famous is a Bedouin officer, Lieutenant Colonel Abd el-Majid Hidr (also known as Amos Yarkoni), who received the Order of Distinction. Vahid el Huzil was the first Bedouin to be a battalion commander.[36][37] Recently, a Bedouin officer was promoted to the rank of Colonel.[citation needed]
Until the second term of Yitzhak Rabin as Prime Minister (1992–1995), social benefits given to families in which at least one member (including a grandfather, uncle or cousin) had served at some time in the armed forces were significantly higher than to “non-military” families, which was considered a means of blatant discrimination between Jews and Arabs. Rabin had led the abolition of the measure, in the teeth of strong opposition from the Right. At present, the only official advantage from military service is the attaining of security clearance and serving in some types of government positions (in most cases, security-related), as well as some indirect benefits.
Rather than perform army service, Israeli Arab youths have the option to volunteer to national service and receive benefits similar to those received by discharged soldiers. The volunteers are generally allocated to Arab populations, where they assist with social and community matters. As of 2010 there are 1,473 Arabs volunteering for national service. According to sources in the national service administration, Arab leaders are counseling youths to refrain from performing services to the state. According to a National Service official, “For years the Arab leadership has demanded, justifiably, benefits for Arab youths similar to those received by discharged soldiers. Now, when this opportunity is available, it is precisely these leaders who reject the state’s call to come and do the service, and receive these benefits”.[38]
Although Arabs are not obligated to serve in IDF, any Arab can volunteer. A Muslim Arab woman is currently serving as a medic with unit 669.[39]
Cpl. Elinor Joseph from Haifa became the first female Arab combat soldier for IDF. Elinor said:
“
…there was a Katyusha [rocket] that fell near my house and also hurt Arabs. If someone would tell me that serving in the IDF means killing Arabs, I remind them that Arabs also kill Arabs.[40]
”
Other Arab-Muslim officers in the IDF are Hisham Abu Varia, who is currently a Second Lieutenant,[41] and Major Ala Wahib, who is currently the highest ranking Muslim officer in the IDF.[42]
In October 2012, the IDF promoted Mona Abdo to become the first female Christian Arab to the rank of combat commander. Abdo had voluntarily enlisted in the IDF, which her family had encouraged, and transferred from theOrdnance Corps to the Caracal Battalion, a mixed-gender unit with both Jewish and Arab soldiers.[43]
Recently, there’s been an increase of Israeli Christian Arabs joining the Army.[44]
Ethiopian Jews
The IDF carried out extended missions in Ethiopia and neighboring states, whose purpose was to protect Ethiopian Jews (Beta Israel) and to help their immigration to Israel.[45] The IDF adopted policies and special activities for absorption and integration of Ethiopian immigrant soldiers, which resulted in great positive impact on the achievements and integration of those soldiers in the army as well as Israeli society in general.[46][47] Statistical research showed that the Ethiopian soldiers are esteemed as excellent soldiers and many aspire to be recruited to combat units.[48]
Men in the Haredi community may choose to defer service while enrolled in yeshivot (see Tal committee); many avoid conscription altogether. This special arrangement is called Torato Omanuto, and has given rise to tensionsbetween the Israeli religious and secular communities. While options exist for Haredim to serve in the IDF in an atmosphere conducive to their religious convictions, most Haredim do not choose to serve in the IDF.
Haredi males have the option of serving in the 97th “Netzah Yehuda” Infantry Battalion. This unit is a standard IDF infantry battalion focused on the Jenin region. To allow Haredi soldiers to serve, the Netzah Yehuda military bases follow the highest standards of Jewish dietary laws; the only women permitted on these bases are wives of soldiers and officers. Additionally, some Haredim serve in the IDF via the Hesder system, principally designed for the Religious Zionist sector; it is a 5-year program which includes 2 years of religious studies, 1½ years of military service and 1½ years of religious studies during which the soldiers can be recalled to active duty at any moment. Haredi soldiers are permitted to join other units of the IDF as well, but rarely do.
The IDF has identified an urgent gap of hundreds of soldiers in their technical units that might be filled by the Haredi. The IAF is currently using Defense contractors to fill in the gaps and continue operations.[49]
Israel is one of 24 nations that allow openly gay individuals to serve in the military. Since the early 1990s, sexual identity presents no formal barrier in terms of soldiers’ military specialization or eligibility for promotion.[50]
Until the 1980s, the IDF tended to discharge soldiers who were openly gay. In 1983, the IDF permitted homosexuals to serve, but banned them from intelligence and top-secret positions. A decade later, Professor Uzi Even,[51]an IDF reserves officer and chairman of Tel Aviv University’s Chemistry Department revealed that his rank had been revoked and that he had been barred from researching sensitive topics in military intelligence, solely because of his sexual orientation. His testimony to the Knesset in 1993 raised a political storm, forcing the IDF to remove such restrictions against gays.[50]
The chief of staff’s policy states that it is strictly forbidden to harm or hurt anyone’s dignity or feeling based on their gender or sexual orientation in any way, including signs, slogans, pictures, poems, lectures, any means of guidance, propaganda, publishing, voicing, and utterance. Moreover, gays in the IDF have additional rights, such as the right to take a shower alone if they want to. According to a University of California, Santa Barbarastudy,[51] a brigadier general stated that Israelis show a “great tolerance” for gay soldiers. Consul David Saranga at the Israeli Consulate in New York, who was interviewed by the St. Petersburg Times, said, “It’s a non-issue. You can be a very good officer, a creative one, a brave one, and be gay at the same time.”[50]
A study published by the Israel Gay Youth (IGY) Movement in January 2012 found that half of the homosexual soldiers who serve in the IDF suffer from violence and homophobia, although the head of the group said that “I am happy to say that the intention among the top brass is to change that.”[52]
Deaf and hard-of-hearing people
Israel is the only country in the world that requires the deaf and hard-of-hearing people to serve in the conscription or military.[53] Sign language interpreters are provided during training, and many of them serve in the non-combat capacities such as mappers, office work, and the like. The deaf and hard-of-hearing people who have served in the IDF have better opportunities in employment, housing, education, and other areas than those who do not serve. In addition, they gain a greater respect and recognition for their service and contribution to the country as well as stronger self-esteem and motivation.[54]
Vegans
According to a Care2 report, vegans in the IDF may refuse vaccination if they oppose animal testing. They are provided with special allowances to buy their own food. They are also given artificial leather boots.[55]
Volunteers
In cases when a citizen cannot be normally drafted by the law (old age, served as a soldier in a different country, severe health problems, handicaps, autism, etc.), the person could enroll as a volunteer in places where his knowledge can be used or in cases where there is a base that accepts volunteer service from one day per week up to full 24/7 service based upon that person’s abilities and wishes.
Overseas volunteers
Non-immigrating foreign volunteers typically serve with the IDF in one of four ways:
The Mahal program targets young non-Israeli Jews (men younger than 24 and women younger than 21). The program consists typically of 18 months of IDF service, including a lengthy training for those in combat units or (for 18 months) one month of non-combat training and additional two months of learning Hebrew after enlisting, if necessary. There are two additional subcategories of Mahal, both geared solely for religious men: MahalNahal Haredi (18 months), and Mahal Hesder, which combines yeshiva study of 5 months with IDF service of 16 months, for a total of 21 months. Similar IDF programs exist for Israeli overseas residents. To be accepted as a Mahal Volunteer, one must be of Jewish descent (at least one Jewish grandparent).
Sar-El, an organisation subordinate to the Israeli Logistics Corps, provides a volunteer program for non-Israeli citizens who are 17 years or older (or 15 if accompanied by a parent). The program is also aimed at Israeli citizens, aged 30 years or older, living abroad who did not serve in the Israeli Army and who now wish to finalize their status with the military. The program usually consists of three weeks of volunteer service on different rear army bases, doing non-combative work.
Garin Tzabar offers a program mainly for Israelis who emigrated with their parents to the United States at a young age. Although a basic knowledge of the Hebrew language is not mandatory, it is helpful. Of all the programs listed, only Garin Tzabar requires full-length service in the IDF. The program is set up in stages: first the participants go through five seminars in their country of origin, then have an absorption period in Israel at a kibbutz. Each delegation is adopted by a kibbutz in Israel and has living quarters designated for it. The delegation shares responsibilities in the kibbutz when on military leave. Participants start the program three months before being enlisted in the army at the beginning of August.
Marva is short-term basic training for two months.
Doctrine
A live combined arms exercise simulates an enemy village takeover in southern Israel. IDF infantry, artillery, tank and air forces simulated taking control of an enemy village.
Israeli “Netzah Yehuda” recon company in full combat gear prepare for a night raid in the West Bank
The IDF mission is to “defend the existence, territorial integrity and sovereignty of the state of Israel. To protect the inhabitants of Israel and to combat all forms of terrorism which threaten the daily life.”[56]
Main doctrine
The main doctrine consists of the following principles:[57]
Basic points
Israel cannot afford to lose a single war
Defensive on the strategic level, no territorial ambitions
Desire to avoid war by political means and a credible deterrent posture
Preventing escalation
Determine the outcome of war quickly and decisively
Combating terrorism
Very low casualty ratio
Female infantry instructors prepare for a combat exercise
Prepare for defense
A small standing army with an early warning capability, regular air force and navy
An efficient reserve mobilization and transportation system
Move to counterattack
Multi-arm coordination
Transferring the battle to enemy territory quickly
Quick attainment of war objectives
Code of conduct
In 1992, the IDF drafted a Code of Conduct that combines international law, Israeli law, Jewish heritage and the IDF’s own traditional ethical code—the IDF Spirit (Hebrew: רוח צה”ל, Ru’ah Tzahal).[58]
Stated values of the IDF
A female soldier of the IDF Search and Rescue Unit.
The document defines three core values for all IDF soldiers to follow, as well as ten secondary values (the first being most important, and the others appearing sorted in Hebrew alphabetical order):[58]
Core values
Defense of the State, its Citizens and its Residents – “The IDF’s goal is to defend the existence of the State of Israel, its independence and the security of the citizens and residents of the state.”
Love of the Homeland and Loyalty to the Country – “At the core of service in the IDF stand the love of the homeland and the commitment and devotion to the State of Israel-a democratic state that serves as a national home for the Jewish People-its citizens and residents.”
Human Dignity – “The IDF and its soldiers are obligated to protect human dignity. Every human being is of value regardless of his or her origin, religion, nationality, gender, status or position.”
Tenacity of Purpose in Performing Missions and Drive to Victory – “The IDF servicemen and women will fight and conduct themselves with courage in the face of all dangers and obstacles; They will persevere in their missions resolutely and thoughtfully even to the point of endangering their lives.”
Responsibility – “The IDF servicemen or women will see themselves as active participants in the defense of the state, its citizens and residents. They will carry out their duties at all times with initiative, involvement and diligence with common sense and within the framework of their authority, while prepared to bear responsibility for their conduct.”
Credibility – “The IDF servicemen and women shall present things objectively, completely and precisely, in planning, performing and reporting. They will act in such a manner that their peers and commanders can rely upon them in performing their tasks.”
Personal Example – “The IDF servicemen and women will comport themselves as required of them, and will demand of themselves as they demand of others, out of recognition of their ability and responsibility within the military and without to serve as a deserving role model.”
Human Life – “The IDF servicemen and women will act in a judicious and safe manner in all they do, out of recognition of the supreme value of human life. During combat they will endanger themselves and their comrades only to the extent required to carry out their mission.”
Purity of Arms – “The soldier shall make use of his weaponry and power only for the fulfillment of the mission and solely to the extent required; he will maintain his humanity even in combat. The soldier shall not employ his weaponry and power in order to harm non-combatants or prisoners of war, and shall do all he can to avoid harming their lives, body, honor and property.”
Professionalism – “The IDF servicemen and women will acquire the professional knowledge and skills required to perform their tasks, and will implement them while striving continuously to perfect their personal and collective achievements.”
Discipline – “The IDF servicemen and women will strive to the best of their ability to fully and successfully complete all that is required of them according to orders and their spirit. IDF soldiers will be meticulous in giving only lawful orders, and shall refrain from obeying blatantly illegal orders.”
Comradeship – “The IDF servicemen and women will act out of fraternity and devotion to their comrades, and will always go to their assistance when they need their help or depend on them, despite any danger or difficulty, even to the point of risking their lives.”
Sense of Mission – “The IDF soldiers view their service in the IDF as a mission; they will be ready to give their all in order to defend the state, its citizens and residents. This is due to the fact that they are representatives of the IDF who act on the basis and in the framework of the authority given to them in accordance with IDF orders.”
Military ethics of fighting terror
Two IDF Medical Doctors in a training exercise
IDF soldiers treat an injured Palestinian man
IDF soldiers rescued an eighty-year-old Lebanese woman, after she got tangled in the security fence on the northern border, on the Lebanese side
In 2005, Asa Kasher and Amos Yadlin co-authored a noticed article published in the Journal of Military Ethics under the title: “Military Ethics of Fighting Terror: An Israeli Perspective”. The article was meant as an “extension of the classical Just War Theory”, and as a “[needed] third model” or missing paradigm besides which of “classical war (army) and law enforcement (police).”, resulting in a “doctrine (…) on the background of the IDF fight against acts and activities of terror performed by Palestinian individuals and organizations.”[59]
In this article, Kasher and Yadlin came to the conclusion that targeted killings of terrorists were justifiable, even at the cost of hitting nearby civilians. In a 2009 interview to Haaretz, Asa Kasher later confirmed, pointing to the fact that in an area in which the IDF does not have effective security control (e.g., Gaza, vs. Est-Jerusalem), soldiers’ lives protection takes priority over avoiding injury to enemy civilians.[60] Some, along with Avishai Margalit andMichael Walzer, have recused this argument, advancing that such position was “contrary to centuries of theorizing about the morality of war as well as international humanitarian law”,[61] since drawing “a sharp line between combatants and noncombatants” would be “the only morally relevant distinction that all those involved in a war can agree on.”[62]
The article was intended to (then Chief of Staff) Moshe Ya’alon, to serve as a basis for a new “code of conduct”. Although Moshe Ya’alon did endorse the article’s views, and is reported to have presented it numerous times before military forums, it was never actually turned into a binding IDF document or an actual “code”, neither by Ya’alon nor its successors. However, the document have since reportedly been adapted to serve as educational material, designed to emphasizes the right behavior in low intensity warfare against terrorists, where soldiers must operate within a civilian population.[63]
As of today “The Spirit of the IDF” (cf. supra) is still considered the only biding moral code that formally applies to the IDF troops. In 2009, Amos Yadlin (then head of Military Intelligence) suggested that the article he co-authored with Asa Kasher be ratified as a formal binding code, arguing that “the current code [‘The Spirit of the IDF’] does not sufficiently address one of the army’s most pressing challenges: asymmetric warfare against terrorist organizations that operate amid a civilian population”.[64]
The 11 key points highlighted in the article and educational material mentioned above:
Military action can be taken only against military targets.
The use of force must be proportional.
Soldiers may only use weaponry they were issued by the IDF.
Anyone who surrenders cannot be attacked.
Only those who are properly trained can interrogate prisoners.
Soldiers must accord dignity and respect to the Palestinian population and those arrested.
Soldiers must give appropriate medical care, when conditions allow, to themselves and to enemies.
Pillaging is absolutely and totally illegal.
Soldiers must show proper respect for religious and cultural sites and artifacts.
Soldiers must protect international aid workers, including their property and vehicles.
Soldiers must report all violations of this code.
Command and Control
According to the Israeli Basic Law: The IDF adopted in 1976, the IDF is subject to the authority of the Government. The Minister in charge of the IDF on behalf of the Government is the Minister of Defense. The supreme command level in the military, the Chief of the General Staff – who is the military’s Commander in Chief – is appointed by and subject to the authority of the civilian Government and is subordinate to the Minister of Defense (not the Ministry of Defense itself).
However in the years after the establishment of Israel, the Military establishment enjoyed a degree of independence given to it by Ben-Gurion. This was evident in the attendance of the Chief of General Staff in Cabinet and security Cabinet meetings as an equal and not as a subordinate. Even after the Agranat Commission inquiry following the 1973 Yom Kippur War, when the roles, the powers, and the duties of the Prime Minister, Defense Minister and Chief of General Staff were clarified and the rules and standards of monitoring where established between the military and the political spheres, the military still continued to enjoy an overlarge status on the expense of the civilian authority.
Budget
During 1950–66, Israel spent an average of 9% of its GDP on defense. Defense expenditures increased dramatically after both the 1967 and 1973 wars. They reached a high of about 24% of GDP in the 1980s, but have since come down significantly, following the signing of peace agreements with Jordan and Egypt.
On 30 September 2009 Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu endorsed an additional NIS 1.5 billion for the defense budget to help Israel address problems regarding Iran. The budget changes came two months after Israel had approved its current two-year budget. The defense budget in 2009 stood at NIS 48.6 billion and NIS 53.2 billion for 2010 – the highest amount in Israel’s history. The figure constituted 6.3% of expected gross domestic product and 15.1% of the overall budget, even before the planned NIS 1.5 billion addition.[65]
However in 2011, the prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu reversed course and moved to make significant cuts in the defense budget in order to pay for social programs.[66] The General Staff concluded that the proposed cuts endangered the battle readiness of the armed forces.[67] In 2012, Israel spent $15.2 billion on its armed forces, one of the highest ratios of defense spending to GDP among developed countries ($1,900 per person). However, Israel’s spending per capita is below that of the USA.[68]
The IDF also has several large internal research and development departments, and it purchases many technologies produced by the Israeli security industries including IAI, IMI, Elbit Systems, Rafael, and dozens of smaller firms. Many of these developments have been battle-tested in Israel’s numerous military engagements, making the relationship mutually beneficial, the IDF getting tailor-made solutions and the industries a good reputation.[citation needed]
In response to the price overruns on the US Littoral Combat Ship program, Israel is considering producing their own warships, which would take a decade[72] and depend on diverting US financing to the project.[73]
Israel is the only country in the world with an operational anti-ballistic missile defense system on the national level – the Arrow system, jointly funded and produced by Israel and the United States. The Iron Dome system against short-range rockets is operational and proved to be successful. David’s Sling, an anti-missile system designed to counter medium range rockets is under development. Israel has also worked with the US on development of a tactical high energy laser system against medium range rockets (called Nautilus or THEL).
Israel has the independent capability of launching reconnaissance satellites into orbit, a capability shared with Russia, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, South Korea, Italy, Germany, the People’s Republic of China, India, Japan, Brazil and Ukraine. Israeli security industries developed both the satellites (Ofeq) and the launchers (Shavit).
Israeli female soldiers on parade, Jerusalem, 1968
Yom Hazikaron, Israel’s day of remembrance for fallen soldiers, is observed on the 4th day of the month of Iyar of the Hebrew calendar, the day before the celebration of Independence Day. Memorial services are held in the presence of Israel’s top military personnel. A two-minute siren is heard at 11:00, which marks the opening of the official military memorial ceremonies and private remembrance gatherings at each cemetery where soldiers are buried. Many Israelis visit the graves of family members and friends who were killed in action. On the evening before the remembrance day all shops, restaurants and entertainment places must close gates to the public no later than 7 P.M. (the same routine and law applies to the day of remembrance of the Holocaust which takes place a week earlier).
Israel Defense Forces parades took place on Independence Day, during the first 25 years of the State of Israel’s existence. They were cancelled after 1973 due to financial concerns. The Israel Defense Forces still has weapon exhibitions country-wide on Independence Day, but they are stationary.
Foreign military relations
France
Starting on the Independence day on 14 May 1948 (5 Iyar 5708), a strong military, commercial and political relationship were established between France and Israel until 1969. The highest level of the military collaboration was reached between 1956 and 1966.[84] At this time France provided almost all the aircraft, tanks and military ships. In 1969 the French president Charles de Gaulle limited the export of weapons to Israel. This was the end of the “golden age” 20 years of relations between Israel and France.
In 1983, the United States and Israel established a Joint Political Military Group, which convenes twice a year. Both the U.S. and Israel participate in joint military planning and combined exercises, and have collaborated on military research and weapons development. Additionally the U.S. military maintains two classified, pre-positioned War Reserve Stocks in Israel valued at $493 million.[85] Israel has the official distinction of being an AmericanMajor non-NATO ally. As a result of this, the US and Israel share the vast majority[citation needed] of their security and military technology.
Since 1976, Israel had been the largest annual recipient of U.S. foreign assistance. In 2009, Israel received $2.55 billion in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) grants from the Department of Defense.[86] All but 26% of this military aid is for the purchase of military hardware from American companies only.[86]
The United States has an anti-missile system base in the Negev region of Southern Israel, which is manned by 120 US Army personnel.[citation needed]
In October 2012, United States and Israel began their biggest joint air and missile defense exercise, known as Austere Challenge 12, involving around 3,500 U.S. troops in the region along with 1,000 IDF personnel.[87] Germany and Britain also participated.[88]
India and Israel enjoy strong military and strategic ties.[89] Israeli authorities consider Indian citizens to be the most pro-Israel people in the world.[90][91][92][93][94][95] Apart from being Israel’s second-largest economic partner in Asia,[96] India is also the largest customer of Israeli arms in the world.[97] In 2006, annual military sales between India and Israel stood at US$900 million.[98] Israeli defense firms had the largest exhibition at the 2009 Aero Indiashow, during which Israel offered several state-of-the art weapons to India.[99] The first major military deal between the two countries was the sale of Israeli EL/W-2090AEW radars to the Indian Air Force in 2004.[100] In March 2009, India and Israel signed a US$1.4 billion deal under which Israel would sell India an advanced air-defense system.[101] India and Israel have also embarked on extensive space cooperation. In 2008, India’s ISRO launched Israel’s most technologically advanced spy satelliteTecSAR.[102] In 2009, India reportedly developed a high-tech spy satellite RISAT-2 with significant assistance from Israel.[103] The satellite was successfully launched by India in April 2009.[104]
According to a Los Angeles Times news story the 2008 Mumbai attacks were an attack on the growing India-Israel partnership. It quotes retired Indian Vice Admiral Premvir S. Das thus “Their aim was to… tell the Indians clearly that your growing linkage with Israel is not what you should be doing…”[105] In the past, India and Israel have held numerous joint anti-terror training exercises[106] and it was also reported that in the wake of the Mumbai attacks, Israel was helping India launch anti-terror raids inside Pakistani territory.
Germany developed the Dolphin submarine and supplied it to Israel. Two submarines were donated by Germany.[107] The military co-operation has been discreet but mutually profitable: Israeli intelligence, for example, sent captured Warsaw Pact armour to West Germany to be analysed. The results aided the German development of an anti-tank system.[108] Israel also trained GSG 9 members. The Israeli Merkava MK IV tank uses a German V12 engine produced under license.[109]
In 2008, the website DefenseNews revealed that Germany and Israel had been jointly developing a nuclear warning system, dubbed Operation Bluebird.[110][111]
During a secret operation in 1966, two British made “Chieftain” MBTs were brought to Israel for a 4 years long evaluation for service with the IDF. The plan was for the IDF not only to purchase the British MBTs, but for IMI (Israeli Military Industries) to buy production rights. As part of the deal during the early 60’s Israel purchased second hand “Centurion” MBTs from the British, that used that money in the “Chieftain” development. After the trials were done Israeli improvement and ideas were implemented by the British manufacturer, but British politicians cancelled the agreement with Israel and the program was shut-down. The knowledge earned during the improvements on the “Chieftain”, together with earlier experiments in tank improvements, gave the last push for the development and production of the “Merkava” tank.
United Kingdom has supplied equipment and spare parts for Sa’ar 4.5-class missile boats and F-4 Phantom fighter-bombers, components for small-caliber artillery ammunition and air-to-surface missiles, and engines for Elbit Hermes 450Unmanned aerial vehicles. British arms sales to Israel mainly consist of light weaponry, and ammunition and components for helicopters, tanks, armored personnel carriers, and combat aircraft.[112][113]
Israel is the second-largest foreign supplier of arms to the People’s Republic of China, only after the Russian Federation. China has purchased a wide array of military hardware from Israel, including Unmanned aerial vehiclesand communications satellites. China has become an extensive market for Israel’s military industries and arms manufacturers, and trade with Israel has allowed it to obtain “dual-use” technology which the United States andEuropean Union were reluctant to provide.[114] In 2010 Yair Golan, head of IDF Home Front Command visited China to strengthen military ties.[115] In 2012, IDF Chief of StaffBenny Gantz visited China for high-level talks with the Chinese defense establishment.[116]
As closely neighboring countries, Israel and Cyprus have enjoyed greatly improving diplomatic relations since 2010. During the Mount Carmel Forest Fire, Cyprus dispatched two aviation assets to assist fire-fighting operations in Israel – the first time Cypriot Government aircraft were permitted to operate from Israeli airfields in a non-civil capacity.[117] In addition, Israel and Cyprus have closely cooperated in maritime activities relating to Gaza, since 2010, and have reportedly begun an extensive sharing program of regional intelligence to support mutual security concerns. On 17 May 2012, it was widely reported that the Israeli Air Force had been granted unrestricted access to the Nicosia Flight Information Region of Cyprus, and that Israeli aviation assets may have operated over the island itself.[118] Cyprus, as a former S-300 air-defense system operator, was speculated by Greek media to have assisted Israel in strategic planning to challenge such air-defense systems, alongside shorter-range SAM systems, although this remains unconfirmed.
Three IAF helicopters, two Apache longbows and one Black Hawk, fly above Greek mountains during a joint exercise with the Hellenic Air Force, June 2011
Israel and Greece have enjoyed a very cordial military relationship since 2008, including military drills ranging from Israel to the island of Crete. Drills include air-to-air long-distance refueling, long-range flights, and most importantly aiding Israel in outmaneuvering the S-300 which Greece has.[119] Recent purchases include 100 million euro deal between Greece and Israel for the purchase of SPICE 1000 and SPICE 2000 pound bomb kits. They have also signed many defense agreements, including Cyprus, in order to establish stability for transporting gas from Israel-Cyprus to Greece and on to the European Union-a paramount objective to the future stability and prosperity of all three countries, threatened by Turkey.
Israel has provided extensive military assistance to Turkey. Israel sold Turkey IAI HeronUnmanned aerial vehicles, and modernized Turkey’s F-4 Phantom and Northrop F-5 aircraft at the cost of $900 million. Turkey’s main battle tank is the Israeli-made Sabra tank, of which Turkey has 170. Israel later upgraded them for $500 million. Israel has also supplied Turkey with Israeli-made missiles, and the two nations have engaged in naval cooperation. Turkey allowed Israeli pilots to practice long-range flying over mountainous terrain in Turkey’s Konya firing range, while Israel trains Turkish pilots at Israel’s computerized firing range at Nevatim Airbase.[120][121] Until 2009, the Turkish military was one of Israel’s largest defense customers. Israel defense companies have sold unmanned aerial vehicles and long-range targeting pods.[122]
However, relations have been strained in recent times. In the last two years, the Turkish military has declined to participate in the annual joint naval exercise with Israel and the United States. The exercise, known as “Reliant Mermaid” was started in 1998 and included the Israeli, Turkish and American navies.[123] The objective of the exercise is to practice search-and-rescue operations and to familiarize each navy with international partners who also operate in the Mediterranean Sea.[124]
Azerbaijan and Israel have engaged in intense cooperation since 1992.[125] Israeli military have been a major provider of battlefield aviation, artillery, antitank, and anti-infantry weaponry to Azerbaijan.[126][127] In 2009, Israeli President Shimon Peres made a visit to Azerbaijan where military relations were expanded further, with the Israeli company Aeronautics Defense Systems Ltd announcing it was going to build a factory in Baku.[128] In 2012, Israel and Azerbaijan signed an agreement according to which state-run Israel Aerospace Industries would sell $1.6 billion in drones and anti-aircraft and missile defense systems to Azerbaijan.[129] In March 2012, the magazine Foreign Policy reported that the Israeli Air Force may be preparing to use the Sitalchay Military Airbase, located 500 km (310 mi) from the Iranian border, for air strikes against the nuclear program of Iran,[130] later confirmed by other media.[131]
The IDF is planning a number of technological upgrades for the future. As part of its plans, the M-16 rifle is currently being phased out of all ground units in favor of the IMI Tavor.[136] In addition, the IDF is now planning for a future tank to replace the Merkava. The new tank will be able to fire lasers and electromagnetic pulses, run on a hybrid engine, run with a crew as small as two, will be faster, and will be better-protected, with emphasis on protection systems such as the Trophy over armor.[137]
The Israeli Air Force will purchase as many as 100 F-35 Lightning II fighter jets from the United States. The aircraft will be modified and designated F-35I. They will use Israeli-built electronic warfare systems, outer-wings, guided bombs, and air-to-air missiles.[138][139][140]
As part of a 2013 arms deal, the IAF will purchase KC-135 Stratotanker aerial refueling aircraft and V-22 Osprey multi-mission aircraft from the United States, as well as advanced radars for warplanes and missiles designed to take out radars.[141]
In April 2013, an Israeli official stated that within 40–50 years, piloted aircraft would be phased out of service by unmanned aerial vehicles capable of executing nearly any operation that can be performed by piloted combat aircraft. Israel’s military industries are reportedly on the path to developing such technology in a few decades. Israel will also manufacture tactical satellites for military use.[142]
The Israeli Navy is expecting the delivery of a fifth Dolphin-class submarine in 2013,[143] and a sixth in 2017.[144] Israel is planning to upgrade its surface fleet, and is jointly developing four frigates based on the Incheon class frigate with South Korea. In addition, Israel may procure destroyers and cruisers equipped with cruise missiles with a range of some 2,000 kilometers. Israel is also developing marine artillery, including a gun capable of firing satellite-guided 155mm rounds between 75 and 120 kilometers.[145][146]
Based on the principles of Islamism gaining momentum throughout the Arab world in the 1980s, Hamas was founded in 1987 (during the First Intifada) as an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.[3][4] Co-founderSheik Ahmed Yassin stated in 1987, and the Hamas Charter affirmed in 1988, that Hamas was founded to liberate Palestine from Israeli occupation and to establish an Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.[24][25] However, in July 2009, Khaled Meshal, Hamas’s political bureau chief, said the organization was willing to cooperate with “a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict which included a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders”, provided that Palestinian refugees hold the right to return to Israel and that East Jerusalem be the new nation’s capital.[26][27] However, Mousa Mohammed Abu Marzook, deputy chairman of Hamas political bureau, said in 2014 that “Hamas will not recognize Israel”, adding “this is a red line that cannot be crossed”.[28][citation needed]
The Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, the Hamas affiliated military wing, has launched attacks on Israel, against both civilian and military targets.[29] Attacks on civilian targets have included rocket attacks and, from 1993 to 2006, suicide bombings.[30] Attacks on military targets have included small-arms fire and rocket and mortar attacks.[29][31][32]
In the January 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections, Hamas won a decisive majority in the Palestinian Parliament,[23] defeating the PLO-affiliated Fatah party. Following the elections, the Quartet (United States, Russia, United Nations, and European Union) conditioned future foreign assistance to the PA on the future government’s commitment to nonviolence, recognition of the state of Israel, and acceptance of previous agreements. Hamas resisted such changes, leading to Quartet suspension of its foreign assistance program and Israel imposing economic sanctions against the Hamas-led administration.[33][34] In March 2007 a national unity government, headed by Prime Minister Ismail Haniya of Hamas was briefly formed, but this failed to restart international financial assistance.[35] Tensions over control of Palestinian security forces soon erupted into the2007 Battle of Gaza,[35] after which Hamas retained control of Gaza while its officials were ousted from government positions in the West Bank.[35] Israel and Egypt then imposed an economic blockade on Gaza, on the grounds that Fatah forces were no longer providing security there.[36]
In June 2008, as part of an Egyptian-brokered ceasefire, Hamas ceased rocket attacks on Israel and made some efforts to prevent attacks by other organizations.[37][38] After a four-month calm, the conflict escalated when Israel carried out a military action with the stated aim of preventing an abduction planned by Hamas, using a tunnel that had been dug under the border security fence,[broken citation] and killed seven Hamas operatives. In retaliation, Hamas attacked Israel with a barrage of rockets.[38][39] In late December 2008, Israel attacked Gaza,[40] withdrawing its forces from the territory in mid-January 2009.[41] After the Gaza War, Hamas continued to govern the Gaza Strip and Israel maintained its economic blockade. On May 4, 2011, Hamas and Fatah announced a reconciliation agreement that provides for “creation of a joint caretaker Palestinian government” prior to national elections scheduled for 2012.[42] According to Israeli news reports quoting Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas, as a condition of joining the PLO, Khaled Meshaal agreed to discontinue the “armed struggle” against Israel and accept Palestinian statehood within the 1967 borders, alongside Israel.[43]Hostilities resumed between November 14-21, 2012. On 12 June 2014, three Israeli teenagers were kidnapped and murdered. IDF initiated an operation in the West Bank aimed to find them (not until June 30 were their bodies found). Israeli authorities have named two Hamas members as prime suspects: Amer Abu Aysha and Marwan Kawasm.[44] The increased tensions soon escalated, and a full military operation began on July 8.
Hamas is an acronym of the Arabic phrase حركة المقاومة الاسلامية or Harakat al-Muqāwama al-Islāmiyya, meaning “Islamic Resistance Movement”. The Arabic word Hamas also means devotion and zeal in the path of Allah.[45] The Hamas covenant interprets its name to mean “strength and bravery”.[46]
Hamas comprises three interrelated wings – the social welfare and political wings, which are responsible for the social, administrative, political, and propaganda activities of Hamas, and the military wing, which is engaged in covert activities, such as acting against suspected collaborators, gathering intelligence on potential targets, procuring weapons, and carrying out military attacks.[47]
Consultative councils
The Majlis al-Shura (consultative council) is the group’s overarching political and decision making body. It includes representatives from Gaza, the West Bank, Israeli prisons, and the exiled external leadership, the Political Bureau. Under this Shura council are committees responsible for supervising Hamas activities, from media relations to military operations. In the West Bank and Gaza, local Shura committees answer to the Shura council and carry out its decisions.[47]
Hamas’s highest decision-making body is its Political Bureau, which consists of 15 members. Before the beginning of the Syrian civil war, it operated in exile in Damascus, Syria. The bureau is elected by members who select their representatives in local Consultative Councils in specific geographic regions. The councils then nominate representatives to the General Consultative Council, and the Political Bureau is elected by members of the General Consultative Council.[2]
The Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas’s military wing formed in 1992, is named in commemoration of influential Palestinian nationalist Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam. Armed Hamas cells sometimes refer to themselves as “Students of Ayyash”, “Students of the Engineer”, or “Yahya Ayyash Units”,[48] to commemorate Yahya Ayyash, an early Hamas bomb-maker killed in 1996.[23] Since its establishment, the military capability of Hamas has increased markedly, from rifles to Qassam rockets and more.[49]
While the number of members is known only to the Brigades leadership, Israel estimates the Brigades have a core of several hundred members who receive military style training, including training in Iran and in Syria (before the Syrian civil war).[50] Additionally, the brigades have an estimated 10,000 operatives “of varying degrees of skill and professionalism” who are members of Hamas or their supporters and the internal security forces. These operatives can be expected to reinforce the Brigades in an “emergency situation”.[51]
Although the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades are an integral part of Hamas, they also operate independently of Hamas, and at times contrary to Hamas’ stated aims.[52] Most analysts agree that although differences of opinion between the Hamas military and political wing exist, Hamas’s internal discipline is strong enough to contain them.[53] Political scientists Ilana Kass and Bard O’Neill liken Hamas’s relationship with the Brigades to the political partySinn Féin‘s relationship to the military arm of the Irish Republican Army.[54] To further explain the relationship, they quote a senior Hamas official: “The Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigade is a separate armed military wing, which has its own leaders who do not take their orders from [Hamas] and do not tell us of their plans in advance.”[54] However, according to former U.S. Department of Treasury official and terrorism expert Matthew Levitt, the Hamas Political Bureau operates as the highest ranking leadership body determining the policy of the Hamas organization and has responsibility for directing and coordinating terrorist acts. Hamas’ founder, Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, stated in 1998: “We can not separate the wing from the body. If we do so, the body will not be able to fly. Hamas is one body.”[55][56]
Social welfare
Hamas is popular among Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, though it also has a following in the West Bank, and to a lesser extent in other Middle Eastern countries. Its popularity stems in part from its welfare wing providing social services to Palestinians in the occupied territories. Such services are not generally provided by the Palestinian Authority. Israeli scholar Reuven Paz estimates that 90% of Hamas activities revolve around “social, welfare, cultural, and educational activities”. Social services include running relief programs and funding schools, orphanages, mosques, healthcare clinics, soup kitchens, and sports leagues.[57]
In particular, Hamas funded health services where people could receive free or inexpensive medical treatment. Hamas greatly contributed to the health sector, and facilitated hospital and physician services in the Palestinian territory. On the other hand, Hamas’s use of hospitals is sometimes criticised as purportedly serving the promotion of violence against Israel.[58] Charities affiliated with Hamas are known to financially support families of those who have been killed or imprisoned while carrying out militant actions or supporting such actions. Families typically receive a one time grant of $500 to $5,000, and those whose homes have been destroyed by the Israel Defense Forces have their rent paid for temporary housing. Families of militants not affiliated with Hamas sometimes receive less.[59]
Hamas has funded education and built Islamic charities, libraries, mosques and education centers for women. They also built nurseries, kindergartens and supervised religious schools that provide free meals to children. When children attend their schools and mosques, parents are required to sign oaths of allegiance. Refugees, as well as those left without homes, are able to claim financial and technical assistance from Hamas.[60]
The work of Hamas in these fields supplements that provided by the United Nations Relief Works Agency (UNRWA). Hamas is also well regarded by Palestinians for its efficiency and perceived lack of corruption compared to Fatah.[61] Since the 2008–2009 Israeli military operation in Gaza, Palestinian public opinion polls have shown Hamas steadily increasing in popularity with 52% support compared to 13% for Fatah. All public opinion surveys conducted recently have supported this trend.[62]
Despite building materials needing to be smuggled into the territory, luxury beach resorts and tourist facilities operated by the interior ministry have been constructed by Hamas government–linked charities, including gardens, playgrounds, football fields, a zoo and restaurants aimed to provide employment and low cost entertainment for citizens. Some Palestinians have complained about the admission fee, criticizing Hamas for charging them to use “government-owned” property.[63]
Goals
Hamas’ 1988 charter states that Hamas “strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine” (Article Six). Article Thirty-One of the Charter states: “Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions—Islam, Christianity and Judaism—to coexist in peace and quiet with each other.”[64]
After the elections in 2006, Hamas co-founder Mahmoud Al-Zahar did not rule out the possibility of accepting a “temporary two-state solution”, and stated that he dreamed “of hanging a huge map of the world on the wall at my Gaza home which does not show Israel on it”.[65] Xinhua reports that Al-Zahar “did not rule out the possibility of having Jews, Muslims and Christians living under the sovereignty of an Islamic state”.[65] In late 2006, Ismail Haniyeh, the political leader of Hamas, said that if a Palestinian state was formed within the 1967 lines, Hamas was willing to declare a truce that could last as long as 20 years, and stated that Hamas will never recognize the “usurper Zionist government” and will continue “jihad-like movement until the liberation of Jerusalem”.[66]
In March 2006, Hamas released its official legislative program. The document clearly signaled that Hamas could refer the issue of recognizing Israel to a national referendum. Under the heading “Recognition of Israel,” it stated simply (AFP, 3/11/06): “The question of recognizing Israel is not the jurisdiction of one faction, nor the government, but a decision for the Palestinian people.” This was a major shift away from their 1988 charter.[67] A few months later, via Maryland‘s Jerome Segal, the group sent a letter to U.S. PresidentGeorge Bush stating they “don’t mind having a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders”, and asked for direct negotiations: “Segal emphasized that a state within the 1967 borders and a truce for many years could be considered Hamas’ de facto recognition of Israel.”[68]
In an April 2008 meeting between Hamas leader Khaled Meshal and former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, an understanding was reached in which Hamas agreed it would respect the creation of a Palestinian state in the territory seized by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War, provided this were ratified by the Palestinian people in a referendum. Hamas later publicly offered a long-term truce with Israel if Israel agreed to return to its 1967 borders and grant the “right of return” to all Palestinian refugees.[69] In November 2008, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh re-stated that Hamas was willing to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, and offered Israel a long-term truce “if Israel recognized the Palestinians’ national rights”.[70] In 2009, in a letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Haniyeh repeated his group’s support for a two-state settlement based on 1967 borders: “We would never thwart efforts to create an independent Palestinian state with borders [from] June 4, 1967, with Jerusalem as its capital.”[71] On December 1, 2010, Ismail Haniyeh again repeated, “We accept a Palestinian state on the borders of 1967, with Jerusalem as its capital, the release of Palestinian prisoners, and the resolution of the issue of refugees,” and “Hamas will respect the results [of a referendum] regardless of whether it differs with its ideology and principles.”[72]
In February 2012, according to the Palestinian authority, Hamas forswore the use of violence. Evidence for this was provided by an eruption of violence from Islamic Jihad in March 2012 after an Israeli assassination of a Jihad leader, during which Hamas refrained from attacking Israel.[73] “Israel—despite its mantra that because Hamas is sovereign in Gaza it is responsible for what goes on there—almost seems to understand,” wrote Israeli journalists Avi Issacharoff and Amos Harel, “and has not bombed Hamas offices or installations”.[74]
Israel has rejected some truce offers by Hamas because it contends the group uses them to prepare for more fighting rather than peace.[75]The Atlantic magazine columnist Jeffrey Goldberg, along with other analysts, believes Hamas may be incapable of permanent reconciliation with Israel.[76][77]Mkhaimer Abusada, a political scientist at Al Azhar University, writes that Hamas talks “of hudna [temporary ceasefire], not of peace or reconciliation with Israel. They believe over time they will be strong enough to liberate all historic Palestine.”[78]
The Hamas Charter (or Covenant), issued in 1988, outlined the organization’s position on many issues at the time. It identifies Hamas as the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine and declares its members to be Muslims who “fear God and raise the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors”. The charter states “our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious” and calls for the eventual creation of an Islamic state in Palestine, in place of Israel and the Palestinian Territories,[46] and the obliteration or dissolution of Israel.[79][80] The Charter also asserts that through shrewd manipulation of imperial countries and secret societies, Zionists were behind a wide range of events and disasters going as far back in history as the French Revolution. Among the charter’s controversial statements is the following: “The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews [and kill them]; until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!”[45] The document also quotes Islamic religious texts to provide justification for fighting against and killing the Jews of Israel,[81] presenting the Arab–Israeli conflict as an inherently irreconcilable struggle between Jews and Muslims, and Judaism and Islam,[45] adding that the only way to engage in this struggle between “truth and falsehood” is through Islam and by means of jihad, until victory or martyrdom.[45] The Charter adds that “renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion” of Islam.[82] The charter states that Hamas is humanistic, and tolerant of other religions as long as they do not block Hamas’s efforts.[83]
Current status of the Charter
Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal indicated to Robert Pastor, senior adviser to the Carter Center, that the Charter is “a piece of history and no longer relevant, but cannot be changed for internal reasons”.[84] Hamas do not use the Charter on their website and prefer to use their election manifesto to put forth their agenda.[85][86] Pastor states that those who quote the charter rather than more recent Hamas statements may be using the Charter as an excuse to ignore Hamas.[84]
British diplomat and former British ambassador to the United NationsSir Jeremy Greenstock stated in early 2009 that the Hamas charter was “drawn up by a Hamas-linked imam some [twenty] years ago and has never been adopted since Hamas was elected as the Palestinian government in 2006”.[87] Mohammed Nimer of American University comments on the Charter, “It’s a tract meant to mobilize support and it should be amended…. It projects anger, not vision.”[88]Ahmed Yousef, an adviser to Ismail Haniyeh, has questioned the use of the charter by Israel and its supporters to brand Hamas as a fundamentalist, terrorist, racist, anti-Semitic organization and claims that they have taken parts of the charter out of context for propaganda purposes. He claims that they dwell on the charter and ignore that Hamas has changed its views with time.[89]
With its takeover of Gaza after the 1967 war with Egypt, Israel hunted down secular Palestinian Liberation Organization factions but dropped the previous Egyptian rulers’ harsh restrictions against Islamic activists.[3] In fact, Israel for many years tolerated and at times encouraged Islamic activists and groups as a counterweight to the secular nationalists of the PLO and its dominant faction, Fatah.[3][90]
Among the activists benefited was Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza, who had also formed the Islamist group Mujama al-Islamiya in 1973, a charity recognized by Israel in 1979. Israel allowed the organization to build mosques, clubs, schools, and a library in Gaza.[3][91]
Yitzhak Segev, the acting governor of Gaza in 1979, said he had no illusions about Yassin’s intentions, having watched an Islamist movement topple the Shah as Israel’s military attache in Iran. According to Segev, Yassin and his charity were completely peaceful towards Israel during this time, and Segev and other Israeli officials feared being viewed as an enemy of Islam. Segev maintained regular contact with Yassin, met with him around a dozen times, and arranged for Yassin to be taken to Israel for hospital treatment.[3]
Also, Segev said, Fatah was “our main enemy”.[3][92] Islamists frequently attacked secular and leftist Palestinian movements, including Fatah, but the Israeli military avoided getting involved in those quarrels.[3] It stood aside, for example, when Mujama al-Islamiya activists stormed the Red Crescent charity’s headquarters in Gaza, but Segev did send soldiers to prevent the burning down of the home of the head of the organization.[3]
In 1984 the Israeli army received intelligence that Sheikh Yassin’s followers were collecting arms in Gaza. Israeli troops raided mosques and found a cache of weapons.[3] Yassin was arrested, but told his interrogators the weapons were meant to be used against secular Palestinians, not Israel. The cleric was released a year later and allowed to continue to develop his movement in Gaza.[3]
Around the time of Yassin’s arrest, Avner Cohen, an Israeli religious affairs official, sent a report to senior military officers and civilian leadership in Gaza advising them of the dangers of the Islamic movement, but this report and similar ones were ignored.[3] Former military intelligence officer Shalom Harari said the warnings were ignored out of neglect, not a desire to fortify the Islamists: “Israel never financed Hamas. Israel never armed Hamas.”[3][93]
In 1987, several Palestinians were killed in a traffic accident involving an Israeli driver, and the events that followed—a Palestinian uprising (now known as the First Intifada) against Israel’s West Bank and Gaza occupation—led Yassin and six other Palestinians to found Hamas as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood movement. The new group was supported by Brotherhood-affiliated charities and social institutions that had already gained a strong foothold in the occupied territories. The acronym “Hamas” first appeared in 1987 in a leaflet that accused the Israeli intelligence services of undermining the moral fiber of Palestinian youth as part of Mossad‘s recruitment of what Hamas termed collaborators. Nonetheless, Israeli military and intelligence was still focused on Fatah, and continued to maintain contacts with Gaza’s Islamic activists. Numerous Islamist leaders, including senior Hamas founder Mahmoud Zahar, met with Yitzhak Rabin as part of “regular consultations” between Israeli officials and Palestinians not linked to the PLO.[3]
Hamas carried out its first attack against Israel in 1989, abducting and killing two soldiers. The Israel Defense Forces immediately arrested Yassin and sentenced him to life in prison, and deported 400 Hamas activists, including Zahar, to South Lebanon, which at the time was occupied by Israel. During this time Hamas built a relationship with Hezbollah.
1990s
Hamas’s military branch, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, was created in 1991.[94] During the 1990s the al-Qassam Brigades conducted numerous attacks on Israel, with both civilian and military victims. In April 1993, suicide bombings in the West Bank began.[95]After the February 1994 massacre by Baruch Goldstein of 30 Muslim civilians in a Hebron mosque, the al-Qassam Brigades began suicide attacks inside Israel.[96]
In December 1992 Israel responded to the killing of a border police officer by deporting 415 leading figures of Hamas and Islamic Jihad to Lebanon, which provoked international condemnation and a unanimous UN Security Council resolution condemning the action.[97][98]
Although the suicide attacks by the al-Qassam Brigades and other groups violated the 1993 Oslo accords (which Hamas opposed[99]), Palestinian Authority President Yasir Arafat was reluctant to pursue the attackers and may have had inadequate means to do so.[100] Some analysts state that the Palestinian Authority could have stopped the suicide and other attacks on civilians but refused to do so.[101]
According to the Congressional Research Service, Hamas admitted to having executed Palestinians accused of collaborating with Israeli authorities in the 1990s. A transcript of a training film by the al-Qassam Brigades tells how Hamas operatives kidnapped Palestinians accused of collaboration and then forced confessions before executing them.[4]
In 1996, Yahya Ayash, the chief bombmaker of Hamas and the leader of the West Bank battalion of the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, was assassinated by the Israeli secret service.[100][102]
In September 1997, Israeli agents in Jordan attempted but failed to assassinate Hamas leader Khaled Mashal, leading to chilled relations between the two countries and release of Sheikh Yassin, Hamas’s spiritual leader, from Israeli prison. Two years later Hamas was banned in Jordan, reportedly in part at the request of the United States, Israel, and the Palestinian Authority.[103] Jordan’s King Abdullah feared the activities of Hamas and its Jordanian allies would jeopardize peace negotiations with Israel, and accused Hamas of engaging in illegitimate activities within Jordan.[104][105] In mid-September 1999, authorities arrested Hamas leaders Khaled Mashal and Ibrahim Ghosheh on their return from a visit to Iran, and charged them with being members of an illegal organization, storing weapons, conducting military exercises, and using Jordan as a training base.[104][105][106] Hamas leaders denied the charges.[103] Mashal was exiled and eventually settled in Syria.
Second Intifada
August 2001 Sbarro pizza restaurant bombing in Jerusalem, in which 15 Israeli civilians were killed. Hamas said the attack was in response to Israel’s assassination of its officials, including two senior leaders.[107]
Al-Qassam Brigades militants were among the armed groups that launched both military-style attacks and suicide bombings against Israeli civilian and military targets during the Second Intifada (also known as the Al-Aqsa Intifada (Arabic: انتفاضة الأقصى, Intifāḍat El Aqṣa; Hebrew: אינתיפאדת אל-אקצה, Intifādat El-Aqtzah), which began in late September 2000. This Palestinian uprising against Israeli rule in the occupied territories was much more violent than the First Intifada. The military and civilian death toll is estimated at 5500 Palestinians and more than 1100 Israelis, as well as 64 foreigners.[108] A 2007 study of Palestinian suicide bombings during the second intifada(September 2000 through August 2005) found that about 40 percent were carried out by the al-Qassam Brigades.[109]
The immediate trigger for the uprising is disputed, but a more general cause, writes U.S. political science professor Jeremy Pressman, was “popular Palestinian discontent [that] grew during the Oslo peace process because the reality on the ground did not match the expectations created by the peace agreements”.[110] Hamas would be the beneficiary of this growing discontent in the 2006 Palestinian Authority legislative elections.
In January 2004, Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin said that the group would end armed resistance against Israel in exchange for a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and east Jerusalem, and that restoring Palestinians’ “historical rights” (relating to the 1948 Palestinian exodus) “would be left for future generations”.[111] On January 25, 2004, senior Hamas official Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi offered a 10-year truce, or hudna, in return for the establishment of a Palestinian state and the complete withdrawal by Israel from the territories captured in the 1967 Six Day War.[111] Al-Rantissi stated that Hamas had come to the conclusion that it was “difficult to liberate all our land at this stage, so we accept a phased liberation”.[111][112] Israel immediately dismissed al-Rantissi’s statements as insincere and a smokescreen for military preparations.[112] Yassin was assassinated on March 22, 2004, by a targeted Israeli air strike,[113] and al-Rantisi was assassinated by a similar air strike on April 18, 2004.[114]
2006 presidential and legislative elections
While Hamas boycotted the 2005 Palestinian presidential election, it did participate in the 2005 municipal elections organized by Yasser Arafat in the occupied territories. In those elections it won control of over one third of Palestinian municipal councils, besting Fatah, which had for long been the biggest force in Palestinian politics.[115]
In its election manifesto for the 2006 Palestinian legislative election, Hamas omitted a call for an end to Israel, though it did still call for armed struggle against the occupation.[116][117] Hamas won the 2006 elections, winning 76 of the 132 seats to Fatah’s 43.[118] Seen by many as primarily a rejection of the Fatah government’s corruption and ineffectiveness, the Hamas victory seemingly had brought to an end 40 years of PLO domination of Palestinian politics.[118][119]
In early February 2006, Hamas offered Israel a 10-year truce “in return for a complete Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Palestinian territories: the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem,”[23] and recognition of Palestinian rights including the “right of return”.[120] Mashal added that Hamas was not calling for a final end to armed operations against Israel, and it would not impede other Palestinian groups from carrying out such operations.[121]
After the election, the Quartet on the Middle East (the United States, Russia, the European Union (EU), and the United Nations) stated that assistance to the Palestinian Authority would only continue if Hamas renounced violence, recognized Israel, and accepted previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements, which Hamas refused to do.[122] The Quartet then imposed a freeze on all international aid to the Palestinian territories.[123]
In 2006 after the Gaza election, Hamas leader sent a letter addressed to George W. Bush where he among other things declared that Hamas would accept a state on the 1967 borders including a truce. However, the Bush administration did not reply.[124]
Electoral Platform for Change and Reform
The Change and Reform List adopts a set of principles stemming from the Islamic tradition that we embrace. We see these principles as agreed upon not only by our Palestinian people, but also by our Arab and Islamic nation as a whole. These principles are:
True Islam with its civilized achievements and political, economic, social, and legal aspects is our frame of reference and our way of life.
Historic Palestine is part of the Arab and Islamic land and its ownership by the Palestinian people is a right that does not diminish over time. No military or legal measures will change that right.
The Palestinian people, wherever they reside, constitute a single and united people and form an integral part of the Arab and Muslim nation … [Quranic verse]. Our Palestinian people are still living a phase of national liberation, and thus they have the right to strive to recover their own rights and end the occupation using all means, including armed struggle. We have to make all our resources available to support our people and defeat the occupation and establish a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital.
The right of return of all Palestinian refugees and displaced persons to their land and properties, and the right to self-determination and all other national rights, are inalienable and cannot be bargained away for any political concessions.
We uphold the indigenous and inalienable rights of our people to our land, Jerusalem, our holy places, our water resources, borders, and a fully sovereign independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital.
Reinforcing and protecting Palestinian national unity is one of the priorities of the Palestinian national action.
The issue of the prisoners is at the top of the Palestinian agenda.[125]
Legislative policy and reforming the judiciary.
“stress the separation between the three powers, the legislative, executive and judicial; activate the role of the Constitutional Court; re-form the Judicial Supreme Council and choose its members by elections and on the basis of qualifications rather than partisan, personal, and social considerations … ; enact the necessary laws that guarantee the neutrality of general prosecutor … [and] laws that will stop any transgression by the executive power on the constitution”.[125]
Public freedoms and citizen rights.
“Achieve equality before the law among citizens in rights and duties; bring security to all citizens and protect their properties and assure their safety against arbitrary arrest, torture, or revenge; stress the culture of dialogue … ; support the press and media institutions and maintain the right of journalists to access and to publish information; maintain freedom and independence of professional syndicates and preserve the rights of their membership”.[125]
After the formation of the Hamas-led cabinet on March 20, 2006, tensions between Fatah and Hamas militants progressively rose in the Gaza strip as Fatah commanders refused to take orders from the government while the Palestinian Authority initiated a campaign of demonstrations, assassinations and abductions against Hamas, which led to Hamas responding.[126] Israeli intelligence warned Mahmoud Abbas that Hamas had planned to kill him at his office in Gaza. According to a Palestinian source close to Abbas, Hamas considers president Abbas to be a barrier to its complete control over the Palestinian Authority and decided to kill him. In a statement to Al Jazeera, Hamas leader Mohammed Nazzal, accused Abbas of being party to besieging and isolating the Hamas-led government.[127]
On June 9, 2006, during an Israeli artillery operation, an explosion occurred on a busy Gaza beach, killing eight Palestinian civilians.[128][129] It was assumed that Israeli shellings were responsible for the killings, but Israeli government officials denied this.[130][131] Hamas formally withdrew from its 16-month ceasefire on June 10, taking responsibility for the subsequent Qassam rocket attacks launched from Gaza into Israel.[132]
On February 2007 Saudi-sponsored negotiations in Mecca produced agreement on a signed by Mahmoud Abbas on behalf of Fatah and Khaled Mashal on behalf of Hamas. The new government was called on to achieve Palestinian national goals as approved by the Palestine National Council, the clauses of the Basic Law and the National Reconciliation Document (the “Prisoners’ Document”) as well as the decisions of the Arab summit.[138]
In March 2007, the Palestinian Legislative Council established a national unity government, with 83 representatives voting in favor and three against. Government ministers were sworn in by Mahmoud Abbas, the chairman of the Palestinian Authority, at a ceremony held simultaneously in Gaza and Ramallah. In June that year, renewed fighting broke out between Hamas and Fatah.[139] In the course of the June 2007 Battle of Gaza, Hamas exploited the near total collapse of Palestinian Authority forces in Gaza, to seize[140] control of Gaza, ousting Fatah officials. President Mahmoud Abbas then dismissed the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority government.[141] and outlawed the Hamas militia.[142] At least 600 Palestinians died in fighting between Hamas and Fatah.[143] Human Rights Watch, a U.S.-based group, accused both sides in the conflict of torture and war crimes.[144]
Human Rights Watch estimates several hundred Gazans were “maimed” and tortured in the aftermath of the Gaza War. 73 Gazan men accused of “collaborating” had their arms and legs broken by “unidentified perpetrators” and 18 Palestinians accused of collaborating with Israel, who had escaped from Gaza’s main prison compound after Israel bombed the facility, were executed by Hamas security officials in the first days of the conflict.[145][146]
Hamas security forces attacked hundreds Fatah officials who supported Israel. Human Rights Watch interviewed one such person:
“There were eight of us sitting there. We were all from Fatah. Then three masked militants broke in. They were dressed in brown camouflage military uniforms; they all had guns. They pointed their guns at us and cursed us, then they began beating us with iron rods, including a 10-year-old boy whom they hit in the face. They said we were “collaborators” and “unfaithful”.
They beat me with iron sticks and gun butts for 15 minutes. They were yelling: “You are happy that Israel is bombing us!” until people came out of their houses, and they withdrew.[145]
In March 2012 Mahmoud Abbas stated that there were no political differences between Hamas and Fatah as they had reached agreement on a joint political platform and on a truce with Israel. Commenting on relations with Hamas, Abbas revealed in an interview with Al Jazeera that “We agreed that the period of calm would be not only in the Gaza Strip, but also in the West Bank,” adding that “We also agreed on a peaceful popular resistance [against Israel], the establishment of a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders and that the peace talks would continue if Israel halted settlement construction and accepted our conditions.”[147][148]
On June 17, 2008, Egyptian mediators announced that an informal truce had been agreed to between Hamas and Israel.[149][150] Hamas agreed to cease rocket attacks on Israel, while Israel agreed to allow limited commercial shipping across its border with Gaza, barring any breakdown of the tentative peace deal; Hamas also hinted that it would discuss the release of Gilad Shalit.[151] Israeli sources state that Hamas also committed itself to enforce the ceasefire on the other Palestinian organizations.[38] Even before the truce was agreed to, some on the Israeli side were not optimistic about it, Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin stating in May 2008 that a ground incursion into Gaza was unavoidable and would more effectively quell arms smuggling and pressure Hamas into relinquishing power.[152]
Damage to a Beershebakindergarten from a Grad rocket fired from Gaza
While Hamas was careful to maintain the ceasefire, the lull was sporadically violated by other groups, sometimes in defiance of Hamas.[38][153][154] For example, on June 24 Islamic Jihad launched rockets at the Israeli town of Sderot; Israel called the attack a grave violation of the informal truce, and closed its border crossings with Gaza.[155] On November 4, 2008, Israeli forces, in an attempt to stop construction of a tunnel, killed six Hamas gunmen in a raid inside the Gaza Strip.[156][157] Hamas responded by resuming rocket attacks, a total of 190 rockets in November according to Israel’s military.[158]
With the six-month truce officially expired on December 19, Hamas launched 50 to more than 70 rockets and mortars into Israel over the next three days, though no Israelis were injured.[159][160] On December 21, Hamas said it was ready to stop the attacks and renew the truce if Israel stopped its “aggression” in Gaza and opened up its border crossings.[160][161]
On December 27 and 28, Israel implemented Operation Cast Lead against Hamas. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said “We warned Hamas repeatedly that rejecting the truce would push Israel to aggression against Gaza.” According to Palestinian officials, over 280 people were killed and 600 were injured in the first two days of airstrikes.[162] Most were Hamas police and security officers, though many civilians also died.[162] According to Israel, militant training camps, rocket-manufacturing facilities and weapons warehouses that had been pre-identified were hit, and later they attacked rocket and mortar squads who fired around 180 rockets and mortars at Israeli communities.[163] Chief of Gaza police force Tawfiq Jabber, head of the General Security Service Salah Abu Shrakh,[164] senior religious authority and security officer Nizar Rayyan,[165] and Interior Minister Said Seyam[166] were among those killed during the fighting. Although Israel sent out thousands of cell-phone messages urging residents of Gaza to leave houses where weapons may be stored, in an attempt to minimise civilian casualties,[163] some residents complained there was nowhere to go because many neighborhoods had received the same message.[163][167][168] Israeli bombs landed close to civilian structures such as schools,[169][170] and some alleged that Israel was deliberately targeting Palestinian civilians.[171]
Israel declared a unilateral ceasefire on January 17, 2009.[172] Hamas responded the following day by announcing a one-week ceasefire to give Israel time to withdraw its forces from the Gaza Strip.[173] Israeli, Palestinian, and third-party sources disagreed on the total casualty figures from the Gaza war, and the number of Palestinian casualties who were civilians.[174][175] In November 2010, a senior Hamas official acknowledged that up to 300 fighters were killed and “In addition to them, between 200 and 300 fighters from the Al-Qassam Brigades and another 150 security forces were martyred.” These new numbers reconcile the total with those of the Israeli military, which originally said were 709 “terror operatives” killed.[176][177]
After the Gaza War
On August 16, 2009, Hamas leader Khaled Mashal stated that the organization is ready to open dialogue with the Obama administration because its policies are much better than those of former U.S. president George W. Bush: “As long as there’s a new language, we welcome it, but we want to see not only a change of language, but also a change of policies on the ground. We have said that we are prepared to cooperate with the US or any other international party that would enable the Palestinians to get rid of occupation.”[178]Despite this, an August 30, 2009 speech during a visit to Jordan[179] in which Mashal expressed support for the Palestinian right of return was interpreted by David Pollock of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy as a sign that “Hamas has now clearly opted out of diplomacy.”[180] In an interview on May 2010, Mashal said that if a Palestinian state with real sovereignty was established under the conditions he set out, on the borders of 1967 with its capital Jerusalem and with the right of return, that will be the end of the Palestinian resistance, and then the nature of any subsequent ties with Israel would be decided democratically by the Palestinians.[181][182]
In July 2009, Khaled Meshal, Hamas’s political bureau chief, stated Hamas’s willingness to cooperate with a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, which included a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders, provided that Palestinian refugees be given the right to returnto Israel and that East Jerusalem be recognized as the new state’s capital.[183]
In 2011, after the outbreak of the Syrian civil war, Hamas distanced itself from the Syrian regime and its members began leaving Syria. Where once there were “hundreds of exiled Palestinian officials and their relatives”, that number shrunk to “a few dozen”.[184] In 2012, Hamas publicly announced its support for the Syrian opposition.[185] This prompted Syrian state TV to issue a “withering attack” on the Hamas leadership.[186] Khaled Meshal said that Hamas had been “forced out” of Damascus because of its disagreements with the Syrian regime.[187] In late October, Syrian Army soldiers shot dead two Hamas leaders in Daraa refugee camp.[188] On November 5, 2012, the Syrian state security forces shut down all Hamas offices in the country.[189] In January 2013, another two Hamas members were found dead in Syria’s Husseinieh camp. Activists said the two had been arrested and executed by state security forces.[190] In 2013, it was reported that the military wing of Hamas had begun training units of the Free Syrian Army.[191]
In 2013, after “several intense weeks of indirect three-way diplomacy between representatives of Hamas, Israel, and the Palestinian Authority”, no agreement was reached.[192] Also, intra-Palestinian reconciliation talks stalled and, as a result, during Obama’s visit to Israel, Hamas launched five rocket strikes on Israel.[192] In November, Isra Almodallal was appointed the first spokeswoman of the group.[193]
In the early 2000s, the largest backer of Hamas was Saudi Arabia, with over 50% of its funds coming from that country,[195] mainly through Islamic charity organizations.[196] An earlier estimate by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs estimated a $50 million annual budget, mostly supplied by private charitable associations but with $12 million supplied directly by Gulf states, primarily Saudi Arabia, and a further $3 million from Iran. In 2002, a Saudi Arabian charity, the Saudi Council to Support the Palestinian Intefada run by then Saudi Interior Minister Prince Nayef Bin Abdul Aziz stated the council will give the families of 102 Hamas militants killed, including eight suicide bombers, $5,340 each.[197][198]
Saudi owned al-Taqwa Bank has been identified of holding money for Hamas as early as 1997. Jamie C. Zarate, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury Department, told Congress that 60 million was moved to Hamas accounts with Al Taqwa bank. The Al Taqwa bank has also been used to launder funds for Al Qaeda.[199][200][201] The funding by Saudi Arabia continued despite Saudi pledges to stop funding groups such as Hamas that have used violence,[202] and its recent denouncements of Hamas’ lack of unity with Fatah.[203] According to the U.S. State Department, Hamas is funded by Iran, Palestinian expatriates, and “private benefactors in Saudi Arabia and other Arab states”.[10] Saudi spokesman Adel Al Jubeir said, “no Saudi government money goes to Hamas, directly or indirectly.” He added that it “very likely” that “some Saudi individuals” have provided financial support to Hamas.[204]
In 2004, reports citing unidentified U.S. and Israeli intelligence officials indicated that Saudi funding for Hamas had been curtailed and replaced by other regional sponsors. In June 2004 testimony before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, former Treasury Department General Counsel David Aufhauser quoted “informed intelligence sources” as saying,
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_along_Israeli_Defense_Force_soldiers_fast_rope_from_a_CH-46E_Sea_Knight_helicopter.jpg)
The Pronk Pops Show 306, July 31, 2014, Story 1: Illegal Immigration and Obamacare Impacts Employment And Will Be An Election Issue Come November 4, 2014! — Videos
Posted on July 31, 2014. Filed under: American History, Banking System, Blogroll, Constitutional Law, Disasters, Drugs, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Health Care, Health Care Insurance, History, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Impeachment, Insurance, Labor Economics, Law, Legal Immigration, Media, Monetary Policy, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Public Sector Unions, Security, Taxes, Technology, Terror, Terrorism, Unemployment, Unions, United States Constitution, Videos, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: 31 July 2014, America, Articles, Audio, Breaking News, Broadcasting, Capitalism, Charity, Citizenship, Clarity, Classical Liberalism, Collectivism, Commentary, Commitment, Communicate, Communication, Concise, Congress, Convincing, Courage, Culture, Current Affairs, Current Events, District Meeting, Economic Growth, Economic Policy, Economics, Education, Election Day, Election Issues, Employment, Evil, Experience, Faith, Family, First, Fiscal Policy, Free Enterprise, Freedom, Freedom of Speech, Friends, Give It A Listen!, God, Good, Goodwill, Growth, Health Care Insurance, Hope, Illegal Immigration, Individualism, Jobs, Knowledge, Liberty, Life, Love, Lovers of Liberty, Monetary Policy, MPEG3, News, Obamacare, Opinions, Peace, Photos, Podcasts, Political Philosophy, Politicians, Politics, Polls, Prosperity, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Recess, Representative Republic, Republic, Resources, Respect, Rule of Law, Rule of Men, Senate, Senator Jeff Sessions, Show Notes, Talk Radio, The American People, The Pronk Pops Show, The Pronk Pops Show 306, Town Hall Meeting, Truth, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution, Unemployment Rate, United States of America, Videos, Virtue, War, Wisdom |
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts
Pronk Pops Show 306: July 31, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 305: July 30, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 304: July 29, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 303: July 28, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 302: July 24, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 301: July 23, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 300: July 22, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 299: July 21, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 298: July 18, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 297: July 17, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 296: July 16, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 295: July 15, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 294: July 14, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 293: July 11, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 292: July 9, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 291: July 7, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 290: July 3, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 289: July 2, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 288: June 30, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 287: June 27, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 286: June 26, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 285 June 25, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 284: June 23, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 283: June 20, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 282: June 19, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 281: June 17, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 280: June 16, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 279: June 13, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 278: June 12, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 277: June 11, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 276: June 10, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 275: June 9, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 274: June 6, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 273: June 5, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 272: June 4, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 271: June 2, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 270: May 30, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 269: May 29, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 268: May 28, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 267: May 27, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 266: May 23, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 265: May 22, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 264: May 21, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 263: May 20, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 262: May 16, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 261: May 15, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 260: May 14, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 259: May 13, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 258: May 9, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 257: May 8, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 256: May 5, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 255: May 2, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 254: May 1, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 253: April 30, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 252: April 29, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 251: April 28, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 250: April 25, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 249: April 24, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 248: April 22, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 247: April 21, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 246: April 17, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 245: April 16, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 244: April 15, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 243: April 14, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 242: April 11, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 241: April 10, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 240: April 9, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 239: April 8, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 238: April 7, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 237: April 4, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 236: April 3, 2014
Story 1: Illegal Immigration and Obamacare Impacts Employment And Will Be An Election Issue Come November 4, 2014! — Videos
Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) 7.28.2014 Obama’s Executive Amnesty
Senator Blunt Discusses Impact Of ObamaCare On Job Creators & Their Employees
Sen. Ted Cruz: The Crisis on the Border is a National Security Threat
Blackburn Discusses Obamacare’s Harmful Impact on Jobs & Economy
Blackburn Discusses Immigration & Border Security with Lou Dobbs
Blackburn Discusses Border Crisis with Lou Dobbs
New Sparking More Concerns About Obamacare’s Impact On Jobs – Cavuto
Massachusetts Residents Lashing Out Over Housing Of Illegal Immigrants In Their State –
Where Will America’s Largest Shelter For Illegals Be Built? – On The Record
Illegal Immigration – Documentarian Exposes Realty Of Border Crisis – America’s News HQ
Fox News poll: Border crisis divides voters
Illegal immigrant poll
Poll: 40% Say Illegal Immigration Major Cause Of Unemployment
Published on Feb 8, 2013
Poll: 40% Say Illegal Immigration Major Cause Of Unemployment
Poll Shows Americans Against Illegal Immigration
EXCLUSIVE – POLLING DATA SHOWS GOP VOTERS THINK REPUBLICANS STANDING TOUGH ON IMMIGRATION MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE
Polling data compiled by Tea Party Patriots and provided exclusively to Breitbart News shows that a majority of Republican voters think Republicans standing strong on immigration is more important than repealing Obamacare, getting to the bottom of the Benghazi or IRS scandals—or anything else for that matter.
When asked by TPP’s pollster which issue they think is the important for Republicans in Congress to deal with, 34.6 percent of GOP voters said stopping the flow of illegal immigrants across our southern border. Stopping Obama’s “illegal overreach” with executive power came in a distant second with 24 percent of GOP voters saying that’s the most important, while 23 percent saying repealing Obamacare is the most important and just 7.2 percent say the IRS scandal is the most important issue and 2.8 percent say the Benghazi scandal is most important. A total of 8.4 percent of GOP voters said they don’t know or refused to answer.
The poll was conduced with 1,000 likely GOP voters on Thursday, July 24 via a combination of cell phones and landlines nationwide, with a margin of error of 3.2 percent.
When the GOP voters were asked why the illegal aliens are coming into America, 78.8 percent said they are coming because “they have been led to believe that they will be allowed to remain here legally” while just 13.6 percent said they are coming because they want to “flee violence in their home countries” and 7.6 percent said they don’t know.
Also interesting in the poll, 48.6 percent of GOP voters think Republican leaders in Congress should listen to their constituents primarily, 17.9 percent think they should to listen to their conscience, 12.7 percent think they should listen to low dollar donors, 7.1 percent to the Republican platform and 2.8 percent to their families. Just 2.5 percent of GOP voters think Republican leaders should entertain ideas from high-dollar donors.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/07/31/Exclusive-Polling-Data-Shows-GOP-Voters-Think-Republicans-Standing-Tough-On-Immigration-Most-Important-Issue
1000 Children Fleeing Violent Honduras Heading to Violent Chicago
By Susan Jones
A thousand children said to be fleeing the violence in Central America will be welcomed to Chicago, where local children are routinely in the cross-fire of gang-related grudges.
Mayor Rahm Emanuel, at the request of the Obama administration in which he formerly served, says he is working with local organizations to make room for up to one thousand additional unaccompanied children “traveling” from Central America to the U.S.-Mexico border in the coming year.
“The influx of unaccompanied child migrants is a growing humanitarian crisis that we can no longer ignore,” said Mayor Rahm Emanuel. “While we have our own challenges at home, we cannot turn our backs on children who are fleeing dangerous conditions. We will do our part to ensure that these children are given access to services and treated fairly and humanely.”
The city is also asking Chicago law firms to provide free legal assistance to the foreign children.
Emanuel on Wednesday said that his own grandfather left eastern Europe at age 13, all alone, to get away from the violence directed at Jews.
Likewise, “These kids are leaving violence,” the Chicago Sun-Times quoted Emanuel as saying. “There are 1,000 kids. We are not only a city of big shoulders. We’re a city of big hearts, and we welcome them and get ‘em on their way. And we will also make sure that the city of Chicago has universal pre-K, universal kindergarten, expanding after-school programs, expanding summer jobs, because the test and measure of this city is how we treat our children.”
Based on reporting by Chicago Tribune staff, there were 440 homicides in Chicago in 2013, down from the 500 counted by the FBI in 2012. So far this year, 223 people have been killed by the Tribune’s count, including an 11-year-old girl shot by a stray bullet at a sleepover with friends.
U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), an amnesty advocate who is pressing President Obama to stop deportations for most illegal aliens in the U.S., says he’s proud that Chicago is leading by example in “welcoming migrant children and working with them as their cases are resolved.”
The mayor’s office said that earlier this month, the federal government approached the Emanuel about the possibility of housing Central American children in a federally-funded facility containing one thousand beds. The federal General Services Administration would oversee and pay for the renovation of the facilities while the Department of Health and Human Services would fund support services for the children, including education, health care, food, security, and legal assistance.
A number of organizations, including the Heartland Alliance and the National Immigrant Justice Center, currently provide housing and legal services to hundreds of children housed at multiple sites in the Chicago area.
At the same time, the mayor is reaching out to organizations and institutions, such as the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago, that are willing to offer services to the unaccompanied minors.
“Cardinal George has called on the federal government to allow the Archdiocese of Chicago, including Catholic Charities and Maryville, to assist in this humanitarian crisis,” said Monsignor Michael Boland, President and CEO of Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Chicago.
“We, along with the Archdiocese and Maryville, are ready to work with the City in providing counseling, food and clothing, case management, legal assistance and housing to these children with the dignity, care and compassion that every person deserves.”
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/1000-children-fleeing-violent-honduras-heading-violent-chicago
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShow 202-210
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )