The Pronk Pops Show 825, January 26, 2017, Story 1: Trump’s Impossible Dream — What Good is Dreaming It If You Don’t Actually Do It! — Approval Numbers Rising To 59% — President Trump Addresses Republicans in Philadelphia — We Must Deliver — Videos — Story 2: United Kingdom Prime Minister Theresa May Addresses Republicans — Videos — Story 3: President Trump Signs Two Executive Orders On Immigration — What is Next? — Cutting The $650 Billion in Federal Funding To All Sanctuary Jurisdictions (Cities, Counties and States) — Financial Leverage Long Overdue! –Videos

Posted on January 26, 2017. Filed under: American History, Banking System, Blogroll, Budgetary Policy, Communications, Congress, Consitutional Law, Countries, Culture, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Employment, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Free Trade, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, History, House of Representatives, Human, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Language, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Media, News, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Presidential Appointments, Prime Minister, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Senate, Tax Policy, Trade Policy, Unemployment, United States of America, Videos, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 825: January 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 824: January 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 823: January 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 822: January 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 821: January 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 820: January 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 819: January 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 818: January 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 817: January 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 816: January 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 815: January 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 814: January 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 813: January 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 812: December 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 811: December 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 810: December 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 809: December 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 808: December 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 807: December 5, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 806: December 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 805: December 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 804: November 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 803: November 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 802: November 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 801: November 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 800: November 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 799: November 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 798: November 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 797: November 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 796: November 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 795: November 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 794: November 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 793: November 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 792: November 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 791: November 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 790: November 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 789: November 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 788: November 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 787: October 31, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 786: October 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 785: October 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 784: October 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 783: October 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 782: October 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 781: October 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 780: October 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 779: October 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 778: October 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 777: October 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 776: October 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 775: October 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 774: October 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 773: October 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 772: October 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 771: October 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 770: October 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 769: October 5, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 768: October 3, 2016

 Story 1: Trump’s Impossible Dream — What Good is Dreaming It If You Don’t Actually Do It! — Approval Numbers Rising To 59% — President Trump Addresses Republicans in Philadelphia — We Must Deliver! — Videos —

Image result for president trump a in philadelphiaImage result for president trump addresses republicans in philadelphia t

 “For too long, a small group in our nation’s capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost.”

~President Donald J. Trump Inauguration Speech

72 percent agreed

17 percent disagreed

11 percent were not sure

Rasmussen Reports

 

Jim Nabors – Impossible Dream

WATCH: President Trump Departs On Air Force One For The First Time

LIVE: Trump Addresses Congressional Republicans in Philadelphia

What do people think of President Trump so far?

Limbaugh Explains Trump’s Historically Low Approval Rating: ‘FAKE NEWS, FAKE POLLS’

Honda – The Impossible Dream (TV Commercial)

President Trump’s job approval rating hits 59 percent

Voters also agree with key statements in his inaugural address

President Donald Trump talks with reporters in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 24, 2017, before signing an executive order on the Keystone XL pipeline. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
– The Washington Times – Wednesday, January 25, 2017

Things appear very promising for the new White House: A new Rasmussen Reports survey released Thursday says President Trump has a 59 percent job approval rating among likely voters.

In separate findings, the pollster also isolated key passages in Mr. Trump’s inaugural speech and asked respondents if they agreed with the ideas he presented.

Voters like Mr. Trump’s populist standing: 72 percent agreed with his statement that “For too long, a small group in our nation’s capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost.” 17 percent disagreed, 11 percent were not sure.

A majority of the respondents — 52 percent — also agreed with this statement: “From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land. From this day forward, it’s going to be only America first.” Thirty-seven percent disagreed, 11 percent were undecided.

In addition, Rasmussen also reveals that 54 percent of voters favor a proposal that would cut spending up to 10 percent and cut staffing up to 20 percent. in some federal government agencies. Twenty-seven percent oppose such cuts, while 19 percent are undecided.

The results are based on tracking polls of 1,500 likely U.S. voters conducted Sunday through Wednesday.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/25/president-trumps-approval-rating-rises-57-percent/

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

Thursday, January 26, 2017

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 59% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Forty-one percent (41%) disapprove.

The latest figures include 44% who Strongly Approve of the way Trump is performing and 31% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of +13 (see trends).

Regular updates are posted Monday through Friday at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update).

In the latest of this week’s executive orders, Trump has begun a crackdown on illegal immigration, adding thousands of Border Patrol agents, starting the wall on the U.S.-Mexico border and cutting federal funds to so-called sanctuary cities that refuse to enforce immigration law. He also has imposed a temporary ban on refugees from and visas for citizens of several Middle Eastern countries until the U.S. government can do a better job screening out possible terrorists.

Stopping illegal immigration has long been voters’ number one immigration priority.

Most also support Trump’s plan for temporarily restricting immigration from countries with a history of terrorism and for testing to screen out newcomers who don’t share America’s values.

The new president has pulled the United States out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership mega-trade deal and promises to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico. We’ll tell what voters think at 10:30 a.m. EST.

Trump this week also told business leaders that he hopes to cut regulations on corporations by 75% or more because current regulations “make it impossible to get anything built.” Few voters defend the current level of government regulation.

 

Most voters support the president’s plan for major spending and staffing cuts in the federal government, but many still worry he won’t shrink the government enough.

Many of Trump’s Cabinet nominees still have not been confirmed by the U.S. Senate, due largely to delaying efforts by Democrats. Voters are closely divided over the impact of these delays.

A sizable number of voters believe last Saturday’s Women’s March on Washington made its point and will champion women’s rights worldwide.

 

Some readers wonder how we come up with our job approval ratings for the president since they often don’t show as dramatic a change as some other pollsters do. It depends on how you ask the question and whom you ask.

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 +/- 2.5 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.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_jan26

 

 Story 2: United Kingdom Prime  Minister Theresa May Addresses Republicans — Videos —

 

Image result for prime minister may addresses republican in philadelphia January 26, 2017 Image result for prime minister may addresses republican in philadelphia January 26, 2017

Nigel Farage praises Prime Minister May’s speech

Watch British Prime Minister Theresa May address GOP retreat

Theresa May UK Prime Minister Speech at Congressional Institute Philadelphia

Theresa May’s speech to Republicans in Philadelphia: full text

I defy any person to travel to this great country at any time and not to be inspired by its promise and its example.  For more than two centuries, the very idea of America – drawn from history and given written form in a small hall not far from here – has lit up the world.

That idea – that all are created equal and that all are born free – has never been surpassed in the long history of political thought.  And it is here – on the streets and in the halls of this great city of Philadelphia – that the founding fathers first set it down, that the textbook of freedom was written, and that this great nation that grew “from sea to shining sea” was born.

Since that day, it has been America’s destiny to bear the leadership of the free world and to carry that heavy responsibility on its shoulders. But my country, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, has been proud to share that burden and to walk alongside you at every stage.

For the past century, Britain and America – and the unique and special relationship that exists between us – have taken the idea conceived by those “fifty-six rank-and-file, ordinary citizens”, as President Reagan called them, forward. And because we have done so, time and again it is the relationship between us that has defined the modern world.

One hundred years ago this April, it was your intervention in the First World War that helped Britain, France, our friends in the Commonwealth and other allies to maintain freedom in Europe.  A little more than seventy-five years ago, you responded to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour by joining Britain in the Second World War and defeating fascism not just in the Pacific but in Africa and Europe too.

And later, in the aftermath of these wars, our two countries led the West through the Cold War, confronting communism and ultimately defeating it not just through military might, but by winning the war of ideas. And by proving that open, liberal, democratic societies will always defeat those that are closed, coercive and cruel.

But the leadership provided by our two countries through the Special Relationship has done more than win wars and overcome adversity. It made the modern world.

The institutions upon which that world relies were so often conceived or inspired by our two nations working together.
The United Nations – in need of reform, but vital still – has its foundations in the Special Relationship, from the original Declaration of St James’ Palace to the Declaration by United Nations, signed in Washington, and drafted themselves by Winston Churchill and President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

The World Bank and International Monetary Fund, born in the post-war world at Bretton Woods, were conceived by our two nations working together.

And NATO – the cornerstone of the West’s defence – was established on the bonds of trust and mutual interests that exist between us.  Some of these organisations are in need of reform and renewal to make them relevant to our needs today. But we should be proud of the role our two nations – working in partnership – played in bringing them into being, and in bringing peace and prosperity to billions of people as a result.

Because it is through our actions over many years, working together to defeat evil or to open up the world, that we have been able to fulfil the promise of those who first spoke of the special nature of the relationship between us. The promise of freedom, liberty and the rights of man.

“We must never cease”, Churchill said, “to proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man which are the joint inheritance of the English-speaking world and which through Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Habeas Corpus, trial by jury, and the English common law, find their most famous expression in the American Declaration of Independence”.

So it is my honour and my privilege to stand before you today in this great city of Philadelphia to proclaim them again, to join hands as we pick up that mantle of leadership once more, to renew our Special Relationship and to recommit ourselves to the responsibility of leadership in the modern world.

And it is my honour and privilege to do so at this time, as dawn breaks on a new era of American renewal.  For I speak to you not just as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, but as a fellow Conservative who believes in the same principles that underpin the agenda of your Party. The value of liberty. The dignity of work. The principles of nationhood, family, economic prudence, patriotism – and putting power in the hands of the people.

Principles instilled in me from a young age. Principles that my parents taught me in the vicarage in Southern England in which I was raised.  I know that it is these principles that you have put at the heart of your plan for government.

And your victory in these elections gives you the opportunity to put them at the heart of this new era of American renewal too.

President Trump’s victory – achieved in defiance of all the pundits and the polls – and rooted not in the corridors of Washington, but in the hopes and aspirations of working men and women across this land. Your Party’s victory in both the Congress and the Senate where you swept all before you, secured with great effort, and achieved with an important message of national renewal.

And because of this – because of what you have done together, because of that great victory you have won – America can be stronger, greater, and more confident in the years ahead.

And a newly emboldened, confident America is good for the world.  An America that is strong and prosperous at home is a nation that can lead abroad. But you cannot – and should not – do so alone. You have said that it is time for others to step up. And I agree.

Sovereign countries cannot outsource their security and prosperity to America. And they should not undermine the alliances that keep us strong by failing to step up and play their part.

This is something Britain has always understood. It is why Britain is the only country in the G20 – other than yours – to meet its commitment to spend 2% of GDP on defence, and to invest 20% of that in upgrading equipment. It is why Britain is the only country in the G20 to spend 0.7% of gross national income on overseas development. It is why my first act as Prime Minister last year was to lead the debate in Parliament that ensured the renewal of Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent. And it is why the Government I lead will increase spending on defence in every year of this Parliament.

It is why Britain is a leading member – alongside the United States – of the coalition working successfully to defeat Daesh; why we have agreed to send 800 troops to Estonia and Poland as part of NATO’s forward presence in eastern Europe; why we are increasing our troop contribution to NATO’s Resolute Support mission that defends the Afghan government from terrorism; and it is why we are reinforcing our commitment to peacekeeping operations in Kosovo, South Sudan and Somalia.

And it is why Britain is leading the way in pioneering international efforts to crack down on modern slavery – one of the great scourges of our world – wherever it is found. I hope you will join us in that cause – and I commend Senator Corker in particular for his work in this field. It is good to see him here today.

As Americans know, the United Kingdom is by instinct and history a great, global nation that recognises its responsibilities to the world.

And as we end our membership of the European Union – as the British people voted with determination and quiet resolve to do last year – we have the opportunity to reassert our belief in a confident, sovereign and Global Britain, ready to build relationships with old friends and new allies alike.

We will build a new partnership with our friends in Europe. We are not turning our back on them, or on the interests and the values that we share. It remains overwhelmingly in our interests – and in those of the wider world – that the EU should succeed. And for as long as we remain members we will continue to play our full part, just as we will continue to cooperate on security, foreign policy and trade once we have left.

But we have chosen a different future for our country.  A future that sees us restore our parliamentary sovereignty and national self-determination, and to become even more global and internationalist in action and in spirit.

A future that sees us take back control of the things that matter to us – things like our national borders and immigration policy, and the way we decide and interpret our own laws – so that we are able to shape a better, more prosperous future for the working men and women of Britain.  A future that sees us step up with confidence to a new, even more internationalist role, where we meet our responsibilities to our friends and allies, champion the international cooperation and partnerships that project our values around the world, and continue to act as one of the strongest and most forceful advocates for business, free markets and free trade anywhere around the globe.

This is a vision of a future that my country can unite around – and that I hope your country, as our closest friend and ally, can welcome and support.

So as we rediscover our confidence together – as you renew your nation just as we renew ours – we have the opportunity – indeed the responsibility – to renew the Special Relationship for this new age. We have the opportunity to lead, together, again.

Because the world is passing through a period of change – and in response to that change we can either be passive bystanders, or we can take the opportunity once more to lead. And to lead together.  I believe it is in our national interest to do so. Because the world is increasingly marked by instability and threats that threaten to undermine our way of life and the very things that we hold dear.

The end of the Cold War did not give rise to a New World Order. It did not herald the End of History. It did not lead to a new age of peace, prosperity and predictability in world affairs.

For some – the citizens of Central and Eastern Europe in particular – it brought new freedom.  But across the world, ancient ethnic, religious and national rivalries – rivalries that had been frozen through the decades of the Cold War – returned. New enemies of the West and our values – in particular in the form of Radical Islamists – have emerged.  And countries with little tradition of democracy, liberty and human rights – notably China and Russia – have grown more assertive in world affairs.

The rise of the Asian economies – China yes, but democratic allies like India too – is hugely welcome. Billions are being lifted out of poverty and new markets for our industries are opening up.  But these events – coming as they have at the same time as the financial crisis and its fall out, as well as a loss of confidence in the West following 9/11, the military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and sporadic terrorist attacks – have led many to fear that, in this century, we will experience the eclipse of the West.

But there is nothing inevitable about that. Other countries may grow stronger. Big, populous countries may grow richer. And as they do so, they may start to embrace more fully our values of democracy and liberty.

But even if they do not, our interests will remain. Our values will endure. And the need to defend them and project them will be as important as ever.  So we – our two countries together – have a joint responsibility to lead. Because when others step up as we step back, it is bad for America, for Britain and the world.

It is in our interests – those of Britain and America together – to stand strong together to defend our values, our interests and the very ideas in which we believe.  This cannot mean a return to the failed policies of the past. The days of Britain and America intervening in sovereign countries in an attempt to remake the world in our own image are over. But nor can we afford to stand idly by when the threat is real and when it is in our own interests to intervene. We must be strong, smart and hard-headed. And we must demonstrate the resolve necessary to stand up for our interests.

And whether it is the security of Israel in the Middle East or Estonia in the Baltic states, we must always stand up for our friends and allies in democratic countries that find themselves in tough neighbourhoods too.

We each have different political traditions. We will sometimes pursue different domestic policies. And there may be occasions on which we disagree. But the common values and interests that bring us together are hugely powerful.

And – as your foremost friend and ally – we support many of the priorities your government has laid out for America’s engagement with the world.  It is why I join you in your determination to take on and defeat Daesh and the ideology of Islamic extremism that inspires them and many others terrorist groups in the world today. It is in both of our national interests to do so. This will require us to use the intelligence provided by the finest security agencies in the world. And it will require the use of military might.

But it also demands a wider effort. Because one of the lessons of fighting terrorism in the last 15 years or so is yes, killing terrorists can save innocent lives. But until we kill the idea that drives them, the ideology, we will always have to live with this threat.

And as they are defeated on the ground, the terrorists are exploiting the internet and social media to spread this ideology that is preying on vulnerable citizens in our own countries, inspiring them to commit acts of terror in our own cities.

That is why the UK has led the world in developing a strategy for preventing violent extremism, and why the British and American governments are working together to take on and defeat the ideology of Islamist Extremism. I look forward to working with the President and his Administration to step up our efforts still further in order to defeat this evil ideology.

But of course, we should always be careful to distinguish between this extreme and hateful ideology, and the peaceful religion of Islam and the hundreds of millions of its adherents – including millions of our own citizens and those further afield who are so often the first victims of this ideology’s terror. And nor is it enough merely to focus on violent extremism. We need to address the whole spectrum of extremism, starting with the bigotry and hatred that can so often turn to violence.

Yet ultimately to defeat Daesh, we must employ all of the diplomatic means at our disposal. That means working internationally to secure a political solution in Syria and challenging the alliance between the Syrian regime and its backers in Tehran.

When it comes to Russia, as so often it is wise to turn to the example of President Reagan who – during negotiations with his opposite number Mikhail Gorbachev – used to abide by the adage “trust but verify”. With President Putin, my advice is to “engage but beware”.

There is nothing inevitable about conflict between Russia and the West. And nothing unavoidable about retreating to the days of the Cold War. But we should engage with Russia from a position of strength. And we should build the relationships, systems and processes that make cooperation more likely than conflict – and that, particularly after the illegal annexation of Crimea, give assurance to Russia’s neighbouring states that their security is not in question. We should not jeopardise the freedoms that President Reagan and Mrs Thatcher brought to Eastern Europe by accepting President Putin’s claim that it is now in his sphere of influence.

And progress on this issue would also help to secure another of this nation’s priorities – to reduce Iran’s malign influence in the Middle East.
This is a priority for the UK too as we support our allies in the Gulf States to push back against Iran’s aggressive efforts to build an arc of influence from Tehran through to the Mediterranean.

The nuclear deal with Iran was controversial. But it has neutralised the possibility of the Iranians acquiring nuclear weapons for more than a decade. It has seen Iran remove 13,000 centrifuges together with associated infrastructure and eliminate its stock of 20% enriched uranium. That was vitally important for regional security. But the agreement must now be very carefully and rigorously policed – and any breaches should be dealt with firmly and immediately.

To deal with the threats of the modern world, we need to rebuild confidence in the institutions upon which we all rely.  In part that means multinational institutions. Because we know that so many of the threats we face today – global terrorism, climate change, and unprecedented mass movements of people – do not respect national borders. So we must turn towards those multinational institutions like the UN and NATO that encourage international cooperation and partnership.

But those multinational institutions need to work for the countries that formed them, and to serve the needs and interests of the people of those nations. They have no democratic mandate of their own. So I share your reform agenda and believe that, by working together, we can make those institutions more relevant and purposeful than they are today.

I call on others, therefore, to join us in that effort and to ensure they step up and contribute as they should. That is why I have encouraged Antonio Guterres, the new UN Secretary General, to pursue an ambitious reform programme, focusing the United Nations on its core functions of peacekeeping, conflict prevention and resolution. And it is why I have already raised with my fellow European leaders the need to deliver on their commitments to spend 2pc of their GDP on defence – and 20pc of their defence budgets on equipment.

It is also why I have already raised with Jens Stoltenberg – the Secretary General of NATO – the need to make sure the Alliance is as equipped to fight terrorism and cyber warfare, as it is to fight more conventional forms of war.

America’s leadership role in NATO – supported by Britain – must be the central element around which the Alliance is built. But alongside this continued commitment, I am also clear that EU nations must similarly step up to ensure this institution that provides the cornerstone of the West’s defence continues to be as effective as it can be.

Yet the most important institution is – and should always be – the nation state. Strong nations form strong institutions. And they form the basis of the international partnerships and cooperation that bring stability to our world.

Nations, accountable to their populations – “deriving” as the Declaration of Independence puts it “their just powers from the consent of the governed” – can choose to join international organisations, or not. They can choose to cooperate with others, or not. Choose to trade with others, or not.

Which is why if the countries of the European Union wish to integrate further, my view is that they should be free to do so. Because that is what they choose.

But Britain – as a sovereign nation with the same values but a different political and cultural history – has chosen to take a different path.  Because our history and culture is profoundly internationalist.

We are a European country – and proud of our shared European heritage – but we are also a country that has always looked beyond Europe to the wider world. We have ties of family, kinship and history to countries like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and countries across Africa, the Pacific and Caribbean.

And of course, we have ties of kinship, language and culture to these United States too. As Churchill put it, we “speak the same language, kneel at the same altars and, to a very large extent, pursue the same ideals”.

And, today, increasingly we have strong economic, commercial, defence and political relationships as well.

So I am delighted that the new Administration has made a trade agreement between our countries one of its earliest priorities. A new trade deal between Britain and America must work for both sides and serve both of our national interests. It must help to grow our respective economies and to provide the high-skilled, high-paid jobs of the future for working people across America and across the UK.

And it must work for those who have too often felt left behind by the forces of globalisation. People, often those on modest incomes living in relatively rich countries like our own, who feel that the global system of free markets and free trade is simply not working for them in its current form.

Such a deal – allied to the reforms we are making to our own economy to ensure wealth and opportunity is spread across our land – can demonstrate to those who feel locked out and left behind that free markets, free economies and free trade can deliver the brighter future they need. And it can maintain – indeed it can build – support for the rules-based international system on which the stability of our world continues to rely.

The UK is already America’s fifth largest export destination, while your markets account for almost a fifth of global exports from our shores. Exports to the UK from this State of Pennsylvania alone account for more than $2 billion a year. The UK is the largest market in the EU – and the third largest market in the world – for exporters here.

America is the largest single destination for UK outward investment and the single largest investor in the UK. And your companies are investing or expanding in the UK at a rate of more than ten projects a week.

British companies employ people in every US state from Texas to Vermont. And the UK-US Defence relationship is the broadest, deepest and most advanced of any two countries, sharing military hardware and expertise. And of course, we have recently invested in the new F-35 strike aircraft for our new aircraft carriers that will secure our naval presence – and increase our ability to project our power around the world – for years to come.

Because of these strong economic and commercial links – and our shared history and the strength of our relationship – I look forward to pursuing talks with the new Administration about a new UK/US Free Trade Agreement in the coming months. It will take detailed work, but we welcome your openness to those discussions and hope we can make progress so that the new, Global Britain that emerges after Brexit is even better equipped to take its place confidently in the world.

Such an agreement would see us taking that next step in the special relationship that exists between us. Cementing and affirming one of the greatest forces for progress this world has ever known.

Seventy years ago in 1946, Churchill proposed a new phase in this relationship – to win a Cold War that many had not even realised had started. He described how an iron curtain had fallen from the Baltic to the Adriatic, covering all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe: Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Sofia and Bucharest.

Today those great cities – homes of great culture and heritage – live in freedom and peace. And they do so because of the leadership of Britain and America, and of Mrs Thatcher and President Reagan.

They do so – ultimately – because our ideas will always prevail. And they do so because, when the world demands leadership, it is this alliance of values and interests – this Special Relationship between two countries – that, to borrow the words of another great American statesman, enters the arena, with our faces marred by dust and sweat and blood, to strive valiantly and know the triumph of high achievement.

As we renew the promise of our nations to make them stronger at home – in the words of President Reagan as the “sleeping giant stirs” – so let us renew the relationship that can lead the world towards the promise of freedom and prosperity marked out in parchment by those ordinary citizens 240 years ago.

So that we may not be counted with the “cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat”, but with those who “strive to do the deeds” that will lead us to a better world.  That better future is within reach. Together, we can build it.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/theresa-mays-speech-republicans-philadelphia-full-text/

 

Story 3: President Trump Signs Two Executive Orders On Immigration — What is Next? — Cutting The $650 Billion in Federal Funding To All Sanctuary Jurisdictions (Cities, Counties and States) — Long Overdue! –Videos

Image result for sanctuary cities name and shame Image result for sanctuary cities list of

President Trump signs order to build U.S.-Mexico border wall

What is a Sanctuary City? It’s Not What They’ve Been Telling You

President Trump signs order to strip sanctuary cities of federal funding

US ‘sanctuary’ cities face funding cuts if migrant-tolerant policies continue

Published on Jan 26, 2017

Donald Trump’s new Mexican border policy looks something like this; hire 5000 new guards, close the frontier, and suffocate the cities offering sanctuary status to illegal migrants.

Sanctuary facilities began to be made available in several churches in the 1980s for
migrants fleeing central America’s savage conflicts who failed to obtain asylum. The large town of Cambridge in Massachusetts is one of these sanctuary cities. Local officials insist it will remain so. Cambridge to remain sanct…
READ MORE : http://www.euronews.com/2017/01/26/us…

Officials In Sanctuary Cities Blast President’s Trump’s Plan To Cut Federal Funds For Special Project

GOOD NEWS: Trump Can Immediately Crack Down on Sanctuary Cities & Illegal Immigration.

Jim Nabors’ Last “Back Home Again in Indiana” 2014

Texas governor vows sanctuary cities will not be tolerated

ONE LAST TIME-JIM NABORS

Trump eviscerates Obama’s immigration policy in two executive orders

– The Washington Times – Wednesday, January 25, 2017

With a couple of strokes of his pen, President Trump wiped out almost all of President Obama’s immigration policies on Wednesday, laying the groundwork for his signature wall along the Mexican border, unleashing immigration agents to enforce the law and punishing “sanctuary cities” that try to defy federal law and thwart his deportation surge.

Left untouched, for now, is Mr. Obama’s 2012 deportation amnesty that is shielding more than 750,000 Dreamers.

But most of Mr. Obama’s other policies, including his “priorities” list that protected almost all illegal immigrants from deportation, are now gone. In their place is a series of directives that would free border agents to enforce long-forgotten but punitive parts of the law beyond the border; encourage Mexico to take a more active role in discouraging illegal migration; and close the loopholes that illegal immigrants have learned to exploit to gain a foothold in the U.S.

“From here on out, I’m asking all of you to enforce the laws of the United States of America — they will be enforced, and enforced strongly,” Mr. Trump said Wednesday during a visit to the Homeland Security Department’s headquarters. “We do not need new laws. We will work within the existing system and framework.”

He called for adding 5,000 more U.S. Border Patrol agents and 10,000 more U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to the payroll — his promised “deportation force” — and released his own set of priorities that put many more illegal immigrants in danger of being kicked out and give plenty of discretion to agents to decide how to handle the cases.

He also proposed a weekly name-and-shame list of sanctuary cities and the criminals they are releasing, saying communities deserve to see who is being let back onto their streets because their local leaders refuse to cooperate with immigration agents.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/25/trump-eviscerates-obamas-immigration-policy/

Sanctuary city

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not to be confused with Cities of Refuge.

In the United States and Canada, a sanctuary city is a city that has adopted a policy of protecting illegal immigrants by not prosecuting them for violating federal immigration laws in the country in which they are now living illegally. Such a policy can be set out expressly in a law (de jure) or observed only in practice (de facto). The term applies generally to cities that do not use municipal funds or resources to enforce national immigration laws, and usually forbid police or municipal employees to inquire about a person’s immigration status. The designation has no precise legal meaning.[1]

In the United Kingdom and Ireland, a “City of Sanctuary” is a place that is committed to welcoming refugees, asylum seekers and others who are seeking safety. The movement is spread across over 80 towns, cities and local areas in England, Wales, Ireland including Northern Ireland and the Republic, and Scotland. The emphasis is on building bridges of connection and understanding, which is done through awareness raising, befriending schemes and forming cultural connections in the arts, sport, health, education, faith groups and other sectors of society.[2] Glasgow, Sheffield and Swansea are noted Cities of Sanctuary.[3][4]

Terminology

The concept of a sanctuary city goes back thousands of years. It has been associated with Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Baha’i, Sikhism, and Hinduism.[5] In Western Civilization, sanctuary cities can be traced back to the Old Testament. The Book of Numbers names six cities of refuge in which the perpetrators of manslaughter could claim the right of asylum. Outside of these cities, blood vengeance against such perpetrators was allowed by law.[6] In 392 CE, Christian Roman emperor Theodosius I set up sanctuaries under church control. In 600 CE in medieval England, churches were given a general right of sanctuary, and some cities were set up as sanctuaries by Royal charter. The general right of sanctuary for churches in England was abolished in 1621 CE.[5]

In the United States

Local governments in certain cities in the United States began designating themselves as sanctuary cities during the 1980s.[7][8] Some have questioned the accuracy of the term “sanctuary city” as used in the USA.[9] The policy was first initiated in 1979 in Los Angeles, to prevent police from inquiring about the immigration status of arrestees. The internal policy, “Special Order 40“, states: “Officers shall not initiate police action with the objective of discovering the alien status of a person. Officers shall not arrest nor book persons for violation of title 8, section 1325 of the United States Immigration code (Illegal Entry).”[10] These cities have adopted “sanctuary” ordinances banning city employees and police officers from asking people about their immigration status.[11][12]

Electoral politics

This issue entered presidential politics in the race for the Republican Party presidential nomination in 2008. Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo ran on an anti-illegal immigration platform and specifically attacked sanctuary cities. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney accused former mayor Rudy Giuliani of running New York City as a sanctuary city.[13] Giuliani’s campaign responded saying that Romney ran a sanctuary Governor’s mansion, and that New York City is not a “haven” for undocumented immigrants.[13]

After the murder of a restaurant waitress in Albuquerque, New Mexico, in late June 2009 that was suspected to be perpetrated by three undocumented immigrants (one of whom was not deported despite being arrested for two prior DUI incidents), then mayoral candidate Richard J. Berry decried the city’s sanctuary city policy. He also vowed, if elected, to repeal the policy that has been continued by the incumbent mayor, Martin Chávez.[14]

Following the shooting death of Kathryn Steinle in San Francisco (a sanctuary city) by an undocumented immigrant, Hillary Clinton told CNN on 8 July 2015: “The city made a mistake, not to deport someone that the federal government strongly felt should be deported. I have absolutely no support for a city that ignores the strong evidence that should be acted on.”[15] The following day, her campaign stated: “Hillary Clinton believes that sanctuary cities can help further public safety, and she has defended those policies going back years.”[16]

Political action

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 addressed the relationship between the federal government and local governments. Minor crimes, such as shoplifting, became grounds for possible deportation.[17] Additionally, the legislation outlawed cities’ bans against municipal workers’ reporting persons’ immigration status to federal authorities.[18]

Section 287(g) makes it possible for state and local law enforcement personnel to enter into agreements with the federal government to be trained in immigration enforcement and, subsequent to such training, to enforce immigration law. However, it provides no general power for immigration enforcement by state and local authorities.[19] This provision was implemented by local and state authorities in five states, California, Arizona, Alabama, Florida and North Carolina by the end of 2006.[20] On June 16, 2007 the United States House of Representatives passed an amendment to a United States Department of Homeland Security spending bill that would withhold federal emergency services funds from sanctuary cities. Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) was the sponsor of this amendment. 50 Democrats joined Republicans to support the amendment. The amendment would have to pass the United States Senate to become effective.[21]

In 2007, Republican representatives introduced legislation targeting sanctuary cities. Reps. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif., Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Fla., Thelma Drake, R-Va., Jeff Miller, R-Fla., and Tom Tancredo introduced the bill. The legislation would make undocumented immigrant status a felony, instead of a civil offense. Also, the bill targets sanctuary cities by withholding up to 50 percent of Department of Homeland Security funds from the cities.[22]

On September 5, 2007, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told a House committee that he certainly wouldn’t tolerate interference by sanctuary cities that would block his “Basic Pilot Program” that requires employers to validate the legal status of their workers. “We’re exploring our legal options. I intend to take as vigorous legal action as the law allows to prevent that from happening, prevent that kind of interference.”[23][24]On May 5, 2009, Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue signed a bill into law that prohibited sanctuary city policies in the state of Georgia.[25]

On June 5, 2009, the Tennessee state House passed a bill banning the implementation of sanctuary city policies within the state of Tennessee.[26]

In June 2011, Texas Governor Rick Perry proposed legislation to ban sanctuary cities, SB 9, to the Special Session agenda for the State Legislature.[27] Public hearings on the sanctuary cities legislation were held before the Texas Senate Transportation and Homeland Security Committee on June 13, 2011.[28]

On January 25, 2017 President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing the Secretary of Homeland Security and Attorney General to defund sanctuary jurisdictions that refuse to comply with federal immigration law.[29]He also ordered the Department of Homeland Security to begin issuing weekly public reports that include “a comprehensive list of criminal actions committed by aliens and any jurisdiction that ignored or otherwise failed to honor any detainers with respect to such aliens.”[29]

Effects

According to one study by Loren Collingwood, assistant professor of political science at University of California at Riverside, sanctuary policy itself has no statistically meaningful effect on crime.[30]

According to a study by Tom K. Wong, associate professor of political science at the University of California, San Diego, and published by the Center for American Progress, “Crime is statistically significantly lower in sanctuary counties compared to nonsanctuary counties. Moreover, economies are stronger in sanctuary counties—from higher median household income, less poverty, and less reliance on public assistance to higher labor force participation, higher employment-to-population ratios, and lower unemployment.”[31] The study evaluated sanctuary and non-sanctuary cities “while controlling for differences in population, the foreign-born percentage of the population, and the percentage of the population that is Latino”.[31]

Laws by city

Arizona[edit]

  • Following the passage of SB 1070, a state law, few if any cities in Arizona are “sanctuary cities.” A provision of SB 1070 requires local authorities to “contact federal immigration authorities if they develop reasonable suspicion that a person they’ve detained or arrested is in the country illegally.”[32] The Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates restrictive immigration policies, labels only one city in the state, South Tucson, a “sanctuary city”; the label is because South Tucson does not honor ICE detainers “unless ICE pays for cost of detention.”[32]

California

Colorado

Connecticut

  • In 2013, Connecticut passed a law that gives local law enforcement officers discretion to carry out immigration detainer requests, though only for suspected felons.[36]
  • New Haven, Connecticut became one of the first sanctuary cities in the US in 2007
  • Hartford, Connecticut became a sanctuary city in 2008[37]

Illinois

  • Chicago became a “de jure” sanctuary city in 2012 when Mayor Rahm Emanuel and the City Council passed the WELCOMING CITY ORDINANCE. [38][39] The ordinance protects residents’ rights to access city services regardless of immigration status. The ordinance states that Chicago police officers cannot arrest individuals on the basis of immigration status alone.[40] Chicago came under fire during the 2016 elections, prompting Mayor Rahm Emanuel to reaffirm Chicago as a sanctuary city. [41][42]
  • Urbana, Illinois [43]

Louisiana

Maine

  • In 2011, Maine governor Paul LePage rescinded a 2004 executive order that prohibited state officials from inquiring about immigration status of individual seeking public assistance stating “it is the intent of this administration to promote rather than hinder the enforcement of federal immigration law”. In 2015 Governor LePage accused the city of Portland, Maine of being a sanctuary city. Portland city officials, however, did not accept that characterization. Portland cooperates with federal authorities although “city employees are prohibited from asking about the immigration status of people seeking city services unless compelled by a court or law”[46]

Maryland

  • In 2008, Baltimore and Takoma Park are sometimes identified as sanctuary cities.[47] However, “[m]ost local governments in Maryland — including Baltimore — still share information with the federal government.”[48] In 2016, Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake said that she did not consider Baltimore to be a “sanctuary city.”[49]

Massachusetts

  • Boston has an ordinance, enacted in 2014, that bars the Boston Police Department “from detaining anyone based on their immigration status unless they have a criminal warrant.”[50] Cambridge, Chelsea, Somerville, Orleans, Northampton, and Springfield have similar legislation.[50] In August 2016, Boston Police Commissioner, William B. Evans re-issued a memo stating ““all prisoners who are subject to ICE Detainers must receive equal access to bail commissioners, which includes notifying said prisoner of his or her right to seek bail.” Bail commissioners are informed of the person’s status on an ICE detainer list and may set bail accordingly.[51]

Michigan

  • Detroit and Ann Arbor are sometimes referred to as “sanctuary cities” because they “have anti-profiling ordinances that generally prohibit local police from asking about the immigration status of people who are not suspected of any crime.”[52] Unlike San Francisco’s ordinance, however, the Detroit and Ann Arbor policies do not bar local authorities from cooperating and assisting ICE and Customs and Border Protection, and both cities frequently do so.[52]

Minnesota

  • Minneapolis has an ordinance, adopted in 2003,[53] that directs local law enforcement officers “not to ‘take any law enforcement action’ for the sole purpose of finding undocumented immigrants, or ask an individual about his or her immigration status.”[54] The Minneapolis ordinance does not bar cooperation with federal authorities: “The city works cooperatively with the Homeland Security, as it does with all state and federal agencies, but the city does not operate its programs for the purpose of enforcing federal immigration laws. The Homeland Security has the legal authority to enforce immigration laws in the United States, in Minnesota and in the city.”[53]

New York

New Jersey

Oregon

  • State law passed in 1987: “Oregon Revised Statute 181.850, which prohibits law enforcement officers at the state, county or municipal level from enforcing federal immigration laws that target people based on their race or ethnic origin, when those individuals are not suspected of any criminal activities.[59][60]
  • Beaverton city council passed a resolution in January 2017 stating, in part, “The City of Beaverton is committed to living its values as a welcoming city for all individuals …regardless of a person’s … immigration status” and that they would abide by Oregon state law of not enforcing federal immigration laws.[61]
  • Corvallis[62]
  • Portland[63]

Pennsylvania

Philadelphia Pittsburgh

Texas

  • Austin[64]
  • Houston – Harris County Sheriff vows to ignore Federal laws, ending his county’s participation in an ICE program known as 287(g)[65]

Washington

In Canada

In Canada, Toronto and Hamilton, Ontario, have declared themselves sanctuary cities since 2014.[67][68]

In the United Kingdom and Ireland

In the United Kingdom and Ireland, a “City of Sanctuary” or “Places of Sanctuary”, is a city that provides services, such as housing, education, and cultural integration, to asylum seekers (i.e. persons fleeing one country and seeking protection in another).[2] The movement began in Sheffield in the north of England in 2005. It was motivated by a national policy adopted in 1999 to disperse asylum seekers to different towns and cities in the UK. In 2009, the city council of Sheffield drew up a manifesto outlining key areas of concern and 100 supporting organizations signed on.[69]

A “City of Sanctuary” is not necessarily a formal governmental designation. The organization “City of Sanctuary” encourages local grass roots groups throughout the UK and Ireland to build a culture of hospitality towards asylum seekers.[70]

Glasgow is a noted City of Sanctuary in Scotland. In 2000 the city council accepted their first asylum seekers relocated by the Home Office. The Home Office provided funding to support asylum seekers but would also forcibly deport them (“removal siezures”) if it was determined they could not stay in the UK. As of 2010 Glasgow had accepted 22,000 asylum seekers from 75 different nations. In 2007 local residents upset by the human impact of removal seizures, organized watches to warn asylum seekers when Home Office vans were in the neighborhood. They also organized protests and vigils which led to the ending of the removal seizures.[3][4]

See also

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city

Center for Immigration Studies

Sanctuary Cities Continue to Obstruct Enforcement, Threaten Public Safety

By Jessica Vaughan
December 14, 2016

Sanctuary jurisdictions remain a significant public safety problem throughout the country. About 300 jurisdictions have been identified by ICE as having a policy that is non-cooperative and obstructs immigration enforcement (as of September 2015). The number of cities has remained relatively unchanged since our last update in August 2016, as some new sanctuary jurisdictions have been added and few jurisdictions have reversed their sanctuary policies.

Over the 19-month period from January 1, 2014, to September 30, 2015, more than 17,000 detainers were rejected by these jurisdictions. Of these, about 11,800 detainers, or 68 percent, were issued for individuals with a prior criminal history.

According to ICE statistics, since the Obama administration implemented the new Priority Enforcement Program in July 2015 restricting ICE use of detainers, the number of rejected detainers has declined. However, the number of detainers issued by ICE also has declined in 2016, so it is not clear if the new policies are a factor. It is apparent that most of the sanctuary policies remain in place, raising concerns that the Priority Enforcement Program has failed as a response to the sanctuary problem, and has simply resulted in fewer criminal aliens being deported.

The Department of Justice’s Inspector General recently found that some of the sanctuary jurisdictions appear to be violating federal law, and may face debarment from certain federal funding or other consequences.

The sanctuary jurisdictions are listed below. These cities, counties, and states have laws, ordinances, regulations, resolutions, policies, or other practices that obstruct immigration enforcement and shield criminals from ICE — either by refusing to or prohibiting agencies from complying with ICE detainers, imposing unreasonable conditions on detainer acceptance, denying ICE access to interview incarcerated aliens, or otherwise impeding communication or information exchanges between their personnel and federal immigration officers.

A detainer is the primary tool used by ICE to gain custody of criminal aliens for deportation. It is a notice to another law enforcement agency that ICE intends to assume custody of an alien and includes information on the alien’s previous criminal history, immigration violations, and potential threat to public safety or security.

The Center’s last map update reflected listings in an ICE report that was originally published by the Texas Tribune, with a few additions and changes resulting from the Center’s research.

States
California, Connecticut, New Mexico, Colorado

Cities and Counties

Arizona
South Tucson

California (in addition to all counties)
Alameda County
Berkley
Contra Costa County
Los Angeles County
Los Angeles
Monterey County
Napa County
Orange County
Riverside County
Sacramento County
San Bernardino County
San Diego County
San Francisco County
San Mateo County
Santa Ana (New)
Santa Clara County
Santa Cruz County
Sonoma County

Colorado (in addition to all counties)
Arapahoe County
Aurora Detention Center
Boulder County
Denver
Denver County
Fort Collins
Garfield County
Glenwood Springs
Grand County
Jefferson County
Larimer County
Mesa County
Pitkin County
Pueblo County
Routt County
San Miguel County

Connecticut (in addition to state LEAs)
Bridgeport
East Haven
Fairfield County
Hamden
Hartford County
Hartford
Manchester
Meriden
New Haven
New Haven County
New London County
Stamford
Stratford
Tolland County

Florida
Broward County
Hernando County
Hillsborough County
Miami-Dade County
Palm Beach County
Pasco County
Pinellas County

Georgia
Clayton County

Illinois
Champaign County
Chicago
Cook County
Des Plaines
Hanover Park
Hoffman Estates
Palatine

Iowa
Allamakee County
Benton County
Cass County
Clinton County
Delaware County
Dubuque County
Franklin County
Freemont County
Greene County
Ida County
Iowa County
Jefferson County
Johnson County
Linn County
Marion County
Monona County
Montgomery County
Polk County
Pottawattamie County
Sioux County
Story County
Wapello County
Winneshiek County

Kansas
Butler County
Finney County
Harvey County
Johnson County
Sedgwick County
Shawnee County

Kentucky
Campbell County
Franklin County
Scott County
Woodford County

Louisiana
New Orleans
Orleans Parish

Maine
Portland

Maryland
Baltimore City
Montgomery County
Prince George’s County

Massachusetts
Amherst
Boston
Cambridge
Hampden County
Holyoke
Lawrence
Northhampton
Somerville
Springfield

Minnesota
Bloomington
Brooklyn Park
Hennepin County
Ramsey County

Nebraska
Douglas County
Hall County
Lancaster County
Sarpy County

Nevada
Clark County
Washoe County

New Jersey
Linden
Middlesex County
Newark
Ocean County
Plainfield
Union County

New Mexico (in addition to all counties)
Bernalillo County
Dona Ana County
Luna County
Otero County
Rio Arriba County
San Miguel County
Santa Fe County
Taos County

New York
Franklin County
Nassau County
New York City
Onondaga County
Rensselaer County
Saratoga County
St. Lawrence County
Wayne County

North Dakota
North Dakota State Penitentiary
South West Multiple County Corrections Center

Oregon
Baker County
Clackamas County
Clatsop, Oregon
Coos County
Crook County
Curry County
Deschutes County
Douglas County
Gilliam County
Grant County
Hood River County
Jackson County
Jefferson County
Josephine County
Lincoln County
Linn County
Malheur County
Marion County
Multnomah County
Oregon State Correctional Institution
Polk County
Sherman County
Springfield Police Department
Tillamook County
Umatilla County
Union County
Wallowa County
Wasco County
Washington County
Wheeler County
Yamhill County

Pennsylvania
Abington
Bedford County (New)
Bradford County (New)
Bucks County (New)
Butler County (New)
Chester County
Clarion County (New)
Delaware County
Erie County (New)
Lebanon County (New)
Lehigh County
Lycoming County (New)
Montgomery County
Montour County (New)
Perry County (New)
Philadelphia
Philadelphia County
Pike County (New)
Westmoreland County (New)

Rhode Island
Rhode Island Department of Corrections

Texas
Dallas County
Travis County

Vermont
Winooski (New)
Montpelier (New)

Virginia
Arlington
Chesterfield County

Washington
Benton County
Chelan County
Clallam County
Clark County
Cowlitz County
Fife City
Franklin County
Jefferson County
Issaquah
Kent
King County
Kitsap County
Lynnwood City
Marysville
Pierce County
Puyallup
Skagit County
Snohomish County
South Correctional Entity (SCORE) Jail, King County
Spokane County
Sunnyside
Thurston County
Walla Walla County
Washington State Corrections
Whatcom County
Yakima County

Washington, DC

Wisconsin
Milwaukee County

 

http://cis.org/Sanctuary-Cities-Map

Trump creates name-and-shame list to embarrass sanctuary cities

 

Trump creates name-and-shame list to embarrass sanctuary cities

– The Washington Times – Thursday, January 26, 2017

President Trump on Wednesday ordered the Homeland Security Department to begin releasing a name-and-shame list of sanctuary cities, listing the specific crimes such as murder or robbery committed by those who have been released back into their communities under the sanctuary policies.

That was one of a number of less-noticed but potentially far-reaching moves tucked inside two new executive orders erasing decades of previous immigration enforcement policy and replacing it with the Trump plan, which calls for aggressive enforcement of existing laws.

Border Patrol and interior enforcement agents have been unshackled from the limits imposed by former President Barack Obama, as Mr. Trump said he wants to see them doing the jobs they were hired for.

He said he wants to enlist those local police and sheriff’s offices that are eager to enforce immigration law, and will punish those that throw up roadblocks — including the new name-and-shame list.

Some 279 cities and counties refused to cooperate on at least some deportations in 2016, accounting for 2,008 immigrants who were shielded, according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Each of those immigrants’ convictions will now be publicly listed so residents can see the level of crimes committed by those released into their communities, under the Trump orders.

Analysts said that list could help rally internal opposition to sanctuary cities, which are already rallying to defy Mr. Trump.

“We will fight against attempts to undermine our values and the security of our cities,” said the group Cities for Action, a coalition of big municipalities that support sanctuary policies. “As mayors and county executives nationwide have made clear today, we will continue to provide for all in our communities — regardless of where they come from — and work to continue building trust between city residents and law enforcement.”

In addition to the shame list, Mr. Trump ordered Homeland Security to produce a list four times a year of all illegal immigrants serving time in federal or state prisons, or being held for trial.

And in another striking move, Mr. Trump ordered Homeland Security officials to begin releasing more information on illegal immigrants. He said the Privacy Act, which has regularly shielded information about illegal immigrants from public disclosure, will no longer apply to anyone who isn’t a citizen or green card holder.

That could give the public a new depth of transparency, enabling them to see the types of illegal immigrants the government is encountering.

One part of the new orders would allow Homeland Security to ship illegal immigrants caught crossing the border from Mexico back into Mexico, even as they await the outcome of their deportation cases in the U.S.

That’s allowed under existing law, but legal analysts said they’d never heard of it being used, and debated how far it might be used. But immigrant-rights advocates said it could hurt migrants who need protections.

“Given that many of the people crossing the border today are children and families fleeing violence in the Northern Triangle countries of Central America, invoking this provision threatens to undermine our commitment to refugee protections,” said Tom Jawetz, vice president for immigration policy at the Center for American Progress.

The Mexican Embassy in Washington did not respond to a request for comment on the provision Wednesday night.

Experts said it’s an open question whether Mexico could stymie that part of Mr. Trump’s orders by refusing to take back those who crossed over its northern border into the U.S.

Another lesser-noticed provision of the new orders would push Homeland Security to collect fines from both illegal immigrants and “those who facilitate their presence” in the U.S.

That could potentially include sanctuary colleges and universities that protect illegal immigrants, and businesses that hire unauthorized workers.

Current law calls for fines of more than $20,000 per illegal immigrant for companies that are repeat offenders.

Conspiracy to harbor an illegal immigrant carries potential jail time or a fine of up to $10,000.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/donald-trump-creates-name-and-shame-list-embarrass/

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-825

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 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 Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 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 1-9

Advertisements

Make a Comment

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

%d bloggers like this: