homicide (2)

ADMIN

article-2251753-1688E6E3000005DC-686_634x583.jpg

Could Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton and John Kerry have prevented the release of some 36,000 criminal immigrants last year?

The limited immigration group Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) say there is a good chance the answer is yes

Monday, an internal Immigration and Customs Enforcement document obtained by CIS and viewed by Breitbart News revealed that the 36,007 criminal immigrants convicted of nearly 88,000 crimes were released while awaiting the outcome of deportation proceedings last year.

In explaining the releases, ICE pointed in part to court cases, specifically Zadvydas v. Davis, a 2001 Supreme Court case in which the court held the government could not indefinitely hold an immigrant if there is not a likelihood of removal in the “foreseeable future.” This may occur when a country refuses or unreasonably delays accepting people the United States is looking to deport. 

POLL: What is the worst Hillary Clinton scandal?

According to ICE, many of the releases — specifically 72 percent of criminal immigrants convicted of homicide — were mandatory, required by court decisions like Zadvydas

A little-enforced statute (8 U.S.C. § 1253(d)) CIS highlights, however, requires the Secretary of State to instruct consular offices to stop issuing visas to countries that engage in such obstruction.

read more:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/05/17/Do-Hillary-Clinton-and-John-Kerry-bear-some-blame-for-last-year-s-criminal-immigrant-releases

Read more…

4063645658?profile=original              Women who had abortions now protesting

                         to protect life of unborn

As the year 2012 closes, there are millions of parents across the nation who should be realizing a tax break for their unborn child.  If their state follows Michigan’s lead which is considering granting parents that chose preserving a child’s life in the womb deserves a financial break.  For several weeks Michigan GOP legislators have been seriously contemplating granting a tax credit for parents of fetuses that are twelve weeks or older, according to the publication, the New Civil Rights Movement.

Liberals in the state legislature immediately jumped on the notion of granting an economic benefit for those cash-strapped parents who may be hit with higher taxes next year. They, like many parents across the nation are worried about the congress and the president being hopelessly deadlocked in ‘fiscal cliff 'negotiations that will possibly add an additional $2,300 - $3,500 tax bill to their household. Why are Democrats worried about granting a tax break for middle-class families? Does it make sense to you?

Parents that have chosen protecting a child’s life over aborting the child should be a cause for celebration and why not reward the expectant parents with a tax break and legislators with re-election!  State legislatures across the nation are moving to strengthen the opportunity for an unborn child to hold onto their right to life, as abortion numbers continue to fall in America.

In 2009, which is the last year for reported abortion numbers, “A total of 784,507 abortions were reported to CDC for 2009. Of these abortions, 772,630 (98.5%) were from the 45 reporting areas that provided data every year during 2000–2009, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The value of life in the womb is gaining traction.  And these future parents deserve to be helped and not spurned by liberal and anti-life supporters.  Millions of families that are seeing their bills continue to increase, and it becomes more difficult to make their shrinking paychecks stretch.  A tax break for their unborn child, could be passed in early 2013 and have retroactive impact on 2012 income.

Is this legislation extreme as many liberals have claimed, who are concerned about the possibility that an unborn child just might be granted “personhood rights” rights? The director of Progress Michigan, Zack Pohl, called the pro-family legislation a back door way of, “passing extreme personhood legislation.”

How can it be extreme to grant a young struggling family the right to take advantage of the tax system that could grant them the benefit of putting a little more in their budget to pay for items necessary for the support of their expected child? 

(click to read more)

Read more…