Connect with us

Biden Administration

The Biden Administration is releasing Unvetted, Gang Affiliated, Unaccompanied Alien Children into the Country

Published

on

The Biden administration’s approach to handling immigration has been met with both praise and criticism. However, recent findings and testimonies have shed light on a concerning issue: the potential release of unvetted, unaccompanied alien children (UACs) with possible gang affiliations into the United States. These allegations not only raise concerns about public safety but also challenge the administration’s commitment to the well-being of the American people.

Immigration officials have been accused of failing to gather sufficient information on the criminal backgrounds and potential gang ties of UACs. This oversight renders a critical obstacle in identifying and addressing detainees with dangerous affiliations, thereby exposing communities to potential threats.

  1. Recent evidence indicates that some UACs with confirmed gang ties have been released into American communities without proper monitoring or consequences. This has led to instances of these individuals reoffending and posing a menace to public safety.

On June 17, 2024, the Republican members of the House Committee on the Judiciary released a new information and testimony document highlighting the Biden administration’s disregard for the potential gang affiliation of individuals. The document showcases concerns about the administration’s approach to public safety and immigration policies.

The key points made in the testimony include:

  • Inconsistent documentation: The department officials often failed to gather adequate information on immigration detainees’ criminal history, including their possible gang affiliations. This lack of information hampers the ability to properly identify and treat detainees with a gang background, creating a risk to public safety.
  • Release of high-risk individuals: Some former immigration detainees with confirmed gang ties have been released without appropriate monitoring or consequences. This has led to instances of these individuals reoffending or posing a threat to public safety.
  • Priority of immigration policies: The current administration’s immigration policies emphasize the reunification of families over the identification and management of gang-affiliated individuals or other potential public safety threats, leading to the prioritization of family reunification over public safety concerns.

The document calls for a reevaluation of the Biden administration’s immigration policies and detainee management practices to ensure the proper identification, tracking, and handling of individuals with possible gang affiliations. The Republicans request increased scrutiny and collaboration with relevant departments and lawmakers to establish a more effective strategy for ensuring public safety and addressing these concerns.

The Biden administration’s handling of unaccompanied alien children with potential gang affiliations poses serious concerns for public safety and community well-being. It is crucial for the administration to recognize the significance of these findings and take appropriate action to protect communities and restore public trust. By adopting measures that prioritize public safety and strengthen communication and coordination with local law enforcement, the administration can work towards mitigating the risks associated with unvetted UACs and ensuring a safer environment for all Americans.

SOURCE: HOUSE COMMITTEE JUDICIARY REPORT

Biden Administration

Former Obama-Biden Advisor Claims “The First Amendment Is Out of Control,” Hinders Government Action

Published

on

In a controversial opinion piece published recently, Tim Wu, an advisor to both the Obama and Biden administrations, argued that the First Amendment is becoming a significant obstacle to effective governance. The essay, titled “The First Amendment is Out of Control,” has sparked widespread debate and criticism.

Wu’s argument centers on the assertion that the First Amendment, designed to protect free speech, is now being exploited by powerful entities, including Big Tech companies, to resist regulation and oversight. He cites recent Supreme Court rulings regarding Texas and Florida laws aimed at regulating social media platforms as examples of this exploitation.

According to Wu, the collaboration between the government and major social media platforms is often hindered by the First Amendment, which is used as a defense to protect free speech in digital public forums. He suggests that this constitutional protection is being misused to prevent necessary government action aimed at safeguarding citizens.

Critics, however, argue that Wu’s perspective misinterprets the fundamental purpose of the First Amendment. They contend that the amendment’s role is precisely to protect citizens from government overreach and censorship, ensuring that free speech remains a cornerstone of democracy. The idea that the First Amendment is an obstacle rather than a protector is seen by many as a dangerous and misguided interpretation.

Furthermore, Wu’s essay touches on the issue of banning platforms like TikTok and implementing age verification laws, such as California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code. He suggests that the First Amendment stands in the way of these actions, which he believes are necessary for national security and protecting minors online. Critics counter that these measures, if implemented, could set precedents for broader and potentially harmful censorship practices.

Wu’s reference to the First Amendment as a “suicide pact,” borrowing language from a 1949 dissenting opinion in the Terminiello v. City of Chicago case, underscores the dramatic tone of his argument. He suggests that the amendment, while intended to safeguard freedoms, can also be interpreted in ways that undermine societal safety and security.

In conclusion, Tim Wu’s essay has reignited the debate over the balance between free speech and governmental regulation. While Wu argues that the First Amendment’s current application hinders effective governance and protection of citizens, his critics maintain that the amendment is essential for safeguarding democratic principles and preventing government overreach. As this debate continues, the interpretation and application of the First Amendment remain at the forefront of discussions about free speech and public safety in the digital age.

SOURCE: NEW YORK TIMES

Continue Reading

Biden Administration

DHS and FBI Issue Warning About Large Fourth of July Events as ‘Attractive’ Targets for

Published

on

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a warning on Wednesday regarding potential threats to large Fourth of July celebrations. According to an internal bulletin obtained by ABC News, these events are considered “attractive” targets for lone offenders and small groups with malicious intentions.

The bulletin emphasizes the risk posed by individuals and small groups who might exploit the gatherings for terrorism or other harmful activities. The warning comes as the nation prepares for Independence Day festivities, which traditionally draw large crowds to public spaces.

The FBI and DHS are urging local law enforcement and event organizers to increase vigilance and security measures. The agencies highlight the importance of public awareness and cooperation, encouraging individuals to report any suspicious activities immediately.

Continue Reading

Biden Administration

Biden is 7 Times More Popular with Ukrainians than Trump, Poll Reveals

Published

on

In a recent poll conducted by The Counteroffensive/Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, President Joe Biden emerges as significantly more popular among Ukrainians compared to former President Donald Trump. This inaugural poll offers insights into Ukrainian sentiment towards American leadership during their ongoing conflict with Russia.

According to The Hill, a striking 46.7 percent of Ukrainian respondents expressed a preference for President Biden as the leader they believe would better support Ukraine’s war effort. In contrast, only 6.5 percent of those polled favored Trump in this regard.

Continue Reading

Trending