VAWA Posts:
Joy Behar: Bill’s A ‘Dog,’ But I’d Vote For Him, Like Women Voted for Kennedy After Chappaquiddick
Brieitbart
January 05, 2016
ABC’s “The View” panelist Joy Behar said she would still vote for Bill Clinton, even though he’s a “dog” “because he votes in my favor” just like women voted for Ted Kennedy after Chappaquiddick, and that Republicans voting against the Violence Against Women Act is more important than anything Bill Clinton did on Tuesday.
Behar stated, “It’s policy. Teddy Kennedy, remember Chappaquiddick? … I mean, a girl drowns and he abandons her, and [s]he drowned, and women still voted for Teddy Kennedy. Why? Because he voted for women’s rights. That’s why. That’s the bottom line of it in my opinion. I mean, I don’t like either one of them, to tell you the truth, Teddy or Bill. They’re both dogs, as far as I’m concerned. But I still will vote for Bill Clinton, because he votes in my favor.”
Earlier, Behar said, “It is a bit of a campaign issue at the moment, because Hillary is in a quandary, in my opinion. Because she’s talking about violence against women, and sexual harassment, and all that stuff, and her husband has a checkered past, let’s put it — to put it mildly, so she is in a bind.” She added, “On the other hand, it’s her policies that really matter. Like, Republicans have voted against the Violence Against Women Act. Now that to me is more important than anything that Bill Clinton did or didn’t do, because it’s what she’s going to vote for, how she’s going to lead the country that matters more than that. On the other hand, he is a dog. Let’s face it”
Behar further argued that Bill’s infidelity did put Hillary “in a difficult position” because “when she didn’t leave him, they said she was an enabler. If she leaves him, then she’s abandoning her family. So, a woman is in a very difficult position when her husband cheats on her, really.”
Immigration Relief Possible In Return For Crime Victims' Cooperation
NPR - Wisconsin Public Radio
January 20, 2016
Immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally are often reluctant to report crimes.
That's why Congress created what's known as the "U visa" program. It gives legal status to victims of sexual assault, domestic violence and other serious crimes — if they help law enforcement with criminal investigations.
But applying for a U visa can be difficult depending on where you are in the U.S. Now, the New York City Police Department has proposed a rule with new deadlines to streamline the process, and some immigrant advocates are looking to it as a promising test case.
Who gets a U visa is decided at the federal level — by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
But if you want to apply for one, you often have to start locally, at the police department.
Police can play an important part in the U-visa process: A law enforcement officer or a government official must sign a form as part of the application, certifying that an immigrant suffered from a serious crime and was helpful with the investigation.
"All certification is is attesting to the fact that the victim has cooperated," immigration attorney C.J. Wang recently told officials at the NYPD during a public hearing on the proposed rule. "That's all it is. It is nothing more."
Wang says the NYPD has been slow to certify applications, and for immigrant advocates like her, that means "a lot of paper chasing, a lot of phone calls, a lot of even going to the precinct and going to headquarters to just find out who deals with this."
Zoey Jones, an immigration attorney with Brooklyn Defender Services, says the wait for a certification can sometimes last more than a year.
"The delay can result in somebody's deportation," Jones says. "It can result in a delay in somebody getting work authorization and not being able to support their family."
The NYPD declined to be interviewed for this story. Its proposed rule sets a 45-day deadline to respond to certification requests and a 90-day deadline to respond to appeals of denied requests. A local group of immigrant advocates, though, is calling for a shorter deadline of 30 days, so that applicants can submit their completed U-visa applications to the federal government sooner.
Still, these proposed rule changes "could very well be a model for other law enforcement agencies," according to Deborah Weissman, a professor at the University of North Carolina's law school.
Weissman has conducted a nationwide survey of U-visa policies.
"What we see is a real mishmash of policies, no standardization, so much so that it seems that this federal statute has no uniform application whatsoever," she says.
Some police departments, Weissman says, refuse to sign off on any U-visa applications.
"They seem to think that if they certify they are granting an undocumented immigrant legal status in the U.S., and that is just not true," she says.
Only federal immigration officials can grant a U visa after a background check.
Still, other police departments may be reluctant to certify applications because of politics, according to Jim Pasco, the executive director of the National Fraternal Order of Police.
"Police chiefs, after all, are not free agents," Pasco says. "They work for mayors or city managers or city councils, and they are going to reflect the judgment of that executive who employs them."
In California, a new state law now requires police and government officials like prosecutors and judges to certify U-visa applications for eligible immigrants within 90 days of a request — or 14 days if the applicant is in the process of being deported.
And in Arizona, the Phoenix Police Department is working on plans to allow immigrants to ask for certifications online, says Lt. Ed DeCastro.
"If they're willing to assist us to catch a murderer or an armed robber or a home invader, then they deserve the benefit of the doubt that they will ultimately be a good citizen," DeCastro says.
However, it's one thing to be a good Samaritan who applies for a U visa — and it's another to actually get one: Right now, there's a backlog of almost 64,000 applications, but only 10,000 can be approved a year.
Ad Politicizing Violence Against Women Law is Pulled
Roll Call
February 01, 2016
An ad criticizing presidential hopeful Sen. Marco Rubio for voting against the Violence Against Women Act will not be making it to the airwaves in New Hampshire, after the state’s GOP Sen. Kelly Ayotte objected strenuously.
The ad, created by a presidential Super PAC supporting Ohio Gov. John Kasich, featured Ayotte’s support for reauthorizing the law, which became contentious and political in 2012 and 2013. The Senate GOP split on the question, with Ayotte among the vocal supporters. Rubio, a Florida Republican, opposed it.
The spot is largely a clip from a news conference where Ayotte joined other supporters of reauthorizing and updating the law, with the New Hampshire senator flanked by Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt., who was chairman of the Judiciary Committee at the time.
The 22 Senate Republicans who opposed the final version of the measure were all men.
The ad from New Day For America surfaced online overnight. Politico reported a $1 million ad buy was to start Tuesday, highlighting Rubio’s opposition to the legislation.
But apparently, neither the Kasich campaign nor Ayotte wanted anything to do with it.
“The Violence Against Women Act provides critical resources for domestic violence prevention and support for survivors, and I worked across party lines to help renew this landmark law,” Ayotte said in a statement. “This is a serious issue, and I’m appalled that an outside group has exploited it in a political attack.”
Not long after, New Day For America announced a replacement ad that carried a much more optimistic message, called “Sunrise.”
“We have replaced the ad highlighting Senator Marco Rubio’s vote against the Violence Against Women Act with ‘Sunrise,’ which appropriately captures the optimism of Governor Kasich’s campaign,” spokeswoman Connie Wehrkamp said in a statement.
Watch Joe Biden give an endless hug to Hillary Clinton
CNN
August 16, 2016
Watch another awkward Biden hug as he hangs on to Hillary. CNN's Jeanne Moos shows the endless embrace.
Grassley, Goodlatte Probe U Visa, Immigration Parole Practices Following Fraud & Overreach
Senator Chuck Grassley
December 20, 2016
WASHINGTON – Senate and House Judiciary Committee Chairmen Chuck Grassley and Bob Goodlatte today are calling on the Obama Administration to explain its management of the U visa program following significant findings of fraud and a new administrative policy that appears to violate the law. The U visa program was designed to allow foreign nationals who fall victim to crime in the United States to remain here to assist in the investigation and prosecution of their perpetrator. However, falsified U visa applications and Obama Administration policies that ignore congressional limits have distorted the program beyond its original intent.
A law enforcement agency investigating a crime can certify a U Visa application if the foreign national cooperates in the investigation. However, recent cases have highlighted how the program is being exploited through falsified police reports and bribes to secure U visas allowing foreign nationals to avoid deportation. According to whistleblowers, such illicit activity to secure U visas is common. In a letter today to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, the chairmen are seeking information regarding how U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services certifies the validity of U visa applications.
“Although the U visa program can be an important tool in the investigation and prosecution of crimes, fraud and abuse of the program can lead to unjustified approvals leaving legitimate victims in the shadows,” the chairmen said in the letter.
The chairmen are also raising concern about new Obama Administration policies that effectively ignore an annual 10,000 visa cap for principle applicants. The Obama Administration is seeking to grant “conditional approval” to applicants after the cap is reached, preventing deportation and allowing the applicant to remain in the United States until more visas are available in a subsequent year. Applicants living abroad could be admitted into the United States while their application is being reviewed under a proposed blanket immigration parole policy. This policy ignores congressionally-mandated caps and a law that limits the administration’s parole authority to a case-by-case discretionary basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.
“The new U visa blanket parole policy is yet another example of the Obama Administration’s complete disregard for Congress’ constitutionally mandated role in developing immigration policy. This policy ignores the authority of the legislative branch, and tramples on our system of checks and balances,” the chairmen said in the letter.
The chairmen’s letter to Secretary Johnson follows:
December 20, 2016
The Honorable Jeh Johnson
Secretary
Department of Homeland Security
Washington, D.C. 20528
Dear Secretary Johnson:
We write today regarding alleged fraudulent activity associated with the U nonimmigrant visa (U visa) program. We also want to express opposition to an apparent U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) decision to implement a seemingly unlawful parole program for U visa petitioners living abroad.
The U visa program was originally created by the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act in 2000 to ensure that illegal alien victims of crimes could remain in the United States to assist with the investigation and prosecution of their perpetrator. However, this visa is being exploited by those wishing to defraud the system and avoid deportation. For example, in May of 2016, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi announced the indictment of 11 individuals who were part of a conspiracy to submit fraudulent documents to USCIS in order to obtain U visas. Such fraudulent documents included falsified police reports containing forged law enforcement official signatures. All 11 defendants entered guilty pleas in October of 2016. Additionally, the same month, a special agent with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement-Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and an attorney were charged with bribery, conspiracy to defraud the U.S., and obstructing an official investigation by the Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General (DHS OIG). The HSI special agent was charged after he misused his position to obtain numerous deferrals of deportation and other immigration benefits for non-citizen foreign nationals in return for over $5,000 in cash payments, free legal services and other items of value from the attorney involved. According to whistleblower reports to the Senate Judiciary Committee, instances of law enforcement officials improperly certifying U visa forms in exchange for cash and other bribes is a common occurrence.
U visas are capped at 10,000 annually for principal applicants.[2] However, under an apparently unlawful USCIS policy, cases that would have otherwise been approved in the absence of the cap may receive “conditional approval” and a work authorization until U visas become available the following year.[3] In some cases, despite no statutory authorization, the application itself may serve to halt deportation until it is adjudicated.[4] Petitioners in foreign countries who apply for a U visa after the cap is exceeded, until now, remained abroad until their application was fully adjudicated. However, in August, USCIS announced its intent to implement a new “parole policy” under which eligible U visa petitioners who live abroad, along with their derivatives, can apply for parole and be admitted to the U.S. prior to adjudication. Such a policy has the potential to allow thousands of individuals the ability to wait for their adjudication results in the United States, during which time they could be granted work authorization and additional benefits.
According to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), parole should be granted on a case-by-case discretionary basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit, and is not intended for sweeping or blanket use. [5] The new U visa blanket parole policy is yet another example of the Obama Administration’s complete disregard for Congress’ constitutionally mandated role in developing immigration policy. This policy ignores the authority of the legislative branch, and tramples on our system of checks and balances.
Although the U visa program can be an important tool in the investigation and prosecution of crimes, fraud and abuse of the program can lead to unjustified approvals leaving legitimate victims in the shadows. In light of the increasing accounts of U visa fraud, and the new parole policy that could allow thousands of petitioners free passage to the United States while their application is pending, please respond to the following questions and provide the requested information no later than January 2, 2016.
1. Please list all law enforcement agencies that have provided U visa certifications since 2009, and provide the number of certifications done each year by each agency.
a. What steps does USCIS take to verify that the certification is valid?b. What steps does USCIS take to ensure that the signature on the certification is in fact the signature of the law enforcement official named?c. What steps do certifying law enforcement agencies take to verify the validity of an alien applicant’s statement and limit fraud?
2. With which law enforcement entities has the Department discussed U visa standards in the last seven years? Please describe the content of such discussions.
3. Are U visa applications approved on a first come, first served basis, or does the agency issue visas to those most vulnerable or helpful to an investigation or prosecution? Please explain and provide any relevant written guidance provided to adjudicators. Has any consideration been given to issuing U visas in an alternative manner? If so, please explain.
4. Please provide the number of times for each of the past three fiscal years (FY 2014-2016) that a U visa application has been approved for a principal based on that principal being “likely to be helpful” to the investigation or prosecution as opposed to the principal actually aiding in the investigation or prosecution. Please provide the number of derivative U visas applied for based on the above criteria.
5. Please provide the number of pending U visa applications. Please also provide the number of derivatives included in such applications.
a. Of the number of principal applicants who have pending U visa applications, how many currently live abroad?b. Of the number described in question (a), how many would be eligible for parole under the new USCIS parole policy?
6. How many cases of U visa fraud were identified from FY 2014 through October of FY 2016 and by which component in DHS was the fraud identified? Please provide the resolution of each case (i.e. referred to U.S. attorneys, referred for prosecution, prosecuted, acquitted, etc.)?
7. What percentage of cases in which a U visa applicant is assisting with a criminal investigation have resulted in an arrest? What percentage of cases have resulted in a successful prosecution? Please provide data for FY 2010-present.
8. How many derivative U visas were granted to family members of U visa recipients each year from FY 2014 through FY 2016? How many derivative U visas were applied for during this period?
9. What types of immigration benefits are available to U visa applicants while their applications are pending? Can they be granted ‘deferred action’ while they wait for approval of their applications?
10. Please describe in detail a U visa recipient’s “ongoing responsibilities” with respect to a potential investigation or prosecution.
11. Has USCIS issued guidance to law enforcement entities ensuring their knowledge that a visa certification is discretionary and not a mandatory exercise? If so, please provide this guidance. If not, why not?
12. How many U visa recipients applied for extensions each year during FY 2010 – 2016? How many U visa extensions were granted during each of those fiscal years?
13. How many U visa grantees received employment authorization each year during FY 2010–2016?
14. Please provide any and all reports by Department of Homeland Security components outlining fraud in the U visa program from FY 2010- FY 2016.
Thank you in advance for your prompt responses in this important matter. Should you have any questions, please contact Katherine Nikas of the Senate Judiciary Committee staff at (202) 224-5225 or Andrea Loving of the House Judiciary Committee staff at (202) 225-3951.
Sincerely,
Bob Goodlatte
Chairman
House Committee on the Judiciary
Charles E. Grassley
Chairman.
Senate Committee on the Judiciary
cc:
The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy
Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee
The Honorable John Roth
Inspector General
Department of Homeland Security
Washington, D.C. 20528
