Half of BP Workforce Reassigned to Humanitarian Support Duty, 100,000 Migrants Slip into U.S.

D7ry6QcX4AEqd2Q
Half of BP Workforce Reassigned to Humanitarian Support Duty, 100,000 Migrants Slip into U.S.
JUNE 25, 2019
https://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2019/06/half-of-bp-workforce-reassigned-to-humanitarian-support-duty-100000-migrants-slip-into-u-s/?utm_source=deployer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=corruption+chronicles&utm_term=members&utm_content=20190626210220

With half of the nation’s Border Patrol workforce reassigned to provide humanitarian support for “vulnerable populations,” a record number of illegal immigrants have slipped into the United States and “disappeared into border communities,” the agency’s chief told Congress. The overwhelmed frontline Homeland Security agency has managed to apprehend a record 593,000 illegal aliens this year, but an additional 100,000 have made it through and remain somewhere in the country. The distressing numbers were delivered last week by Border Patrol Chief Carla L. Provost, who told a House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Border Security that the situation along the southwest border is a crisis that is putting national security at risk.

“The demographic shift towards more vulnerable populations, combined with overwhelming numbers, has caused 40 to 60 percent of Border Patrol agents to be pulled away from our border security mission to provide humanitarian support—that’s 40 to 60 percent of our frontline workforce that is not available to stop drugs, gang members, and dangerous criminals from entering our country,” Provost testified. She added that “100,000 individuals successfully crossed the border illegally and disappeared into border communities before agents could respond. This is the highest level of observed ‘got aways’ since Fiscal Year (FY) 2014. This high level of ‘got aways’ is a direct result of agents being reassigned from the frontline to provide humanitarian support to the unprecedented numbers of individuals and families in custody.”

main_900
Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) and family units represent 66% of all inadmissible individuals and apprehensions along the southwest border, Provost said, adding that the never-ending flow of illegal aliens has shattered agency records with more than four months remaining in the fiscal year. “This year-to-date level exceeds the full-year apprehensions of any fiscal year in the last decade,” the Border Patrol chief told lawmakers. “We have also set an unfortunate new record of the largest migrant group ever apprehended—more than a thousand migrants illegally crossing the border together in El Paso, Texas, in late May.” Provost painted a scary picture of an understaffed frontline agency slammed by a crushing wave of illegal immigrants that appears to have no end in sight.

It’s not the first time Border Patrol agents, who are also responsible for preventing terrorists and weapons of mass destruction from entering the U.S., are yanked from their crucial security mission. In 2014, when Barack Obama let an influx of illegal alien minors enter the country, the Border Patrol was forced to serve as a babysitting service. Judicial Watch obtained an internal document redeploying agents with “child care or juvenile teaching and/or counseling” experience to work at the various shelters that house the illegal alien minors. It appears the impact of that reassignment was not as severe as the current situation, which is deeply affecting a big chunk of the agency’s workforce. That makes military help essential, as Provost told federal lawmakers.

The Border Patrol chief confirmed that the deployment of U.S. Military personnel to the southwest border has benefited the nation tremendously. The National Guard is providing valuable air support in the form of light and medium lift helicopters as well as operational and surveillance support. Since President Trump deployed the military to the Mexican border in 2018, the Border Patrol has carried out thousands of apprehensions, seized thousands of pounds of dangerous drugs and performed multiple rescues, Provost testified. She revealed that this fiscal year Department of Defense (DOD) assistance has contributed to more than 87,000 deportable alien arrests, and the seizure of more than 24,000 pounds of marijuana, 228 pounds of methamphetamine, and more than $7,000 in currency. Additionally, the military’s surveillance support missions have contributed to more than 13,000 apprehensions and the seizure of more than 3,700 pounds of marijuana and $2,000 in currency. “Their support has made a difference in CBP’s ability to carry out our mission,” Provost said.

_104001072__epg2549
Amid a storm of criticism from open borders groups and the mainstream media, President Trump started sending National Guard troops to the Mexican border last spring after declaring a national emergency. There are currently thousands of active-duty service members assisting the Border Patrol though they don’t operate in a law enforcement capacity. As long as the nation faces this immigration crisis, Provost said she will continue to ask for much-needed military support. The surest way to improve the situation is for Congress to change immigration laws, the Border Patrol chief said, to dispel a widely believed notion that illegal aliens will be permitted into the U.S. if they come with children. Under current law, families are encouraged to make the trek north or send children on their own. Provost said families from more than 50 countries have illegally crossed the border this year, including 742 from African nations. Others are from Vietnam, Romania, Ecuador and Brazil. “I have repeatedly asked Congress to act, to address the outdated legal framework and broken immigration system that has caused dangerous mass migration with no end in sight,” Provost said. “Without legislative solutions, CBP expects the need for continued DOD support to help address the diversion of resources away from the border security mission to the current humanitarian crisis.” The Border Patrol chief reminded Congress that “border security is national security—there is no difference—and the crisis on our southwest border puts our national security at risk.”

Censorship in America??? Chilling precedent? InfoWars block exposes Big Tech as no friend of free speech. Alex had been warning us of this for months, it is of no surprise, the only surprise is if we are going to take it!


HomeUS News
Chilling precedent? InfoWars block exposes Big Tech as no friend of free speech
Published time: 6 Aug, 2018 23:19
Edited time: 7 Aug, 2018 07:13
https://www.rt.com/usa/435271-alex-jones-inforwars-censorship/

Chilling precedent? InfoWars block exposes Big Tech as no friend of free speech
Alex Jones at a rally during the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio, July 18, 2016 © Lucas Jackson / Reuters

The US Constitution explicitly forbids government censorship. So Silicon Valley big-tech companies made themselves the gatekeepers of ‘goodthink,’ de-platforming anyone who runs afoul of their arbitrary ‘community standards.’

Alex Jones, the host of InfoWars, has often been derided by establishment media as a conspiracy theorist. Yet on Monday, Apple, Spotify, YouTube and Facebook proved right the motto of his show – “There’s a war on for your mind!” – by blocking or deleting InfoWars accounts from their platforms, saying he allegedly engaged in “hate speech” and violated their “community standards.”

Simply put, these corporations appointed themselves arbiters of acceptable political thought, and censored Jones for failing to comply with arbitrary political standards set in Silicon Valley boardrooms, not at the ballot box.

Whether you like @RealAlexJones and Infowars or not, he is undeniably the victim today of collusion by the big tech giants. What price free speech? https://t.co/DWroGYaWvk
— Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage) August 6, 2018

The First Amendment to the US Constitution says that Congress shall make no law “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” There is no “hate speech” exemption, either. In fact, hate speech is not even a legal category in the US. However, a chorus of voices all too glad Jones was purged immediately chimed up to argue that Apple, Alphabet, Facebook and Spotify are private companies and this does not apply to them.

There is a wrinkle in that argument, though: civil rights outfits such as the ACLU have argued that social media amount to a “designated public forum” in cases where government officials tried to avail themselves of blocking, muting and other functions put forth by Big Tech as a way to police “toxicity” on their platforms.

“When the government designates social media a public forum, the First Amendment prohibits it from limiting the discourse based on viewpoint,” the ACLU said in a brief submitted last year in a case before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia. “When a government actor bans critics from speaking in a forum, it silences and chills dissent, warps the public conversation, and skews public perception,” the ACLU brief went on.
Read more


© Adrees Latif Censorship or justice? Twitter debate rages over tech giants’ simultaneous InfoWars ban

In a separate but obviously related case, a federal judge used the “designated public forum” definition to demand that President Donald Trump allow critics access to his personal Twitter account – not the official @POTUS one – because he is a public official.

However, if social media platforms are a “designated public forum” that government is not allowed to exclude people from on First Amendment grounds, how is it OK for corporations that operate these platforms to do so? Or is chilling dissent, warping conversation and skewing perception only bad when a government actor does it, thereby creating a legal system in which the what is irrelevant, and the only thing that matters is who/whom?

There is something deeply cynical about people who until yesterday denounced discrimination and evil corporatism – and will do so again tomorrow – suddenly defending private property and freedom to discriminate against political viewpoints. That’s because this isn’t about principles, but about power.

Liberals were once all for free speech, starting a movement by that name at Berkeley in the 1960s. Now that the media and academia overwhelmingly march in lockstep with the Democratic Party, however, they’re all about “no-platforming” opposing views and calling them “hate speech,” all in an effort to limit the range of permissible thought and expression in America.

Alex Jones’ Warning To The World On Internet Censorship pic.twitter.com/DNdiR6goHb

— Alex Jones (@RealAlexJones) August 6, 2018

This has manifested in many forms, from literal riots in Berkeley to “shadowbanning” of several Republican lawmakers on Twitter. That platform, which has so far refrained from banning InfoWars, didn’t hesitate to block conservative African-American activist Candace Owens after she pointedly echoed the hateful tweets of a liberal journalist hired by the New York Times. Needless to say, the same people up in arms about Alex Jones argued that Sarah Jeong’s tweets were fine, because one “cannot be racist against white people.”

If Infowars has been removed for pushing conspiracy theories and “glorifying violence and hate speech…”

Then what’s the plan for outlets who still push ‘Russian collusion’ and promote violent ANTIFA protests/harassing Trump admin officials?
— Tim Young (@TimRunsHisMouth) August 6, 2018

This ideological conflict in American society actually goes back years, maybe even decades. However, the victory of Trump over Hillary Clinton in the 2016 US presidential election, even though most of the media and all of the Silicon Valley were #WithHer, flushed it out in the open. Democrats quickly latched onto a claim of “Russian meddling,” intended to delegitimize Trump’s presidency but also, as it turns out, create an excuse for corporate censorship.

Consider the November 1, 2017 hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee, where lawyers for Google, Facebook and Twitter were subjected to a barrage of demands to regulate their platforms against “Russians” – or else.

“You have to be the ones to do something about it, or we will,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California). She also pressed for the removal of RT from YouTube, only to have a Google representative say that despite looking very hard, the company hasn’t found any policy violations that would justify such a move.

“I’m not really satisfied with that,” said Feinstein.
Read more
YouTube is also banning channels unrelated to the InfoWars brand, but have livestreamed Jone’s show daily. © Dado Ruvic/Reuters War on InfoWars? YouTube shuts down Alex Jones’ channel with 2.5mn subscribers

Now, imagine how much more chilling this would be if Feinstein represented the ruling party, rather than the opposition. It isn’t that far-fetched: during the 2016 election, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg told Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta that she “badly” wanted Clinton to win, while Eric Schmidt, the executive chairman of Google’s parent company Alphabet, actually spent election night at Clinton HQ with a “staff” badge. More recently, this April actually, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey described as a “great read” an article describing how Democrats should fight and win the “civil war” currently being waged in the US.

This isn’t about how much one likes or dislikes Alex Jones or InfoWars. This is about corporations deciding for you what you should be allowed to hear, read, say or think – and the people normally criticizing such behavior cheering it on, because it suits their political agenda.

As Jones’s colleague Paul Joseph Watson put it, “The great censorship purge has truly begun.”

Ask not for whom the censorship bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

Nebojsa Malic, RT