White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders has been having a difficult time with the press recently. Immigration has been a hot-button issue and journalists and reporters alike have been going to the communications department in the White House looking for answers regarding what is happening. Recently, a press briefing devolved into a conversation and questions in reference to former First Lady Laura Bush’s article she wrote for The Washington Post which she wrote on immigration. However, Sanders had a response that some might not like.
Western Journal reported,
“The complicated legal entanglements regarding illegal immigrants who get caught trying to bring their children to the United States have been reduced, more or less, to two separate sets of opinions: either separating children from their mothers while their cases are adjudicated is a human rights violation like never before or we should enforce the law until the problems with it are fixed by Congress. Part of the great irony with the first argument is that many of the luminaries speaking out against enforcing what they see as unjust laws are associated with the individuals who passed the laws in the first place. One of these individuals is Laura Bush, who penned a much-ballyhooed op-ed in The Washington Post in which she decried the Trump administration’s immigration policies.
Sanders to Laura Bush: "Frankly this law was actually signed into effect in 2008 under her husband's leadership. Not under this administration" pic.twitter.com/PFxfi5eFtU
— Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) June 18, 2018
“On Sunday, a day we as a nation set aside to honor fathers and the bonds of family, I was among the millions of Americans who watched images of children who have been torn from their parents,” Bush wrote in the piece published Sunday night. “In the six weeks between April 19 and May 31, the Department of Homeland Security has sent nearly 2,000 children to mass detention centers or foster care. More than 100 of these children are younger than 4 years old. The reason for these separations is a zero-tolerance policy for their parents, who are accused of illegally crossing our borders. “I live in a border state. I appreciate the need to enforce and protect our international boundaries, but this zero-tolerance policy is cruel. It is immoral. And it breaks my heart.”
If it breaks her heart, perhaps she should have been blaming her husband. Late in his second term, former President George W. Bush signed a law that was likely well-intentioned but has added to the problems faced by the Trump administration in enforcing their “zero tolerance” policy without separating parents and children. On Monday, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders noted this during her news briefing. “Frankly, this law was actually signed into effect in 2008 under (Laura Bush’s) husband’s leadership, not under this administration,” Sanders said, according to The Hill. “We’re not the ones responsible for creating this problem. We’ve inherited it,” she added. “But we’re actually the first administration stepping up and trying to fix it.”
The law she was referring to, assumedly, was the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, which requires formal deportation hearings for child immigrants who aren’t from Mexico or Canada and don’t have family in the United States. The intention was that it would stop child sex trafficking, but one of the unintended problems has come now that family units from Central American countries besides Mexico are making up the bulk of new illegal immigrants. In most cases, as The New York Times noted in one story about a Guatemalan woman who was repatriated to her country of origin without her child, most first-time illegal immigrants who don’t seek asylum plead out their case in an expedited manner and are sentenced to time served, then deported.
However, due to federal law, children can’t go through expedited hearings, instead of requiring formal deportation hearings. Thus, while the parent might be repatriated to their home country, the child remains back until their case works their way through clogged courts. This is just one of a maze of laws and court rulings, some of which are meant to do good but all of which have made it more difficult to actually enforce the law and secure our border. There are obviously ways to fix this without jeopardizing border security and ensuring that parents aren’t separated from their children for elongated periods of time. Still, those who bear some responsibility for the maze shouldn’t pretend that this is all on Trump. This is the result of an agglomeration of bad legislation and an unwillingness to touch illegal immigration. Instead of lamenting it in high-profile op-eds, perhaps they ought to be writing about how to fix it beyond just blaming the president and demanding he stop enforcing the law.”
Bush is not the only First Lady to come out against the zero tolerance immigration policy. All of the living former first ladies have spoken out against the policy regarding illegal border crossing that has resulted in family separation. Even former First Lady Rosalynn Carter made a statement, something she rarely ever does. She called the policy disgraceful and shameful and called upon her experience working in Cambodia and Thailand as well as her work with the Carter Center.
Former First Lady Michelle Obama shared Bush’s article on social media. Additionally, former First Lady Hillary Clinton condemned the policy at a Women’s Forum of New York awards lunch. She alleged that the separation policy is not mandated by law. The current first lady, First Lady Melania Trump has also encouraged Congressional Democrats and Republicans to work together to come to a conclusion to this immigration issue. She released a statement where she indicated she hated this policy and believes bipartisan lawmakers need to work together to achieve a successful and efficient solution.
Share if you agree with Sanders.
Share if you think people need to stop blaming the president.
Share if you believe that these immigration issues need to be fixed by Congress.
Trending Now on Right Wing News
Judge Orders Hillary Be Deposed For Judicial Watch-Benghazi Lawsuit
We are lucky to have Judicial Watch. This is the only organization that is fighting for justice. This woman shouldn’t be walking free for the crimes she’s committed. No American citizen would be able to get away with these crimes. The left truly believe they are above the law.
It would be nice to see a Clinton in Prison.
A federal judge on Monday ordered former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to deliver a sworn deposition in response to a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch over her role in the Obama administration’s response to the 2012 terror attack on the U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya.
U.S. District Court Royce Lamberth wrote in court filings that Clinton’s written answers to questions regarding the matter in a separate case were “incomplete” and “unhelpful” and demanded more information.
“As extensive as the existing record is, it does not sufficiently explain Secretary Clinton’s state of mind when she decided it would be an acceptable practice to set up and use a private server to conduct State Department business,” wrote Lamberth. “Simply put, her responses left many more questions than answers.”
BREAKING: Federal Court Orders Deposition of Hillary Clinton on Emails and Benghazi Attack Records. Rules prior testimony "left many more questions than answers." https://t.co/pvW4CD2oBS
— Tom Fitton (@TomFitton) March 2, 2020
The judge added: “Even years after the FBI investigation, the slow trickle of new emails has yet to be explained.”
Judicial Watch initiated the lawsuit in 2014 to uncover whether Clinton used her private email server to communicate about the Benghazi attack to skirt the Freedom of Information Act and whether the State Department reviewed records following an FOIA request from Judicial Watch. On September 11th, Ansar al-Sharia terrorists attacked the diplomatic compound, killing U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith.
FLASHBACK August 2019 Court Grants NEW Discovery on Clinton Emails!
Via Judicial Watch:
We have won a significant victory in our pursuit of the truth about Hillary Clinton’s misuse of official email and the Deep State’s efforts to cover it up.
A federal judge granted us seven additional depositions, three interrogatories and four document requests related to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private, unauthorized email server.
Hillary Clinton and her former top aide and current lawyer Cheryl Mills were given 30 days to oppose being deposed by Judicial Watch (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01242)).
The court rejected Justice and State Department arguments to protect Mrs. Clinton and the agencies from additional discovery and ordered agency lawyers to respond to our questions about their knowledge of the Clinton email issue. The court granted all of our requested discovery but gave Clinton and Mills 30 days to file any opposition to the requests to question them in person under oath.
The new court-ordered discovery allows us to take testimony and gather evidence of Clinton’s handling of emails, specifically in an “after action memo” drafted by Heather Samuelson, Clinton’s senior advisor at State and White House liaison. The memo was created in December 2014 to memorialize the Clinton team’s processing of the Clinton emails. The discovery also asks when Justice and State Department attorneys learned about Clinton’s private email use; and what senior records-keeping officials at the State Department knew about Clinton’s emails and when they knew it.
DONATE NOW TO BUILD THE WALL WITH BRIAN KOLFAGE, CLICK BELOW:
VA Dems Introduce Bill To Take Pensions From Sheriffs Who Opposed Gun Control
Maybe it’s time we start taking pensions from all elected officials. Officials who are supposed to serve us. Not us serving them. These elected officials become millionaires in office. These people continue to take from the American people.
Democrat leadership is useless and dangerous. None of them should ever be allowed to have power. This is what they do with that power. The Founders warned us this would happen.
Dear American people..stop voting these people into office.
During CPAC, Culpepper County Sheriff Scott Jenkins told Breitbart News that Virginia Democrats are punishing sheriffs who continue to stand against gun control.
On December 7, 2019, Breitbart News reported Jenkins’ announcement that he was ready to “deputize thousands” to defend Second Amendment rights had the Virginia Democrats passed gun bans and other controls that were being pushed.
He made clear he equated his actions with calling forth the militia to defend freedom. He quoted Richard Henry Lee from 1788, saying, “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.”
Over the past weekend of CPAC, Jenkins told Breitbart News:
In early December I came out against the newly proposed legislation to restrict everything from ‘assault weapons,’ so-called ‘assault weapons,’ to ‘high capacity magazines…and said that if we’re going to take away weapons from law-abiding citizens I intend to swear in thousands of citizens as reserve deputy sheriffs so they can keep those weapons and be able to protect themselves and use them.
Jenkins said that he and other sheriffs who took a similar stand were threatened with having insurance coverage removed “from deputies and staff.” He said that sheriffs throughout the state were offered a $10,000 raise “if we would tuck tail and follow [the Democrats’] lead and stop the push-back.”
But Jenkins refused to cower, and said they responded by saying “they would take away the raises of the deputies if we didn’t stop.”
He said State Sen. Janet Howell (D) “introduced a bill for next session where she could remove the pension of sheriffs…next year for…saying that we won’t follow unconstitutional laws or that I would use my lawful powers as sheriff to swear in thousands of people as deputies.”
Virginia Sheriff Vows to ‘Deputize Thousands’ to Defend Gun Rights
Culpeper County Sheriff Scott Jenkins says he will “deputize thousands” to defend gun rights should incoming Democrats use their legislative positions to enact more gun control in Virginia.
On December 4, 2019, Jenkins used a Facebook post to thank the Culpeper County Board of Supervisors for standing with the dozens of other counties that have declared their intention to defend the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
But his joy was mixed with somber warnings:
Every Sheriff and Commonwealth Attorney in Virginia will see the consequences if our General Assembly passes further unnecessary gun restrictions. “Red Flag” laws without due process will create enormous conflict as well.
America has more guns than citizens and murder has long been illegal. At best, the proposed gun restrictions will disarm or handicap our law-abiding in their defense and possibly cause a criminal to choose another tool for evil.
I remain very optimistic that our General Assembly will not pass the proposed bills. Obviously, if passed, there are many of us willing to challenge these laws through the courts. In addition, if necessary, I plan to properly screen and deputize thousands of our law-abiding citizens to protect their constitutional right to own firearms.”
In January, Sheriff Richard Vaughan vowed to defend the 2nd Amendment, also.
DONATE NOW TO BUILD THE WALL WITH BRIAN KOLFAGE, CLICK BELOW: