This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Category: DHS

  • “Thoroughly vetting” refugees? Hardly.

    From an internal DHS memo concerning issues with processing applications for refugee status:

    “Refugee fraud is easy to commit, yet not easy to investigate,” the undated memo says.

    The memo said there are clear instances where “bad actors … have exploited this program,” gaining a foothold in the U.S. through bogus refugee claims.

    Gee – thanks, Captain Obvious.  No one would ever have guessed that might be the case!

    But that’s not even the “money quote”.  That would be this one (emphasis added):

    The U.S. has relaxed requirements for refugees to prove they are who they say they are, and at times may rely solely on testimony. That makes it easier for bogus applicants to conspire to get approved, according to the department memo, which was obtained by the House Judiciary and Oversight committees.

    Yeah, you’re reading that correctly.  Sometimes DHS simply takes people’s word for who they are and why they’re trying to get into the US if they’re claiming to be “refugees”.

    The memo’s warnings were, of course, ignored by senior DHS officials – or perhaps never made it to them.  One DHS senior official has claimed “never to have seen it”.

    The Washington Times has a good article today discussing the subject.  It’s IMO worth a read, even if it will p!ss you off.

     

     

  • Yet More Idiocy at DHS

    Remember the San Bernardino shootings? You know, that cold-blooded terrorist massacre perpetrated by a US citizen and his foreign-born spouse?  The spouse who DHS allowed to enter the country in in spite of the fact that she’d made social media postings supporting violent jihad; where DHS didn’t bother even to check her social media posts because it was against DHS policy to do so; and who DHS never interviewed in person as required under Federal law before allowing them to immigrate?

    Well, looks like this one gets “curiouser and curiouser” still with respect to DHS’s actions.

    The two dead terrorists who perpetrated that attack got their weapons from a straw buyer – Enrique Martinez – who was a friend of the husband. The FBI determined this shortly after the attack.

    Martinez had a scheduled interview at the San Bernardino US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) office the day after the attack. FBI officials found out about that interview; they requested that their LE counterparts at Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detain Martinez as a person of interest so that they could interview him about the matter.

    Unfortunately, that didn’t go too well.

    When the ICE agents went to the San Bernardino USICS office as requested by the FBI, they were refused entry. They were unable to detain Martinez.

    Yeah, you read that right.  The Federal personnel running that ICS office refused to allow Federal LE personnel acting at the request of the FBI to enter their facility and detain a person of interest in a terrorism case.

    Tell me that isn’t evidence of a seriously out-of-whack set of priorities.  In my book, when Federal immigration services personnel start ignoring requests from Federal LE to detain persons of interest in terrorist attacks something is seriously effed up.

    Fox News has an article with more details.  It’s worth reading.

    Sounds like “you got some ‘splainin’ to do”, Secretary Johnson.  Or maybe that should read “you got lots more ‘splainin’ to do”.

  • Wunderbare.

    Remember those two dead terrorist bastards who killed 14 and wounded 20+ in San Bernardino earlier this month? You know, the case where a US citizen went to a nation with a high level of support for radical Islamic terrorism; found himself a “bride”; and brought her to the US on a spousal visa?  The case where the terrorist “bride” apparently had made past posts on social media supporting violent jihad and indicating a desire to participate in same, but was admitted to the US anyway because checking her social media accounts during the visa approval process was against DHS policy?

    Well, sit down – it gets even “better”.

    When a US citizen wants to bring a foreigner to the US as a spouse, there is a existing requirement in Federal law that the two individuals must have met face-to-face at least once prior to that prospective spouse being granted a visa to enter the US.  The purpose of this requirement is to combat “sham marriage” rackets.

    Well, regarding our two dead terrorists . . . do I really need to spell it out?

    Yeah, you guessed it:  turns out there’s no real evidence that a face-to-face meeting ever happened prior to the spouse receiving her visa.  And it also appears that (1) INS noticed a lack of evidence for such a meeting, (2) asked for more information documenting that such a meeting happened, (3) got nothing . . . but approved her entry into the US on a spousal visa anyway.

    Further, there’s actually rather strong circumstantial evidence that such a meeting likely never happened.

    Fox has a decent story from a couple of days ago detailing the timeline and evidence.  It’s worthwhile reading.

    Oh, and remember the dead terrorists’ friend who acted as straw buyer for the weapons they used in their attack?  Turns out he was getting paid $200 a month for his “marriage” to an in-law of the dead male terrorist.  It certainly looks at this point like that “marriage” was a sham, too.

    “Curiouser and curioser”, said . . . well, damn near anyone with a working brain.

    Yeah, Secretary Johnson – looks like your department’s certainly “got some ‘splainin’ to do.”  About multiple things.

  • Did Someone Say, “YGBSM?!?!” Unfortunately . . . They’re Not.

    Remember the other day when it was revealed that the female San Bernardino jihadi terrorist bastard passed three background checks before being admitted to the US on a spousal visa? Remember when it looked like that at was at least partly due to her social media postings – where she’d expressed support for violent jihad, and indicated she wanted to be a part of same – not being screened during those investigations?

    Well, that’s indeed the case. But now we know why such social media screening was never performed.

    Doing that was against policy.

    It seems that DHS investigators were forbidden by DHS policy from  reviewing social media posts made by foreigners applying for a US visa..  Apparently DHS leadership was worried about about a possible “civil liberties backlash” and “bad public relations” – or some other similarly nebulous libidiot bullsh!t.

    Concerns about “civil liberties” regarding someone (1) who is not a US citizen or resident; (2) who isn’t even physically located in the US; and (3) who is voluntarily asking permission to come to the US to live.  Plus, worries over “bad public relations”.  Yeah, letting those concerns outweigh conducting thorough background checks on foreigners seeking to enter the US during a period of high terrorist threat really passes the freaking common sense test.

    But wait, it gets even better. Nearly two years ago, multiple senior DHS officials recommended to the DHS Secretary, Jeh Johnson, that the policy be changed.  They recommended that DHS change policy to allow screening of social media posts made by visa applicants. Wanna guess what the decision was – and who made it?

    No, the POTUS didn’t make the decision; reportedly DHS Secretary Johnson did.  He turned down the recommendation – in early 2014.

    The jihadi terrorist bastard in question entered the US in mid-2014.  You do the math.

    Yes, Mr. Secretary, I’d say you certainly “have some ‘splainin’ to do””  I only wish now you could end up doing it in a court of law, while on trial for dereliction of duty.

  • “Somebody’s Got Some ‘Splainin’ to Do”

    Remember that recent shooting in California? You know, the one where a US citizen went abroad; married a foreign national from a nation known for having a high level of terrorist activity; brought their spouse back to the US – and less than 18 months later the two murdered 14 and wounded 20+ in a terrorist attack? The terrorist attack that recently occurred in San Bernardino?

    Well, guess what? It turns out that the foreign national involved apparently had a history of making social media posts supporting violent jihad – and saying they wanted to be a part of same. But it also turns out that the foreign national passed three separate background checks during the process of being granted entry into the US.

    Yep, you read that right. Apparently no one involved in the visa approval investigation process checked social media to see what the individual in question may have said there in the past. Those social media posts were only recently found by US LE agencies.

    Plus, the screening also missed the fact that the foreign national had used a false address on their visa application. Yeah, all of that all really gives me the proverbial “warm and fuzzy” regarding our ability to screen thousands of “Syrian refugees” (and others from countries with known terrorist issues) who might attempt to enter the US in the future. I mean, we did such a “bang-up job” of screening out someone with terrorist inclinations in this case.

    But rest assured, we’re “thoroughly vetting” all those thousands of Syrian refugees. None of them will pose a threat – even if they’re using a Syrian passport forged by Da’esh using captured official Syrian passport making equipment and blanks. Or a bogus Syrian passport from another source.

    Yeah, right. And I’m the Crown Prince of Siam.

    Predictably, the US DHS Secretary, Jeh Johnson, says that the K-1 visa problem is being reviewed. However, regarding the screening process having missed something in this case that should have raised a concern, Johnson said, “. . . I am not prepared to say that and I’m not prepared to make that declaration”.

    You see, it turns out DHS doesn’t review social media when making visa decisions in cases similar to this. In fact, there appears to be an ongoing debate within DHS regarding whether it is “appropriate” to do that.

    Well, Mr. Secretary – you might not be prepared to say that the process screwed up here, and needs to be changed dramatically – but I certainly am. Your agency screwed up royally here. This all should have been found prior to the individual being granted or denied entry into the US. It should have been considered while making that decision.

    In my book, to paraphrase the late Desi Arnaz (in his Rickey Ricardo persona): “Somebody’s got some ‘splainin’ to do”. And that “somebody” would be you, Mr. Secretary. Along with your boss.

    You can both explain it to the surviving family of those 14 killed in San Bernardino. And to those recovering after being wounded.

  • DHS warns of “right wing terrorism” again

    DHS warns of “right wing terrorism” again

    hutaree_militia

    CNN reports that the Department of Homeland Security is back to warning law enforcement about the threat of “sovereign citizens” as terrorists.

    A new intelligence assessment, circulated by the Department of Homeland Security this month and reviewed by CNN, focuses on the domestic terror threat from right-wing sovereign citizen extremists and comes as the Obama administration holds a White House conference to focus efforts to fight violent extremism.

    Some federal and local law enforcement groups view the domestic terror threat from sovereign citizen groups as equal to — and in some cases greater than — the threat from foreign Islamic terror groups, such as ISIS, that garner more public attention.?

    The Homeland Security report, produced in coordination with the FBI, counts 24 violent sovereign citizen-related attacks across the U.S. since 2010.

    Well, I’ll agree to a point – sovereign citizens are a greater threat to law enforcement officers than Islamic extremists since the whole philosophy of the sovereign citizens hinges on resisting government authority and law enforcement officers are the public face of government authority. Islamic extremists tend towards attacking innocent people, like the Boston Marathon bombing and they generally avoid law enforcement.

    But this particular report smells like a Southern Poverty Law Center fund raising drive, like all of the others;

    Mark Potok, senior fellow at the Southern Poverty Law Center, said that by some estimates, there are as many as 300,000 people involved in some way with sovereign citizen extremism. Perhaps 100,000 people form a core of the movement, he said.

    Yeah, well, there are approximately 5 million Muslims living in the US, but not all of them are a threat, Potok, so stop fear mongering with your numbers. I’m sure that not all 300,000 sovereign citizens are plotting against the government, even if your number is correct.

    And, oh, by the way, DHS, just because the far, far, far right is plotting against the US government, that doesn’t mean that everyone to the right of the President is a terrorist. Just a reminder.

    Potok says sovereign citizen groups have attracted support because of poor economic conditions. Some groups travel the country pitching their ideology as a way to help homeowners escape foreclosure or get out of debt, by simply ignoring the courts and bankruptcy law.

    So, I guess the only way to cure right wing terrorism is to start a right-wing extremists jobs program. Quick, alert the State Department.

  • Well Now Isn’t That Special

    It looks like our friends at DHS are about to make travel easier and safer again.

    DHS has apparently decided to extend their “trusted traveler” program, Global Entry.  They’re planning to extend it to travelers from Saudi Arabia.

    Participants in the program have to present their passports and fingerprints on entry.  After doing so, they’re allowed to bypass normal customs procedures and checks when entering the US.  Once registered in the program, the status is good for 5 years.

    Now, don’t jump to conclusions.  Just because over 75% (15 of 19) of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis doesn’t mean anything.  Why shouldn’t we give them special entry privileges at customs?

    And what does it matter that only a relative handful of other nations meet program requirements have to do with anything?  Just because even close allies like France and Germany aren’t currently members of the program doesn’t mean Saudi Arabia shouldn’t be.

    Perhaps I should just shut up now, before my ability to be sarcastic escapes me and I start saying what I really think.

    In the words Han Solo:  “I’ve got a bad feeling about this.”