# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This copy is for your personal non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies of Toronto Star content for distribution to colleagues, clients or customers, or inquire about permissions/licensing, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com

# data[].attributes.body
The author writes about the Holy Land Foundation trial, which was "the largest terror-financing trial ever conducted on U.S. soil and led to the conviction of five American Muslims caught sending money and aid t Hamas, a group of anti-Israel, anti-Christian militants recognized by the U.S. State Department as an international terrorist organization."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Today, in federal court in Dallas, U.S. District Judge Jorge A. Solis sentenced the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) and five of its leaders following their convictions by a federal jury in November 2008 on charges of providing material support to Hamas, a designated foreign terrorist organization.

"Today's sentences mark the culmination of many years of painstaking investigative and prosecutorial work at the federal, state and local levels. All those involved in this landmark case deserve our thanks," said David Kris, Assistant Attorney General for National Security. "These sentences should serve as a strong warning to anyone who knowingly provides financial support to terrorists under the guise of humanitarian relief."

HLF was incorporated by Shukri Abu Baker, Mohammad El-Mezain, and Ghassan Elashi. Mufid Abdulqader and Abdulrahman Odeh worked as fund raisers. Together, with others, they provided material support to the Hamas movement.

Shukri Abu Baker, 50, of Garland, Texas, was sentenced to a total of 65 years in prison. He was convicted of 10 counts of conspiracy to provide, and the provision of, material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization; 11 counts of conspiracy to provide, and the provision of, funds, goods and services to a Specially Designated Terrorist; 10 counts of conspiracy to commit, and the commission of, money laundering; one count of conspiracy to impede and impair the Internal Revenue Service (IRS); and one count of filing a false tax return.

Mohammad El-Mezain, 55, of San Diego, California, was sentenced to the statutory maximum of 15 years in prison. He was convicted on one count of conspiracy to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization.

Ghassan Elashi, 55, of Richardson, Texas, was sentenced to a total of 65 years in prison. He was convicted on the same counts as Abu Baker, and one additional count of filing a false tax return.

Mufid Abdulqader, 49, of Richardson, Texas, was sentenced to a total of 20 years in prison. He was convicted on one count of conspiracy to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization, one count of conspiracy to provide goods, funds, and services to a specially designated terrorist, and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering.

Abdulrahman Odeh, 49, of Patterson, New Jersey, was sentenced to 15 years in prison. He was convicted on the same counts as Abdulqader.

HLF, now defunct, was convicted on10 counts of conspiracy to provide, and the provision of, material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization; 11 counts of conspiracy to provide, and the provision of, funds, goods and services to a Specially Designated Terrorist; and 10 counts of conspiracy to commit, and the commission of, money laundering.

The Court reaffirmed the jury's $12.4 million money judgment against all the defendants, with the exception of El Mezain, who was not convicted of money laundering.

From its inception, HLF existed to support Hamas. Before HLF was designed as a Specially Designated Terrorist by the Treasury Department and shut down in December 2001, it was the largest U.S. Muslim charity. It was based in Richardson, Texas, a Dallas suburb. The "material support statute," as it is commonly referred to, was enacted in 1996 as part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. That statute recognizes that money is fungible, and that money in the hands of a terrorist organization - even if for so called charitable purposes - supports that organization's overall terrorist objectives.

The government presented evidence at trial that, as the U.S. began to scrutinize individuals and entities in the U.S. who were raising funds for terrorist groups in the mid-1990s, the HLF intentionally hid its financial support for Hamas behind the guise of charitable donations. HLF and these five defendants provided approximately $12.4 million in support to Hamas and its goal of creating an Islamic Palestinian state by eliminating the State of Israel through violent jihad.

The government's case included testimony that in the early 1990's, Hamas' parent organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, planned to establish a network of organizations in the U.S. to spread a militant Islamist message and raise money for Hamas. The government's case also included testimony about Hamas material found in zakat committees. The defendants sent HLF-raised funds to Hamas-controlled zakat committees and charitable societies in the West Bank and Gaza. Zakat is an Arabic word referring to the religious obligation to give alms.

HLF became the chief fundraising arm for the Palestine Committee in the U.S. created by the Muslim Brotherhood to support Hamas. According to a wiretap of a 1993 Palestine Committee meeting in Philadelphia, former HLF President and CEO Shukri Abu Baker, spoke about playing down their Hamas ties in order to keep raising money in the U.S. Another wiretapped phone call included Abdulrahman Odeh, HLF's New Jersey representative, referring to a suicide bombing as "a beautiful operation."

The government also presented evidence that several HLF defendants have family members who are Hamas leaders, including Hamas' political chief, Mousa Abu Marzook, who is married to a cousin of Ghassan Elashi, HLF's former Chairman of the Board. Ghassan Elashi, who also served as the vice-president of marketing for Infocom Corporation, is currently serving an 80-month sentence following his conviction on several charges related to export violations. Mohammed El-Mezain was HLF's Director of Endowments and Mufid Abdulqater was a major HLF fundraiser. Two named defendants, Akram Mishal and Haitham Maghawri are fugitives.

The defendants provided financial support to the families of Hamas martyrs, detainees, and activists knowing and intending that such assistance would support the Hamas terrorist organization. Since 1995, when it first became illegal to provide financial support to Hamas, HLF provided approximately $12.4 million in funding to Hamas through various Hamas-affiliated committees and organizations located in Palestinian-controlled areas and elsewhere.

During trial, the government also presented evidence that HLF was so concerned about investigators uncovering the group's intentions that they kept a manual entitled "The Foundation's Policies and Procedures." HLF followed various security procedures outlined in the manual to include hiring a security company to search the HLF for listening devices, ordering defendant Haitham Maghawri, a fugitive, to take training on advanced methods in detecting wiretaps, shredding documents after board meetings, and maintaining incriminating documents in off-site locations.

The case was investigated by the Joint Terrorism Task Force, involving agents from federal, state, and local agencies including: FBI, IRS - Criminal Investigation, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Department of State, U.S. Secret Service, U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Division, the Texas Department of Public Safety, and the Dallas, Plano, Garland and Richardson, Texas, Police Departments. In addition, the Department of Justice Criminal Division's Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section provided assistance.

The case was prosecuted by James T. Jacks, acting U.S. Attorney; Barry Jonas, Trial Attorney for the Department of Justice Counter-terrorism Section; and Elizabeth J. Shapiro, Deputy Director, Federal Programs Branch, Department of Justice, serving as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Federal Judge Hands Downs Sentences in Holy Land Foundation Case

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Today, in federal court in Dallas, U.S. District Judge Jorge A. Solis sentenced the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) and five of its leaders following their convictions by a federal jury in November 2008 on charges of providing material support to Hamas, a designated foreign terrorist organization.

# data[].attributes.body
This is the Presidential Executive Order that President Trump created in January of 2017. This is the initial ban on the countries that were potential terrorist threats.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Purpose. The visa-issuance process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States. Perhaps in no instance was that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when State Department policy prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of several of the 19 foreign nationals who went on to murder nearly 3,000 Americans. And while the visa-issuance process was reviewed and amended after the September 11 attacks to better detect would-be terrorists from receiving visas, these measures did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were admitted to the United States.

Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement program. Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States. The United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.

In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including "honor" killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States; and to prevent the admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent purposes.

Sec. 3. Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall immediately conduct a review to determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat.

(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall submit to the President a report on the results of the review described in subsection (a) of this section, including the Secretary of Homeland Security's determination of the information needed for adjudications and a list of countries that do not provide adequate information, within 30 days of the date of this order. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a copy of the report to the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence.

(c) To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).

(d) Immediately upon receipt of the report described in subsection (b) of this section regarding the information needed for adjudications, the Secretary of State shall request all foreign governments that do not supply such information to start providing such information regarding their nationals within 60 days of notification.

(e) After the 60-day period described in subsection (d) of this section expires, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of foreign nationals (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas) from countries that do not provide the information requested pursuant to subsection (d) of this section until compliance occurs.

(f) At any point after submitting the list described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security may submit to the President the names of any additional countries recommended for similar treatment.

(g) Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection (c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential proclamation described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.

(h) The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall submit to the President a joint report on the progress in implementing this order within 30 days of the date of this order, a second report within 60 days of the date of this order, a third report within 90 days of the date of this order, and a fourth report within 120 days of the date of this order.

Sec. 4. Implementing Uniform Screening Standards for All Immigration Programs. (a) The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall implement a program, as part of the adjudication process for immigration benefits, to identify individuals seeking to enter the United States on a fraudulent basis with the intent to cause harm, or who are at risk of causing harm subsequent to their admission. This program will include the development of a uniform screening standard and procedure, such as in-person interviews; a database of identity documents proffered by applicants to ensure that duplicate documents are not used by multiple applicants; amended application forms that include questions aimed at identifying fraudulent answers and malicious intent; a mechanism to ensure that the applicant is who the applicant claims to be; a process to evaluate the applicant's likelihood of becoming a positively contributing member of society and the applicant's ability to make contributions to the national interest; and a mechanism to assess whether or not the applicant has the intent to commit criminal or terrorist acts after entering the United States.

(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the Secretary of State, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of this directive within 60 days of the date of this order, a second report within 100 days of the date of this order, and a third report within 200 days of the date of this order.

Sec. 5. Realignment of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for Fiscal Year 2017. (a) The Secretary of State shall suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days. During the 120-day period, the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland Security and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall review the USRAP application and adjudication process to determine what additional procedures should be taken to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States, and shall implement such additional procedures. Refugee applicants who are already in the USRAP process may be admitted upon the initiation and completion of these revised procedures. Upon the date that is 120 days after the date of this order, the Secretary of State shall resume USRAP admissions only for nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence have jointly determined that such additional procedures are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of the United States.

(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.

(c) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.

(d) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of more than 50,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I determine that additional admissions would be in the national interest.

(e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest - including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship - and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States.

(f) The Secretary of State shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of the directive in subsection (b) of this section regarding prioritization of claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution within 100 days of the date of this order and shall submit a second report within 200 days of the date of this order.

(g) It is the policy of the executive branch that, to the extent permitted by law and as practicable, State and local jurisdictions be granted a role in the process of determining the placement or settlement in their jurisdictions of aliens eligible to be admitted to the United States as refugees. To that end, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall examine existing law to determine the extent to which, consistent with applicable law, State and local jurisdictions may have greater involvement in the process of determining the placement or resettlement of refugees in their jurisdictions, and shall devise a proposal to lawfully promote such involvement.

Sec. 6. Rescission of Exercise of Authority Relating to the Terrorism Grounds of Inadmissibility. The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall, in consultation with the Attorney General, consider rescinding the exercises of authority in section 212 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182, relating to the terrorism grounds of inadmissibility, as well as any related implementing memoranda.

Sec. 7. Expedited Completion of the Biometric Entry-Exit Tracking System. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall expedite the completion and implementation of a biometric entry-exit tracking system for all travelers to the United States, as recommended by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the President periodic reports on the progress of the directive contained in subsection (a) of this section. The initial report shall be submitted within 100 days of the date of this order, a second report shall be submitted within 200 days of the date of this order, and a third report shall be submitted within 365 days of the date of this order. Further, the Secretary shall submit a report every 180 days thereafter until the system is fully deployed and operational.

Sec. 8. Visa Interview Security. (a) The Secretary of State shall immediately suspend the Visa Interview Waiver Program and ensure compliance with section 222 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1202, which requires that all individuals seeking a nonimmigrant visa undergo an in-person interview, subject to specific statutory exceptions.

(b) To the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary of State shall immediately expand the Consular Fellows Program, including by substantially increasing the number of Fellows, lengthening or making permanent the period of service, and making language training at the Foreign Service Institute available to Fellows for assignment to posts outside of their area of core linguistic ability, to ensure that non-immigrant visa-interview wait times are not unduly affected.

Sec. 9. Visa Validity Reciprocity. The Secretary of State shall review all nonimmigrant visa reciprocity agreements to ensure that they are, with respect to each visa classification, truly reciprocal insofar as practicable with respect to validity period and fees, as required by sections 221(c) and 281 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1201(c) and 1351, and other treatment. If a country does not treat United States nationals seeking nonimmigrant visas in a reciprocal manner, the Secretary of State shall adjust the visa validity period, fee schedule, or other treatment to match the treatment of United States nationals by the foreign country, to the extent practicable.

Sec. 10. Transparency and Data Collection. (a) To be more transparent with the American people, and to more effectively implement policies and practices that serve the national interest, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall, consistent with applicable law and national security, collect and make publicly available within 180 days, and every 180 days thereafter:

(i) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been charged with terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; convicted of terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; or removed from the United States based on terrorism-related activity, affiliation, or material support to a terrorism-related organization, or any other national security reasons since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later;

(ii) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been radicalized after entry into the United States and engaged in terrorism-related acts, or who have provided material support to terrorism-related organizations in countries that pose a threat to the United States, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and

(iii) information regarding the number and types of acts of gender-based violence against women, including honor killings, in the United States by foreign nationals, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and

(iv) any other information relevant to public safety and security as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, including information on the immigration status of foreign nationals charged with major offenses.

(b) The Secretary of State shall, within one year of the date of this order, provide a report on the estimated long-term costs of the USRAP at the Federal, State, and local levels.

Sec. 11. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

DONALD J. TRUMP

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Executive Order Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1.

# data[].attributes.headline
2 of ISIS’ Infamous British Fighters Are Captured by Syrian Kurds

# data[].attributes.subject
2 of ISIS’ Infamous British Fighters Are Captured by Syrian Kurds

# data[].attributes.body
This articles explains how The Kurdish fighters from Syria captured 2 British ISIS fighters. The article can be used to give a reason as to why America should ban Muslim entry because they are terrorists.  Both men have been designated foreign terrorists by the United States.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WASHINGTON - Syrian Kurdish fighters have detained two British men infamous for their role in the Islamic State's imprisonment, torture and killing of Western hostages, according to American officials.

The men were part of a group of four Islamic State militants known as the "Beatles" because of their British accents. Officials identified the two men captured as Alexanda Kotey and El Shafee Elsheikh. They were the last two members of the group to remain at large.

The ringleader, Mohammed Emwazi, was killed in an airstrike in 2015 in Syria after an intensive manhunt. Known as "Jihadi John," he beheaded American and British hostages. A fourth man, Aine Davis, is imprisoned in Turkey on terrorism charges.

All four had lived in West London. Mr. Kotey, born in London, is of Ghanaian and Greek Cypriot background, while Mr. Elsheikh's family fled Sudan in the 1990s. Both men have been designated foreign terrorists by the United States.

The British extremists were known for their brutality. They repeatedly beat the hostages they kept imprisoned in Raqqa, Syria, formerly the Islamic State's self-declared capital, and subjected them to waterboarding and mock executions. Mr. Emwazi was believed to have killed the American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff, as well as Abdul-Raham Kassig, an aid worker. The American government says the group beheaded more than 27 hostages.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
united states defense and military forces

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Two Britons Detained in ISIS Torture and Killing of Westerners

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WASHINGTON - Syrian Kurdish fighters have detained two British men infamous for their role in the Islamic State's imprisonment, torture and killing of Western hostages, according to American officials. The men were part of a group of four Islamic State militants known as the "Beatles" because of their British accents.

# data[].attributes.headline
Articles that can be used in second infomercial

# data[].attributes.subject
Articles that can be used in second infomercial

# data[].attributes.headline
Departments of Justice and Homeland Security Release Data for the First Time on Terrorism-Related Activity

# data[].attributes.subject
Departments of Justice and Homeland Security Release Data for the First Time on Terrorism-Related Activity

# data[].attributes.body
This data is from a report released by the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security that states that at least 549 individuals were convicted of international terrorism-related charges, 254 were not U.S. citizens, 148 were foreign-born, naturalized and received U.S. citizenship, and 147 were U.S. citizens by birth.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Today, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released a report, revealing that three out of every four, or 402, individuals convicted of international terrorism-related charges in U.S. federal courts between September 11, 2001, and December 31, 2016 were foreign-born. Over the same period, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement removed approximately 1,716 aliens with national security concerns. Further, in 2017 alone DHS had 2,554 encounters with individuals on the terrorist watch list (also known as the FBI's Terrorist Screening Database) traveling to the United States.

This report was required by Section 11 of President Trump's Executive Order 13780, Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States , which declared that "it is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks, including those committed by foreign nationals," directed a series of actions to enhance the security and safety of the American people. The actions directed by Executive Order have raised the baseline for the vetting and screening of foreign nationals, prevented the entry of malicious actors, and enhanced the safety and security of the American people.

"This report reveals an indisputable sobering reality-our immigration system has undermined our national security and public safety," said Attorney General Sessions. "And the information in this report is only the tip of the iceberg: we currently have terrorism-related investigations against thousands of people in the United States, including hundreds of people who came here as refugees. Our law enforcement professionals do amazing work, but it is simply not reasonable to keep asking them to risk their lives to enforce the law while we admit thousands every year without sufficient knowledge about their backgrounds. The pillars of President Trump's immigration policy-securing our porous borders, moving to a merit-based immigration system that ends the use of diversity visas and chain migration, and enforcing our nation's laws-will make their jobs easier and make the United States a safer place."

"My top priority as Secretary of Homeland Security is to ensure the safety and security of the American people,"said Secretary Nielsen. "This report is a clear reminder of why we cannot continue to rely on immigration policy based on pre-9/11 thinking that leaves us woefully vulnerable to foreign-born terrorists, and why we must examine our visa laws and continue to intensify screening and vetting of individuals traveling to the United States to prevent terrorists, criminals, and other dangerous individuals from reaching our country. Without legislative change, DHS will continue to see thousands of terrorists a year attempt to enter the United States, and while we must be right every time, the terrorists only need to be lucky once. Therefore, DHS has personnel deployed around the world and along our borders working with our global and domestic law enforcement partners to stop terrorists before they enter the homeland."

The report reveals that at least 549 individuals were convicted of international terrorism-related charges in U.S. federal courts between September 11, 2001, and December 31, 2016. An analysis conducted by DHS determined that approximately 73 percent (402 of these 549 individuals) were foreign-born. Breaking down the 549 individuals by citizenship status at the time of their respective convictions reveals that:

According to information available to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), since September 11, 2001, there were approximately 1,716 removals of aliens with national security concerns.

As mentioned above, in FY 2017, DHS encountered 2,554 individuals on the terrorist watchlist (also known as the FBI's Terrorist Screening Database) traveling to the United States. Of those individuals, 335 were attempting to enter by land, 2,170 were attempting to enter by air, and 49 were attempting to enter by sea. Where consistent with the law, such individuals are denied entry into the United States, while in some cases law enforcement authorities are notified and can take appropriate action.

From October 1, 2011, to September 30, 2017, a total of 355,345 non-U.S. citizen offenders, were administratively arrested after previously being convicted of an aggravated felony, as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43), or two or more crimes each punishable by more than one year (felony offenses). During that same period, a total of 372,098 non-U.S. citizen offenders were removed from the United States after conviction of an aggravated felony or two or more felonies.

Data from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate shows that between 2007 and 2017, USCIS referred 45,858 foreign nationals who applied for immigration benefits to ICE for criminal or civil enforcement action, based on information indicating that such foreign nationals had committed egregious public safety-related offenses within the United States.

Between FY 2010 and FY 2016, CBP identified and prevented the boarding of 73,261 foreign travelers on flights destined for the United States, who may have presented an immigration or security risk.

In October, the Trump Administration sent to Congress a list of legislative priorities that would enhance our national security-such as eliminating the diversity visa lottery and extended family chain migration, funding the wall, closing loopholes in our asylum system, combatting visa overstays, and closing other loopholes in existing law that potentially benefit aliens who pose threats to our national security.
Background on the Executive Order
Section 11 of Executive Order requires the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, to collect and make publicly available the following information:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
DOJ, DHS Report: Three Out of Four Individuals Convicted of International Terrorism and Terrorism-Related Offenses were Foreign-Born

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Today, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released a report, revealing that three out of every four, or 402, individuals convicted of international terrorism-related charges in U.S. federal courts between September 11, 2001, and December 31, 2016 were foreign-born. Over the same period, U.S.

# data[].attributes.headline
Trump lifts refugee ban, but admissions still plummet, data shows

# data[].attributes.subject
Trump lifts refugee ban, but admissions still plummet, data shows

# data[].attributes.body
This article explains that since the lifting of Trump's complete travel ban, the number of refugees entering the countries has dropped. The main countries that aren't sending refugees are the 11 countries that were a part of that ban. They are now subjected to 90 days of additional scrutiny, which in the end leads to their applications being denied or them having to wait too long for them to be accepted.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In late October, President Donald Trump lifted a temporary ban on most refugee admissions, a move that should have cleared the way for more people fleeing persecution and violence to come to the United States.

Instead, the number of refugees admitted to the country has plummeted. In the five weeks after the ban was lifted, 40 percent fewer people were allowed in than in the last five weeks it was in place, according to a Reuters analysis of State Department data. That plunge has gone almost unnoticed.

As he lifted the ban, Trump instituted new rules for tougher vetting of applicants and also effectively halted, at least for now, the entry of refugees from 11 countries deemed as high risk. The latter move has contributed significantly to the precipitous drop in the number of refugees being admitted.

The data shows that the Trump administration's new restrictions have proven to be a far greater barrier to refugees than even his temporary ban, which was limited in scope by the Supreme Court.

The State Department data shows that the kind of refugees being allowed in has also changed. A far smaller portion are Muslim. When the ban was in place they made up a quarter of all refugees. Now that it has been lifted they represent just under 10 percent.

Admissions over five weeks is a limited sample from which to draw broad conclusions, and resettlement numbers often pick up later in the fiscal year, which began in October. But the sharp drop has alarmed refugee advocates.

"They're pretty much shutting the refugee program down without having to say that's what they're doing," said Eric Schwartz, president of Refugees International. "They've gotten better at using bureaucratic methods and national security arguments to achieve nefarious and unjustifiable objectives."

Trump administration officials say the temporary ban on refugees, and the new security procedures that followed, served to protect Americans from potential terrorist attacks.

Supporters of the administration's move also argue that the refugee program needed reform and that making it more stringent will ultimately strengthen it.

"The program needed to be tightened up," said Joshua Meservey, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, who formerly worked in refugee resettlement in Africa. "I'm all for strengthening the vetting, cracking down on the fraud, being really intentional on who we select for this, because I think it protects the program ultimately when we do that."

A State Department official attributed the drop in refugee admissions to increased vetting, reviews aimed at identifying potential threats, and a smaller annual refugee quota this year of 45,000, the lowest level in decades.

"Refugee admissions rarely happen at a steady pace and in many years start out low and increase throughout the year. It would be premature to assess (the 2018 fiscal year's) pace at this point," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Trump has made controlling immigration a centerpiece of his presidency, citing both a desire to protect American jobs and national security. During the 2016 presidential campaign he said Syrian refugees could be aligned with Islamist militants and promised "extreme vetting" of applicants.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

NEW RULES, MORE INFO

After the ban was lifted the new rules imposed included a requirement that refugees provide 10 years of biographical information, rather than five years, a pause in a program that allows for family reunification, and a "detailed threat analysis and review" of refugees from 11 countries. A Department of Homeland Security spokesman said that 90-day review began on Oct. 25, the day after Trump lifted the ban.

Officials have said that during the review period, refugees from Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Mali, North Korea, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria and Yemen will be allowed in on a case by case basis, but they have also said priority will be given to other applicants.

For each of the last three years, refugees from the 11 countries made up more than 40 percent of U.S. admissions. While nine of the 11 countries are majority Muslim, it is often their religious minorities, including Christians and Jews, who seek asylum in the United States.

And in practice, of the 11 countries only Iran, Iraq, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan and Syria produce refugees who resettle in the United States in meaningful numbers.

Trump administration officials have said the 90-day review does not amount to a bar on refugees from the 11 countries. But just as the review launched, the number of refugees coming from those countries ceased almost entirely.

In the five weeks before the ban was lifted, 587 refugees from the 11 countries were allowed in, despite tough eligibility rules, according to the Reuters review of the State Department data. In the five weeks after Trump lifted the ban, just 15 refugees from those countries were allowed in.

From all countries, 1,469 refugees were admitted to the United States in the five weeks between Oct. 25 and Nov. 28, according to the State Department data. That was 41 percent lower than during the final five weeks of the ban, when nearly 2,500 refugees gained entry.

Just 9 percent of refugees admitted to the United States between Oct. 25 and Nov. 28 were Muslim, and 63 percent were Christian. In the five weeks prior, 26 percent were Muslim and 55 percent were Christian.

More refugees were allowed in during the period the temporary refugee ban was in place because the Supreme Court, in okaying the ban in June, required refugees with "bona fide" ties to the United States be exempted. The new rules have been challenged in court, but no rulings have yet been issued.

IN LIMBO

Each twist in U.S. refugee policy has left Alireza, a gay Iranian refugee living in Turkey, confused, desperate for information, and less hopeful he will ever make it to the United States.

Alireza, 34, had already been interviewed by U.S. officials and was on track for resettlement when Trump issued his first refugee ban in January. He declined to share his last name because his family does not know he is gay, but he shared documents with Reuters on his case to confirm his identity and refugee status.

When Trump's ban was initially blocked by federal courts, Alireza was able to continue the vetting process and was close to the point of being resettled. Then came the Supreme Court ruling reinstating the ban, and then the new restrictions replacing the ban. As a refugee from one of the 11 countries targeted for additional scrutiny, he is once again in limbo.

Alireza questions the national security logic of the new review. He and his boyfriend of 13 years fled to Turkey in 2014 after facing harassment, beatings and extortion in Iran. Human rights groups say that discriminatory laws in Iran against sexual minorities put them at risk of harassment and violence.

In Turkey, he said, they scrape by with unstable part-time work and feel threatened by what they see as a rise in anti-gay sentiment in Turkish society.

"We ourselves have been hurt by the Islamist system in Iran," he said in a recent telephone interview from Eskisehir, in northwestern Turkey. "Why would we suffer for three years (in Turkey) so that we could come to America and commit terrorism?"

Reporting by Yeganeh Torbati; Editing by Sue Horton and Ross Colvin

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump lifts refugee ban, but admissions still plummet, data shows

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In late October, President Donald Trump lifted a temporary ban on most refugee admissions, a move that should have cleared the way for more people fleeing persecution and violence to come to the United States. Instead, the number of refugees admitted to the country has plummeted.

# data[].attributes.headline
MIT President Says Immigrant Travel Ban Will Hurt U.S. Economy

# data[].attributes.subject
MIT President Says Immigrant Travel Ban Will Hurt U.S. Economy

# data[].attributes.body
This article is about the travel ban, and how the ban will lose the country money in the long run. This article says that 40 percent of the graduates at MIT are foreigners, and that graduates had companies that generated about $2 trillion a year. The ban would discourage people from traveling, even for school, and lose money for the U.S.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If higher education is under attack from restrictive U.S. immigration policies, the president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology considers it a personal battle.

Rafael Reif, an immigrant from Venezuela, has emerged as a vocal critic of President Donald Trump in the past year, initially responding to the White House travel ban targeting Muslim-majority countries. Reif, 67, has spoken out more recently against a tax overhaul that includes a levy on endowments of large, private colleges.

"What happens, thanks to these immigrants, are places like MIT help the American economy -- that has to be understood," Reif said in a wide-ranging interview to air Wednesday on Bloomberg TV. "The whole nation will hurt with this perception that we are not as welcoming as we used to be."

Biotech Center

MIT has become the center of a booming biotech economy in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Graduates have started more than 30,000 companies that generate $2 trillion of revenue annually, he said. Last year, the university completed a $750 million deal with the federal government to purchase a 14-acre tract in Kendall Square that will be transformed to support even more startups, Reif said.

MIT filed seven amicus briefs last year opposing the travel ban, which the U.S. Supreme Court allowed to take effect last month. Travel to the U.S is restricted from eight countries, including Venezuela. The university also filed a brief in support of a court challenge to Trump's decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which protected undocumented immigrants from deportation if they were brought to the U.S. as children.

Reif, who moved to the U.S. to attend Stanford University in 1974, said he believes the policies will harm the ability of top schools like MIT to attract the best students from around the world. Foreigners make up more than 40 percent of graduate students at MIT.

"When you hurt MIT, you hurt the country," he said. "The world is competitive and there are opportunities elsewhere."
Read more on how much endowment tax may cost MIT, Harvard
Reif, who was promoted to president from provost in 2012, called the endowment tax a "budget cut" for the country's wealthier schools that represents "a very big misunderstanding" of what higher education does for the economy. The 1.4 percent levy on net investment income at nonprofit universities with more than 500 students and more than $500,000 of endowment-per-student applies to MIT and a few dozen other colleges.

MIT will pay an estimated $10 million a year based on the endowment's average investment returns over the past five years, school officials said.

"I don't think they want to be at war," he said of Republicans who backed the levy on wealthy schools. "It sounds to me that they just don't understand our role."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
MIT President Says Immigrant Travel Ban Will Hurt U.S. Economy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If higher education is under attack from restrictive U.S. immigration policies, the president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology considers it a personal battle. Rafael Reif, an immigrant from Venezuela, has emerged as a vocal critic of President Donald Trump in the past year, initially responding to the White House travel ban targeting Muslim-majority countries.

# data[].attributes.headline
Supreme Court Allows Trump Travel Ban to take Effect

# data[].attributes.subject
Supreme Court Allows Trump Travel Ban to take Effect

# data[].attributes.body
This article is about the third and newest of President Trump's travel bans. It bans travel from Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Chad and North Korea for most people, and certain groups of people in Venezuela. This ban's goal is to provide 'more protection' for the American people from possible threats.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Supreme Court's orders effectively overturned a compromise in place since June, when the court said travelers with connections to the United States could continue to travel here notwithstanding restrictions in an earlier version of the ban.

The orders gave no reasons for the court's shift. The move did suggest that the administration's chances of prevailing at the Supreme Court when the justices consider the lawfulness of the latest ban have markedly increased.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions called the order "a substantial victory for the safety and security of the American people." A spokesman for the White House, Hogan Gidley, said, "We are not surprised by today's Supreme Court decision," calling it "lawful and essential to protecting our homeland."

The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents people and groups challenging the ban, said it would continue to argue against the ban as challenges against it in lower appeals courts proceed.

"President Trump's anti-Muslim prejudice is no secret - he has repeatedly confirmed it, including just last week on Twitter," said Omar Jadwat, director of the A.C.L.U.'s Immigrants' Rights Project. "It's unfortunate that the full ban can move forward for now, but this order does not address the merits of our claims."

In a pair of filings in the Supreme Court, Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco said Mr. Trump had acted under his broad constitutional and statutory authority to control immigration when he issued a new proclamation in September announcing the new travel restrictions.

Mr. Francisco wrote that the process leading to the proclamation was more deliberate than those that had led to earlier bans, issued in January and March. Those orders were temporary measures, he wrote, while the proclamation was the product of extensive study and deliberation.

Lawyers with the A.C.L.U. told the justices that little had changed. "The proclamation is the third order the president has signed this year banning more than 100 million individuals from Muslim-majority nations from coming to the United States," they wrote.

In October, federal judges in Maryland and Hawaii blocked major parts of the latest ban while legal challenges proceed.

"A nationality-based travel ban against eight nations consisting of over 150 million people is unprecedented," wrote Judge Theodore D. Chuang of the Federal District Court in Maryland. Citing statements from Mr. Trump, some made as a presidential candidate and some more recent, Judge Chuang found that the new proclamation was tainted by religious animus and most likely violated the Constitution's prohibition of government establishment of religion.

Similarly, Judge Derrick K. Watson of the Federal District Court in Honolulu found that the September proclamation "suffers from precisely the same maladies as its predecessor," adding that it "plainly discriminates based on nationality" in violation of federal law "and the founding principles of this nation."

The administration has appealed both decisions to federal appeals courts in Seattle and Richmond, Va. Arguments in those appeals are scheduled for this week.

Judge Chuang limited his injunction to exclude people without "a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States," quoting from a Supreme Court order issued in June concerning the second travel ban. Judge Watson did not impose such a limitation, but an appeals court modified his injunction, also quoting the Supreme Court's language.

Lawyers for Hawaii, which is challenging the ban, told the justices that there was no reason to make changes now.

"Less than six months ago, this court considered and rejected a stay request indistinguishable from the one the government now presses," they wrote. "But the justification for that dramatic relief has only weakened. In place of a temporary ban on entry, the president has imposed an indefinite one, deepening and prolonging the harms a stay would inflict."

Mr. Francisco asked the justices to allow every part of the third ban to go into effect. The second version of the travel ban, he wrote, "involved temporary procedures before the review was conducted and in the absence of a presidential determination concerning the adequacy of foreign governments' information-sharing and identity-management practices."

"Now that the review has been completed and identified ongoing deficiencies in the information needed to assess nationals of particular countries," he wrote, "additional restrictions are needed."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Supreme Court Allows Trump Travel Ban to Take Effect

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Supreme Court's orders effectively overturned a compromise in place since June, when the court said travelers with connections to the United States could continue to travel here notwithstanding restrictions in an earlier version of the ban. The orders gave no reasons for the court's shift.

# data[].attributes.headline
U.S. Presses More Cities, States on Immigrant 'Sanctuary' Policies

# data[].attributes.subject
U.S. Presses More Cities, States on Immigrant 'Sanctuary' Policies

# data[].attributes.body
This article talks about the "sanctuary" cities in the country, and how the government and the Department of Justice has cut funding to those cities and how some cities are responding with lawsuits because they believe that they shouldn't have funding cuts. The article seems very unbiased.

# data[].attributes.body
This article is talking about the visa lottery, which means that certain countries with more than 50,000 American immigrants in five years can't send anymore immigrants, but, any other country can join a "lottery" to be able to send new immigrants. The author seemed like the plan was a good idea, but didn't seem very biased.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Donald Trump's immigration agenda is pretty good. Pity Donald Trump is in charge of it.

As he draws near the end of his first year in office, President Trump has delivered approximately squat: no Obamacare repeal, no tax reform, no economic turnaround, no radical reconfiguration of trade relations, no big check from Enrique Peña Nieto to pay for a border wall. Bupkis. Nada. Jack. Zero. Zilch. Zip. Diddly. Sporting lint in the way of accomplishments.

But it was immigration that galvanized the Trump movement, and there is still time for the president to get that right. Unfortunately, that means there's still time for him to get it wrong. And with the headlines of the moment keeping the dancing rage monkeys of radio and cable news busy mouthing excuses for 32-year-old assistant district attorneys who hook up with underage girls while Mom is inside the courthouse for a custody hearing - well played, Republicans! - it is easy to forget that immigration is the one subject upon which the Trump administration has developed something like a coherent and substantive policy agenda.

Item No. 1, after the horrifying act of terrorism in New York City that the nation seems to have almost entirely forgotten in the course of two weeks, is getting rid of the "diversity lottery."

The diversity lottery is emblematic of our wrongheaded thinking about immigration. Here's the way it works: Countries that have sent lots of immigrants to the United States (more than 50,000 over five years) are put on an exclusion list, and the rest of the world gets to enter an immigration sweepstakes in which first prize is an immigration visa for the United States. Those are much coveted, because there aren't a lot of other ways for people who do not already have family in the United States or highly prized work skills to immigrate. So, Canadians are out of luck, along with Mexicans, Colombians, Vietnamese, Indians, and those pesky Englishmen who have for generations been packed into the squalid Anglo-Saxon ghettos that mar so many of our otherwise fair cities with their tea and cricket and ironic diffidence.

On the other hand, the Trump administration complains, the diversity program has been used to bring in 30,000 new permanent residents from countries that are designated state sponsors of terrorism by our government. Beyond the State Department's naughty list, the Trump administration is skeptical about immigration from the Islamic world in general, and not without reason. The Islamic State groupie who carried out the Halloween terror attack in Manhattan was here on one of those diversity visas - not the lottery we want to win. With all due respect for the glorious cultural and scientific achievements of Uzbekistan, we can do without that kind of diversity.

Immigration is one of the few areas where the policy agenda actually could use a dose of Trump's "America first" politics, daft and dim as his application of it often is. Even in a world full of unhappy places, horrifying governments, refugees, genocides, crimes against humanity, poverty, oppression, and persecution, the obligation of the government of the United States of America is to the people of the United States of America, not to the people of Uzbekistan or Syria or Burma. The United States does more than any country in the world - in the history of the world - to help the poor and the oppressed around the world, both through government action and through private endeavor. But immigration policy isn't philanthropy, and it isn't meant to be.

It may be the case that the United States would benefit from the immigration of a few thousand Indian doctors, South African entrepreneurs, and highly educated and highly skilled people from around the world. The Islamic State terrorist who murdered those people in New York was a trucker and Uber driver. There isn't a national crisis upon us related to a dearth of truckers, and no one expects one.

Beyond the diversity lottery, the Trump administration wants to limit or eliminate "chain migration," the process by which new immigrants are able to sponsor the immigration of family members from back home, who in turn sponsor more family members, etc., in an exponential progression. Oversight of that isn't exactly robust, and fraud is not uncommon. It has resulted in, among other things, an aging immigrant population: One in five family members brought in through chain immigration is more than 50 years old. The entitlement-based case for high levels of immigration - that young workers will support federal programs for aging Americans - doesn't hold up very well when you throw in a lot of grandparents.

As I travel around the country, I do not see any great shortage of poor people, and there does not seem to be much of a case for importing them.

Policymaking is an activity dominated by highly educated professionals. It is not entirely lost on the Right's newly energized populists that immigration is skewed away from those who are likely to compete with the lawyers and professors who dominate the public-policy discourse, and takes a much more generous view of the immigrants who are likely to be cutting their lawns or driving their Ubers. That should probably be reversed. Highly productive societies need highly productive people, which in the 21st century means highly skilled and educated people. I am not very confident of the government's ability to foresee exactly what the labor market needs - this many software engineers, that many architects - but as I travel around the country, I do not see any great shortage of poor people, and there does not seem to be much of a case for importing them.

Ending the diversity lottery, reducing chain migration, choosing immigrants with American interests foremost in mind: There's a lot to be said for Donald Trump's immigration agenda. Too bad some idiot entrusted it to Donald Trump.

READ MORE:
Diversity-Visa Lottery Is a Jackpot for Immigrants from Terror States
Diversity Lottery Visa Program - Immigration Goals Not Accomplished
Can We Finally Get Rid of the Visa Lottery?

- Kevin D. Williamson is NR 's roving correspondent.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Donald Trump's immigration agenda is pretty good. Pity Donald Trump is in charge of it. As he draws near the end of his first year in office, President Trump has delivered approximately squat: no Obamacare repeal, no tax reform, no economic turnaround, no radical reconfiguration of trade relations, no big check from Enrique Peña Nieto to pay for a border wall.

# data[].attributes.headline
10-Year Old Immigrant Who Was Detained After Surgery

# data[].attributes.subject
10-Year Old Immigrant Who Was Detained After Surgery

# data[].attributes.body
This article was about a 10-year old girl who had cerebral palsy who was rushed across the border to a hospital in Texas for emergency gallbladder surgery. She was detained in part because she was a minor crossing by herself and because she didn't have any papers. She had been traveling across the border illegally to seek medical treatment for her cerebral palsy, and her family had found help in a government program.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Of the next step in her case, he added, "There's really no reason to be targeting Rosa Maria for deportation," given her age and condition.

#FreeRosa https://t.co/su6AVAU2R1
- Lin-Manuel Miranda (@Lin_Manuel) Nov. 3, 2017

Her parents brought her across the border illegally from Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, in 2007, when she was 3 months old, seeking better access to medical treatment for her cerebral palsy. Those hopes were realized: A government program for children with special needs has been covering her therapies, a fact that supporters of tougher immigration enforcement have seized on as evidence for the argument that unauthorized immigrants are a drain on resources.

Rosa Maria's release follows days of public pressure and an A.C.L.U. lawsuit. The government had argued that the girl should be treated as an unaccompanied minor, like the other occupants of the facility where she was held, most of whom have come to the United States alone from Central America. Unaccompanied minors are generally released to family members already living in the United States while their deportation cases travel through the immigration courts.

Her lawyers, however, had argued that it was unnecessary to follow the family reunification process, which involves background checks and other steps, given that her parents lived just 150 miles away in Laredo.

"Finally, Rosa Maria has been released to her family where she belongs," Representative Joaquin Castro, a Democrat who represents the San Antonio area, said in a statement on Friday evening. "This young girl and her loved ones have been through a traumatizing ordeal."

He added: "The United States should not be a place where children seeking life-sustaining medical care are at risk of apprehension."

Rosa Maria was first taken into immigration custody last week, after an ambulance carrying her to a children's hospital in Corpus Christi for emergency gallbladder surgery was stopped at one of the Border Patrol checkpoints north of the border. When Border Patrol agents discovered that she did not have legal status, they followed the ambulance to the hospital, stood guard outside her hospital room and turned her over to immigration custody after her release.

The federal Health Department, which oversaw Rosa Maria's placement in the juvenile facility, said Friday that it could not comment on her case because of privacy rules.

Customs and Border Protection, the agency that includes the Border Patrol, has said that the agents were legally obligated to detain her in part because she was not traveling with a parent or legal guardian. Though some immigrant advocates questioned whether the agency had violated its policy against arresting immigrants at hospitals, a spokesman said that the agents had taken her into custody at the checkpoint, before she arrived at the hospital.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10-Year-Old Immigrant Who Was Detained After Surgery Is Released

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Of the next step in her case, he added, "There's really no reason to be targeting Rosa Maria for deportation," given her age and condition. Her parents brought her across the border illegally from Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, in 2007, when she was 3 months old, seeking better access to medical treatment for her cerebral palsy.

# data[].attributes.headline
Opposing Views on Granting Illegal Immigrants amnesty

# data[].attributes.subject
Opposing Views on Granting Illegal Immigrants amnesty

# data[].attributes.body
This article gives examples of what granting amnesty to illegal immigrants does, and warning about the repercussions of doing so.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Log In | Tacoma Public Library | BiblioCommons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explore Tacoma Public Library. New titles, recently rated, and recently tagged by the library community.

# data[].attributes.body
This article talks about the influx of immigrants Europe, and how the European Union is creating a "fund" to pay African countries to stop illegal immigration and smuggling.

# data[].attributes.headline
Trump's Argument Against Immigrants: We've Heard It Before

# data[].attributes.subject
Trump's Argument Against Immigrants: We've Heard It Before

# data[].attributes.body
This article shows that what Pres. Trump is doing with immigration has happened before. This article seems to be more pro-immigration.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
But Californians, like many other Americans, chafed at border controls they deemed too lax. The referendum passed by a margin of nearly 3 to 2. Legal challenges stopped it in its tracks, though. A mortal blow was delivered when a federal judge in Los Angeles ruled in 1997 that the proposition was an unconstitutional "legislative scheme to regulate immigration," a sphere that judge said was solely the domain of the federal government.

But even if it never took effect, Proposition 187 cast a long shadow. Similar measures enjoyed support in other states that were magnets for immigrants, including Arizona, Florida, New York and Texas. Gov. Pete Wilson of California, a Republican who made the initiative a centerpiece of his 1994 re-election campaign, described it as " the two-by-four we need " to get Washington to pay heed to the flow of undocumented newcomers into the country.

Washington did pay attention. In the mid-1990s, with Republicans in control of Congress and President Clinton tacking more to the right, tougher immigration policies took shape. Fences were built and patrols stepped up. Deportations rose. "They were scared to death of what Prop 187 symbolized," Roberto Suro, a professor of public policy and journalism at the University of Southern California and former New York Times journalist, told Retro Report. The greater aggressiveness of the 1990s, he said, created "the basis for the large-scale removals that we've experienced in this country for the last 10 years." Those removals reached a peak under President Barack Obama, described disapprovingly by some critics as the deporter-in-chief.

Now here is Mr. Trump, who built his presidential run on a promise to build a border wall, and who began his campaign by attacking Mexico as supposedly an exporter of rapists and other criminals. As in 1994 California, the anger is directed powerfully at those arriving without documentation. Last month, though suggesting he was open to compromise, the president announced he would end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, the Obama-era program that protected immigrants who were brought to this country illegally as children.

The Trump assault, however, extends to all forms of immigration. In August, he embraced proposals to cut lawful entries in half over the next decade. Preference would be given to people possessing special skills and higher education - hardly the tired, the poor and the wretched refuse embraced in " The New Colossus," the Emma Lazarus poem affixed to Miss Liberty's base.

Two weeks ago, Trump administration officials disclosed their intention to cap refugee admissions at 45,000 over the next year. That would be the lowest ceiling, by far, since a 1980 law gave the president authority to help set limits on those searching for a haven from persecution in their own countries.

Surveys show that Mr. Trump's "America first" sloganeering helped him eke out victories in November in critical swing states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, where some longer-term residents are uncomfortable with rising numbers of Latino newcomers. Sudden diversity is rarely simple. For some, it is scary.

But California in the wake of Proposition 187 may point to where the country as a whole is headed. The most populous state has undergone a profound demographic shift since the mid-1990s. Latinos now have a plurality; they and Asian-Americans combined are the majority. Non-Hispanic whites account for less than 40 percent.

As the video shows, Latinos in California are registering to vote in ever larger numbers, though whites are still more likely to go to the polls. The Latino representation in the legislature grows as well, to include prominent figures like State Senator Kevin de León. He said that many Californians, and not just Latinos, have had "enough with the scapegoating" of certain ethnic groups whenever the state has economic or other troubles.

Now California is cerulean blue politically, and there lies a cautionary tale for Republicans. With demographics changing almost everywhere, they may yet find that the short-term gain of the Trump 2016 victory comes at their long-term expense.

Still, dispelling xenophobia is no easy matter: "Immigration is one of those touchy issues for Americans that can suddenly turn ugly and flower into a major national argument." That was from Charles Wheeler, speaking in 1994 as executive director of the National Center on Immigrant Rights. What he said then remains true today.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump's Argument Against Immigrants: We've Heard It Before

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
But Californians, like many other Americans, chafed at border controls they deemed too lax. The referendum passed by a margin of nearly 3 to 2. Legal challenges stopped it in its tracks, though.