Democratic congresswoman secretly sending staff into Mexico to coach asylum-seekers

  
Via:  vic-eldred  •  2 weeks ago  •  47 comments

Democratic congresswoman secretly sending staff into Mexico to coach asylum-seekers
“Resources are being diverted into a foreign country in an attempt to reverse already-decided legal action, meaning these people were found inadmissible under a new program and they must remain in Mexico. They’re trying to subvert that,” the official said.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


A Democratic congresswoman is sending staff to Mexico’s northern border town of Ciudad Juárez to find migrants returned from El Paso, Texas, under the “remain in Mexico” policy, then coaching them to pretend they cannot speak Spanish to exploit a loophole letting them to return to the U.S.

The National Border Patrol Council’s El Paso chapter and several Customs and Border Protection personnel told the Washington Examiner aides to Rep. Veronica Escobar, who took over 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke’s district, and the local Catholic diocese have interviewed thousands of migrants in Juarez over the past few weeks to find cases where Department of Homeland Security officials may have wrongly returned people.

“What we believe is happening is Veronica Escobar’s office is going … to basically second-guess and obstruct work already done by the Border Patrol,” said one senior union official, who shared evidence with the Washington Examiner from concerned CBP managers and rank-and-file members. Those documents have been held to protect identities.

Under the bilateral Migration Protection Protocols, or “Remain in Mexico” policy, anyone returned must be fluent in Spanish because they may have to reside in Mexico up to five years until a U.S. federal judge decides their asylum claim. A Democratic politician's aides reescorting people back to the port are telling officers the Central American individual with them cannot speak Spanish despite their having communicated in it days earlier, CBP officials said.

“What we’re hearing from management is that they’re attempting to return people, and the story was changed in Mexico, where a person who understood Spanish before now doesn’t understand — where a person who didn’t have any health issues before now has health issues," the union representative said.

Escobar's team has sought interviews with 6,000 people who were returned last month, according to one CBP official. The union learned from an intelligence unit within CBP that those doing the interviews are wearing recording devices during the interviews to tape conversations and possibly listen back later.

“They went through and interviewed everybody, cherry-picked them, brought them back, and now are using them as tag lines. They’re going over there and manufacturing a lot of these issues,” said the union official.

All three border officials worried the interviews might be used to suggest the Border Patrol is wrongfully turning away a large number of asylum-seekers.

“We had finally found a happy medium ‘cause we always get crapped on when it comes to immigration laws, and then they’re finding loopholes to bring them back,” the second official said.

Mark H. Metcalf, a former federal immigration judge during the George W. Bush administration, said the involvement of Escobar's office was likely "more of a stunt than a genuine threat to the integrity of the process."

"She's trying to obviously say these people have been wrongly denied their claims and they're waiting when they shouldn't be," said Metcalf.

However, he said a criminal case would exist if Escobar were found to be complicit in an effort to perpetrate a fraud, which would have to include knowingly injecting false statements during interviews, follow-up conversations, and documents presented to U.S. officials.

A Department of Homeland Security official aware of the situation said Democrats, nonprofit organizations, and 2020 hopefuls "are furious that these migrants" are not permitted to "await their court dates in the U.S., where they have the opportunity to disappear and slip into the interior never to be seen again."

"By opposing a system that assists migrants and speeds wait times, these individuals are exposing a cause that looks more like a cover story for their political motivations. Any efforts to subvert and obstruct federal law enforcement operations should receive a full review," the Homeland Security official said in a text.

?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmediadc.brightspotcdn

In one incident, an Escobar aide and diocese official walked a male migrant over the bridge in June and asked for him to be admitted into the U.S. because they had found he had "cognitive disabilities." Officers took the boy and turned the case over to the Border Patrol, where an agent found a Constituent Information and Privacy Release Form with the U.S. House of Representatives seal on it inside the 17-year-old's file. Two officials said the paper would have to have been put in his file while he was interviewed in Mexico and was not supposed to have been left there because it would reveal to the Border Patrol that a member of Congress or their staff was meeting with migrants in Mexico.

The boy has since returned to Mexico because the medical condition was not diagnosed by a medical professional but by an aide of the congresswoman, one official said Friday.

“Management saw that form and was like, ‘What is this?’ and reached out to our International Liaison Unit. And ILU said, ‘Yes, Veronica Escobar and several other politicians are in Mexico trying to defeat the MPP program,'" the union said.

Officials only discussed one port of entry in El Paso but said they knew of three other incidents where Escobar's aides had walked back a “Remain in Mexico” program recipient.

In another confirmed case, a female migrant was brought back to the port after claiming to have been raped in Juarez.

The union official said the onslaught of interviews suggests federal resources are being misspent.

“Resources are being diverted into a foreign country in an attempt to reverse already-decided legal action, meaning these people were found inadmissible under a new program and they must remain in Mexico. They’re trying to subvert that,” the official said.


Escobar's office did not return a request for comment.




  July 05, 2019 06:20 PM




Article is Locked

Find text within the comments Find 
 
Vic Eldred
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    2 weeks ago

Liberals are doing everything they can to bring people into the country. Power resides in countering the American voter.

Trump is off topic

Race is off topic

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
2  Buzz of the Orient    2 weeks ago

Seems to me they are doing whatever is both legal and illegal in a desperate attempt to harvest as many votes as possible - the story needs to be told to the public but don't expect the left-leaning media to spread it effectively.  I'm sure that the more America hears about these stories of subversion, the more it will increase the resolve of legal American voters.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1  Dulay  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2    2 weeks ago
Seems to me they are doing whatever is both legal and illegal in a desperate attempt to harvest as many votes as possible - the story needs to be told to the public but don't expect the left-leaning media to spread it effectively.

How about you spread it by telling me how does allowing asylum seekers into the country harvest votes Buzz? 

I'm sure that the more America hears about these stories of subversion, the more it will increase the resolve of legal American voters.

Well I'm sure the more Americans would rather have the FACTS. Trump and his sycophants whine about 'unnamed sources' and that's all this seed has. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
2.1.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Dulay @2.1    2 weeks ago

Read the article.  They are sneaking unqualified or already refused asylum seekers into the country.

I believe that an article on "vote harvesting" was recently posted on NT. Did you read it?

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.2  Dulay  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.1.1    2 weeks ago
Read the article.  They are sneaking unqualified or already refused asylum seekers into the country.

Yes, I read the article and NOWHERE does it say that ANYONE 'sneaked unqualified or already refused asylum seekers into the country.' 

In FACT it clearly states that they were turned over to the CBP. 

I believe that an article on "vote harvesting" was recently posted on NT. Did you read it?

I didn't ask you about some article, I asked you about YOUR posit. Please support it. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.1.1    2 weeks ago

Gee, wouldn't telling people to lie in order to be admitted to the US be considered bad by most if not all patriotic Americans?

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @2.1.2    2 weeks ago
Yes, I read the article and NOWHERE does it say that ANYONE 'sneaked unqualified or already refused asylum seekers into the country.'

"Resources are being diverted into a foreign country in an attempt to reverse already-decided legal action, meaning these people were found inadmissible under a new program and they must remain in Mexico. They’re trying to subvert that,” the official said."

In FACT it clearly states that they were turned over to the CBP.

Pretty hard to turn anyone over to CBP unless they have been brought into the US already.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.5  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.3    2 weeks ago
Gee, wouldn't telling people to lie in order to be admitted to the US be considered bad by most if not all patriotic Americans?

Gee, where did you see any evidence in the seed that proves that an asylum seeker LIED to ANYONE? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @2.1.5    2 weeks ago
Gee, where did you see any evidence in the seed that proves that an asylum seeker LIED to ANYONE?

Sigh,

"A Democratic congresswoman is sending staff to Mexico’s northern border town of Ciudad Juárez to find migrants returned from El Paso, Texas, under the “remain in Mexico” policy, then coaching them to pretend they cannot speak Spanish to exploit a loophole letting them to return to the U.S."

And:

"In one incident, an Escobar aide and diocese official walked a male migrant over the bridge in June and asked for him to be admitted into the U.S. because they had found he had "cognitive disabilities." Officers took the boy and turned the case over to the Border Patrol, where an agent found a Constituent Information and Privacy Release Form with the U.S. House of Representatives seal on it inside the 17-year-old's file. Two officials said the paper would have to have been put in his file while he was interviewed in Mexico and was not supposed to have been left there because it would reveal to the Border Patrol that a member of Congress or their staff was meeting with migrants in Mexico.
The boy has since returned to Mexico because the medical condition was not diagnosed by a medical professional but by an aide of the congresswoman, one official said Friday."

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.7  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.4    2 weeks ago
"Resources are being diverted into a foreign country in an attempt to reverse already-decided legal action, meaning these people were found inadmissible under a new program and they must remain in Mexico. They’re trying to subvert that,” the official said."

Ooooo, 'the official said'.

So where is the sneaking into the country part? 

Oh and BTFW, Congressional aids go to 'foreign countries' all the time. 

As for the 'new program', that is being litigated right now and another Union, that represents asylum officials has filed an amicus brief calling for the end of the MPP. I notice that was left out to the article...

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @2.1.7    2 weeks ago
Ooooo, 'the official said'.

Yes, yes he did. Very good.

So where is the sneaking into the country part?

I didn't say anyone snuck into the country. Why do you try to argue things I didn't say instead of what I actually post? That is intellectually lazy and dishonest. Of course, it happens so often now that I have come to expect such tactics from you.

Oh and BTFW, Congressional aids go to 'foreign countries' all the time.

Sigh. Again, something I haven't claimed being argued by you. If you can find where I disputed that, please, by all means, show it.

As for the 'new program', that is being litigated right now and another Union, that represents asylum officials has filed an amicus brief calling for the end of the MPP. I notice that was left out to the article...

My understanding is that laws and rules are enforced until a court decides otherwise. Maybe you think it is perfectly fine to ignore laws and rules and regulations you don't agree with, but I certainly don't.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.9  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.6    2 weeks ago
Sigh

I asked for evidence Tex, NOT the opinion of the author. 

"In one incident, an Escobar aide and diocese official walked a male migrant over the bridge in June and asked for him to be admitted into the U.S. because they had found he had "cognitive disabilities." Officers took the boy and turned the case over to the Border Patrol, where an agent found a Constituent Information and Privacy Release Form with the U.S. House of Representatives seal on it inside the 17-year-old's file.

Wow, I wonder how the agent found that Constituent Information and Privacy Release Form? Could it be that the Escobar aide put it in the file that was GIVEN to the CBP at the port of entry?

I also wonder WHO at CBP leaked that document to the press. Y'all are all about tracking down who illegally leaked documents right? 

BTFW, if Escobar is 'secretly sending' aides to Mexico, WHY do the CBP know all about the aide's affiliation with the Dioecies?

This 'sneaking' and 'secretly' is utter bullshit.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @2.1.9    2 weeks ago
Wow, I wonder how the agent found that Constituent Information and Privacy Release Form? Could it be that the Escobar aide put it in the file that was GIVEN to the CBP at the port of entry?

It probably was put there by one of the Congresswoman's aides. Why are aides filling out constituent forms for foreign nationals?

I also wonder WHO at CBP leaked that document to the press. 

I have no clue who leaked it. WTF difference does it make who leaked it? 

Y'all are all about tracking down who illegally leaked documents right?

Who is "y'all"? Or are you STILL arguing points I never made here? I already told you that is intellectually lazy and dishonest, so why do you persist?

BTFW, if Escobar is 'secretly sending' aides to Mexico, WHY do the CBP know all about the aide's affiliation with the Dioecies?
This 'sneaking' and 'secretly' is utter bullshit.

And yet more arguing points I never made. No point in responding to me if all you can do is argue stuff I haven't claimed. I won't participate in such lazy and dishonest tactics being used any longer. If you have something in MY posts you wish to argue, I damn sure wish you would do so.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.11  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.8    2 weeks ago
I didn't say anyone snuck into the country. Why do you try to argue things I didn't say instead of what I actually post? That is intellectually lazy and dishonest. Of course, it happens so often now that I have come to expect such tactics from you.

You replied to my comment:

Yes, I read the article and NOWHERE does it say that ANYONE 'sneaked unqualified or already refused asylum seekers into the country.'

With a quote from the seed that is unresponsive. It's intellectually lazy and dishonest to try to deny that you CHOSE to address the fact that the article does NOT state that ANYONE 'sneaked into the country'. 

Instead of doing so, you bitch and whine about ME. Well done Tex. Great 'tactics'. 

Sigh. Again, something I haven't claimed being argued by you. If you can find where I disputed that, please, by all means, show it.

Perhaps you can find where I said you disputed it. I'm merely disputing the implications of a part of the quote you CHOSE to post. Your decision to internalize it is on you. 

My understanding is that laws and rules are enforced until a court decides otherwise. Maybe you think it is perfectly fine to ignore laws and rules and regulations you don't agree with, but I certainly don't.

Yet neither you or the seed provides one iota of EVIDENCE that any laws or rules have been violated. Innuendo from 'an official' or a 'union representative' or the author of the seed doesn't cut it. 

The ONLY source actually named in the seed said this:

Mark H. Metcalf, a former federal immigration judge during the George W. Bush administration, said the involvement of Escobar's office was likely "more of a stunt than a genuine threat to the integrity of the process." "She's trying to obviously say these people have been wrongly denied their claims and they're waiting when they shouldn't be," said Metcalf.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @2.1.11    2 weeks ago

Sure wish you could read and understand what I post to you.

Here, I'll try again, even though I know it is rather pointless at this point.

No point in responding to me if all you can do is argue stuff I haven't claimed. I won't participate in such lazy and dishonest tactics being used any longer. If you have something in MY posts you wish to argue, I damn sure wish you would do so.

If there is anything in that paragraph you don't understand, please feel free to ask for clarification.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
2.1.13  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.3    2 weeks ago

To some here it's beneficial.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.14  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.10    2 weeks ago
It probably was put there by one of the Congresswoman's aides.

So you don't think that the agent found it and that it didn't belong in the file? 

Why are aides filling out constituent forms for foreign nationals?

It's a release for that allows the Congresswoman to collect confidential information from the asylum seeker. If that person WAS allowed across the bridge that day, he/she would have been a constituent of the Congresswoman. 

I have no clue who leaked it. WTF difference does it make who leaked it?

So leaks you like are fine, leaks your don't aren't. Got ya. 

Who is "y'all"?

The fraternity here. 

Or are you STILL arguing points I never made here? I already told you that is intellectually lazy and dishonest, so why do you persist?

I asked you a simple question, why do you persist on internalizing everything? 

And yet more arguing points I never made.

That's the second time that you've confused a question with an argument. 

No point in responding to me if all you can do is argue stuff I haven't claimed.

Translation: I have no answer...

I won't participate in such lazy and dishonest tactics being used any longer.

Yet you use them prolifically. 

If you have something in MY posts you wish to argue, I damn sure wish you would do so.

Can't handle questions about the content of the seed. Got ya. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.15  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.12    2 weeks ago
Sure wish you could read and understand what I post to you.

You should understand that wasn't the post I was replying to. 

Sad deflection. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.16  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @2.1.15    2 weeks ago

BBBUUUZZZZZ!!

Wrong answers!

On ignore you go!

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.17  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.16    2 weeks ago

You didn't ask any questions. 

jrSmiley_76_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
2.1.18  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.16    2 weeks ago

Tried to send this is a PN. 

Your reply to Dulay confused me.  Was there a reason for the BBBUUZZZZZ?

Were you addressing me or Dulay?

 
 
 
Texan1211
3  Texan1211    2 weeks ago

Wow. What a surprise. A Democratic Congressperson subverting our laws.

She should be charged.

Disgraceful.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @3    2 weeks ago
Wow. What a surprise. A Democratic Congressperson subverting our laws.
She should be charged.
Disgraceful.

Yep, you caught her. So all you need to do now is cite a law she 'subverted'. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
3.1.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Dulay @3.1    2 weeks ago

How about fraud and aiding and abetting to start with, but I'm sure you will disagree no matter what anybody here says that does not share your views...

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.1.1    2 weeks ago
How about fraud and aiding and abetting to start with, but I'm sure you will disagree no matter what anybody here says that does not share your views...

How about suborning perjury?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
3.1.3  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.2    2 weeks ago

Yep, that too.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.1.3    2 weeks ago

Maybe even committing perjury, if they filled out the forms.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.5  Dulay  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.1.1    2 weeks ago
How about fraud and aiding and abetting to start with, but I'm sure you will disagree no matter what anybody here says that does not share your views...

I asked about the LAW, I didn't express a view. 

How about the fact that the Congresswoman wasn't even there?

How about the fact that there is NO LAW against walking someone up to a port of entry? 

How about the fact that the sources are anonymous? 

How about the fact that someone in the CBP leaked a confidential constituent form? 

NONE of that phase you at all Doc?

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.1.3    2 weeks ago

Isn't it simply amazing how some want to simply ignore laws they don't like?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
3.1.7  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Dulay @3.1.5    2 weeks ago

You have already proved my point. It is not worthwhile trying to have any meaningful discussion on this with you as your mind is already closed tighter than a steel trap. No matter what evidence that is not provided by a progressive leftist liberal source, you will just deny and deflect as you did above. We are just never going to agree here. With that said you have a good evening.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.1.7    2 weeks ago
It is not worthwhile trying to have any meaningful discussion on this with you as your mind is already closed tighter than a steel trap.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.9  Dulay  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.1.7    2 weeks ago
You have already proved my point. It is not worthwhile trying to have any meaningful discussion on this with you as your mind is already closed tighter than a steel trap. No matter what evidence that is not provided by a progressive leftist liberal source, you will just deny and deflect as you did above. 

How are my questions a denial or deflection Doc? 

If you don't care about the answers, it would seem that your mind is the one that's already closed. 

If you want to accept everything said in seed as fact, so be it. 

We are just never going to agree here.

Oh, I didn't realize that you only wanted to talk to members that agree with you. Please proceed. 

With that said you have a good evening.

I am, you too. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
3.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Texan1211 @3    2 weeks ago

Good luck finding any progressive liberal politician in DC that would agree and be willing to go after her...

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.2    2 weeks ago
Good luck finding any progressive liberal politician in DC that would agree and be willing to go after her...

Sad and pitiful. 

Shows who they really care about.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
3.2.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.1    2 weeks ago

Sure is not the people that reside on this side of the border.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.3  Dulay  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.2    2 weeks ago
Good luck finding any progressive liberal politician in DC that would agree and be willing to go after her...

Well hell Doc, since you all insist that Rep. Escobar violated multiple laws, why be so 'conservative'?

Call in the DOJ and have her prosecuted. 

That's the ticket. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
3.3  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Texan1211 @3    2 weeks ago

Lock her up!  

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
4  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh    2 weeks ago

The congressional coyote should be charged as a human smuggler.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1  Texan1211  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @4    2 weeks ago

Shouldn't we really just expect this type of behavior from the fine party that gave us "sanctuaries"?

 
 
 
tomwcraig
5  tomwcraig    2 weeks ago

Actually, this could be considered

1) A breach of her Oath of Office

2) Actual Treason since she is aiding and abetting possible enemies since they cannot be verified from whence they came originally.

 
 
 
charger 383
6  charger 383    2 weeks ago

     
   "A Democratic congresswoman is sending staff to Mexico’s"

Sounds like an illegal use of taxpayer's money

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1  Texan1211  replied to  charger 383 @6    2 weeks ago
Sounds like an illegal use of taxpayer's money

Looks like nothing is off-limits for the open-borders crowd.

 
 
 
charger 383
7  charger 383    2 weeks ago

There is no way this helps the taxpaying Citizens of the USA

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1  Texan1211  replied to  charger 383 @7    2 weeks ago
There is no way this helps the taxpaying Citizens of the USA

Well, there is one thing that I can see.

The Congresswoman's American constituents (the ones she is actually paid to represent) can see where HER priorities are, and they are certainly not with America's best interests.

I wonder if they are proud of what they elected?

 
 
 
MUVA
7.2  MUVA  replied to  charger 383 @7    2 weeks ago

Not sure her constituents care but you may be right. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
8  Texan1211    2 weeks ago

Why is a form for constituents being used for a foreign national?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
8.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Texan1211 @8    2 weeks ago

Don't expect a coherrent or meaningful answer. Certainly not one from Escobar or her staff,  let alone the lefties posting here...

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Ronin2
Freedom Warrior
Tessylo
Bob Nelson
1stwarrior
cjcold


44 visitors