Harris once pledged to close private migrant detention centers on ‘day one’ as president

 Kamala Harris once pledged to “absolutely” close all privately run immigration detention centers “on day one” if she were to become president, according to a video obtained by The Post.

The newly resurfaced clip shows then-Senator Harris (D-CA) responding to a question at an October 2019 town hall in Iowa City, when she was running as a candidate in the 2020 presidential race.

“I want to know, when you become president, would you be committing to close the immigration detention centers?” the attendee asked.

Harris responded: “Absolutely, on day one. On day one.”

“I on day one will shut them down. That is not how our taxpayer dollars should be spent,” then-Senator Kamala Harris pledged in 2019.Getty Images

00:00

03:59

There are currently about 37,000 migrants in ICE detention nationwide, according to agency statistics — with almost half of them being held in private facilities used by the agency.

As of July 2024, up to 15,000 migrants were being detained across 18 private detention facilities, the stats show.

The Biden administration’s policy is to prioritize detaining the most egregious threats to the country, as officials battle a record surge at the US-Mexico border and a lack of detention space.

Of the more than 37,000 migrants in ICE detention currently, more than 10,000 are convicted criminals, while another 4,000 have pending criminal charges, according to agency data.

During the Iowa City town hall, Harris recalled a visit to one of the private detention centers in Florida, which housed migrant children.

“This means that their business model is that people are profiting off the incarceration of other human beings,” the Democrat said.

“I on day one will shut them down. That is not how our taxpayer dollars should be spent.”

Private detention centers are often owned by security companies, including GEO Group and Corecivic — both publicly traded organizations that invest in prisons and mental health facilities.

Harris, now the 2024 Democratic presidential nominee, has not officially outlined her specific policy agenda if she were to win the November election.

A spokesperson for Harris’ campaign didn’t respond to The Post’s request for comment.

As of July 2024, up to 15,000 migrants were being detained across 18 private detention facilities, according to agency statistics.POOL/AFP via Getty Images

As vice president, Harris was tapped by President Biden to serve as a “border czar” to address illegal migration from Central America.

She has faced attacks from her opponent former President Donald Trump over her record on on the border, with illegal crossings skyrocketing to record levels under the Biden administration.

In 2018, Harris likened ICE agents to the KKK while questioning Trump’s nominee to lead the agency, Ronald Vitiello.

In response to the “abolish ICE” movement, Harris also in 2018 called on lawmakers to “critically reexamine” ICE and start “from scratch,” saying “there’s a lot that is wrong with the way that it’s conducting itself.”

Since entering the 2024 race, Harris, 59, has vowed to be tough on the border, despite her previous remarks and record-breaking number of illegal crossings during her administration.

“I was attorney general of a border state. I went after the transnational gangs, the drug cartels and the human traffickers,” Harris said in Arizona on Friday.

“I prosecuted them in case after case and I won, so I know what I’m talking about.”

https://nypost.com/2024/08/12/us-news/kamala-harris-once-pledged-to-close-private-migrant-detention-centers/

Amnesty On The Table: Biden Officials Want Maduro To Regime Change Himself

 A fresh Wall Street Journal report reveals just how desperate Washington officials are to see Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro swiftly exit power, after the US has accused him and his officials of stealing the vote, keeping former diplomat Edmundo González from power while reportedly locking up thousands of opposition supporters.

"The U.S. is pursuing a long-shot bid to push Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to give up power in exchange for amnesty as overwhelming evidence emerges that the strongman lost last month’s election, people familiar with the matter said," WSJ writes. 

"The U.S. has discussed pardons for Maduro and top lieutenants of his who face Justice Department indictments, said three people familiar with the Biden administration deliberation. One of the sources said that the Biden administration is putting "everything on the table" in order to peaceably persuade Maduro to step down before his term is up in January. To translate, Biden officials are asking nicely: please Mr. Maduro, won't you cancel yourself?

But Maduro and his government have hailed him as the legitimate victor of the July 28th national election. He's set to enter a third 6-year term. He has many times over the last several years accused Washington of plotting coup and regime change against his rule, and there is ample evidence that there is more truth than falsehood to these accusations.

Rather than present the US as in a position of power vis-a-vis Caracas, the whole WSJ report and its claims—largely the product of the usual 'anon security and defense officials'—is a testament to just how pathetic, weak, and desperate US policy toward the 'rogue' state remains.

Maduro will supposedly turn himself in on cocaine charges in return for an 'amnesty' based on what he sees as total fictions of a fraudulent and 'imperialist' American system? The following could arguably be some of the dumbest and most fantastical lines ever cooked up by the gaggle of career national security pencil pushers in charge of Latin America policy:

Another person familiar with the talks said the U.S. would be open to providing guarantees not to pursue those regime figures for extradition. The U.S. in 2020 placed a $15 million bounty for information leading to Maduro’s arrest on charges of conspiring with his allies to flood the U.S. with cocaine. 

The talks represent a flicker of hope for a Venezuelan political opposition that meticulously collected voter tallies showing its candidate, little-known former diplomat Edmundo González, defeated Maduro in a landslide in the July 28 election. Over the past two weeks, Maduro has jailed thousands of dissidents, maintained the military’s loyalty and tasked the Supreme Court, stacked with his handpicked allies, with resolving the election impasse, buying him time.  

Flooding US streets with cocaine? ...The CIA might have some past expertise on that.

As recently as Friday, Maduro put it very simply in a televised news conference: "Don’t mess with Venezuela’s internal affairs, that’s all I ask for," Maduro said.

Where does US policy go from here? Biden's gambit to ease sanctions on Venezuelan crude, bring Maduro 'in from the cold', and tap cheap energy at a crucial moment of wars in Eastern Europe and the Middle East appears at a standstill.

Now with a crack-brained plan to offer "amnesty" to Maduro having been floated (surely an object of laughter and mockery among Venezuelan officials), perhaps Washington is ready to try the whole Guaidó-style thing with González, who has even less name recognitions internationally, and declare him 'Interim President'.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/amnesty-table-biden-officials-want-maduro-regime-change-himself

Smith & Wesson Asks US Supreme Court To Expedite Its Appeal Of Mexico Lawsuit

 by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

U.S. gun maker Smith & Wesson asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Aug. 8 for “immediate review” of its appeal in Mexico’s ongoing $10 billion lawsuit against U.S. firearms companies.

The request was made after a lower court on Aug. 7 threw out the case against six out of eight gun companies in the lawsuit, which is pending in federal district court in Massachusetts. The decision left gun maker Smith & Wesson and gun wholesaler Interstate Arms remaining as defendants.

In the suit, Mexico is seeking $10 billion from U.S. gun companies for allegedly flooding that country with firearms. Mexico blames the companies for a violent crime wave, saying their actions benefited criminal cartels.

Although some gun control activists welcome Mexico’s lawsuit, gun rights advocates say it constitutes foreign interference in U.S. affairs and is aimed at crippling the U.S. firearms industry and weakening the Second Amendment protections enjoyed by Americans.

The gun companies say the suit is barred by the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) of 2005, which was enacted to protect the industry from frivolous lawsuits.

The Supreme Court already is scheduled to consider on Sept. 30 whether to hear the appeal of the eight gun companies called Smith & Wesson Brands Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos.

The appeal concerns the Jan. 22 decision of a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit that allowed the lawsuit to proceed.

Circuit Judge William Kayatta wrote that even though the PLCAA limits lawsuits that foreign governments may bring in U.S. courts for harm experienced outside the United States, Mexico could move forward because it made a plausible argument that the companies committed “knowing violations of statutes regulating the sale or marketing of firearms.”

Mexico claims that illegal gun trafficking into that country is driven largely by Mexican drug cartels’ demands for military-style weapons.

Kayatta wrote that a spike in gun violence in Mexico in recent years “correlates” with the boost in gun production in the United States that started when the U.S. assault weapon ban lapsed in 2004.

The First Circuit returned the case to U.S. District Judge Dennis Saylor of Massachusetts, who had previously dismissed the lawsuit against all eight corporate defendants on Sept. 30, 2022.

Saylor found in 2022 that the PLCAA “unequivocally bars lawsuits seeking to hold gun manufacturers responsible for the acts of individuals using guns for their intended purpose.”

When Saylor revisited the case on Aug. 7, he ruled that Mexico had failed to present enough evidence to show that six of the companies were connected to gun crime in Mexico.

The six defendants Saylor dismissed from the suit are Sturm, Ruger & Co.; Barrett Firearms Manufacturing Inc.; Glock Inc.; Colt’s Manufacturing Co. LLC; Century International Arms Inc.; and Beretta U.S.A. Corp.

Mexico indicated it may appeal the dismissal decision.

In the meantime, this means that Smith & Wesson and Witmer Public Safety Group, which does business as Interstate Arms, are still named as defendants in the suit pending in Saylor’s court.

In the Aug. 8 filing, Smith & Wesson attorney Noel Francisco of Jones Day in Washington told the Supreme Court that “immediate review ... is still needed” because Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms are “unaffected by” the Aug. 7 decision.

“As a result, Mexico is still pursuing ‘joint and several’ liability—to the tune of billions of dollars, plus far-reaching injunctive relief—against those two defendants,” Francisco wrote.

With joint and several liability, a plaintiff who secures a judgment against the defendants collectively may collect the full value of the judgment from any of the defendants.

“So just as before, leading members of the American firearms industry are facing years of litigation costs and the specter of business-crushing liability,” Francisco wrote.

“And just as before, this Court’s review is warranted now, because Congress made clear in PLCAA that this sort of lawfare against any law-abiding member of the firearms industry has no business in American courts, and must be promptly dismissed.”

Lawfare is the strategic use of legal proceedings to undermine or frustrate the efforts of an opponent.

Mexico argued in a brief that it filed with the Supreme Court on July 3 that the First Circuit’s decision was correct.

The lawsuit should be allowed to proceed because the companies “deliberately chose to engage in unlawful ... conduct to profit off the criminal market for their products.”

According to the brief, the gun companies were wrong to argue that the prospect of them being held “liable for negligence and public nuisance” presents “an existential threat to the gun industry.”

Mexico’s attorney, Cate Stetson of Hogan Lovells in Washington, didn’t respond by publication time to a request by The Epoch Times for comment.

Stephen Katte contributed to this report.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/smith-wesson-asks-us-supreme-court-expedite-its-appeal-mexico-lawsuit