According to reports, Ibarra provided Covenant House, a youth homeless shelter in New York City, as his sponsor to gain entry into the U.S.
But in an email exchange with this writer, the Executive Director of Covenant House wrote that,
Covenant House New York did not sponsor Jose Antonio Ibarra's entry into the country and has not done so for any other person. We do not know how our address came to be on his form, but there have been and continue to be instances when our address is given at the border.
Assuming that is accurate – and I have no reason to believe it is not – how is this possible? Can asylees simply conjure sponsors out of the air? Does DHS not do the most rudimentary checks into the putative sponsors of asylum claimants?
The sponsorship issue begs other questions. What, exactly is genuine "sponsorship" based on? Considering that upwards of 85% of asylum claims are ultimately denied?
And further: Do sponsors bear responsibility for keeping tabs on those they sponsor? Including potential legal liability?
...
But positing that ICE did become aware of Ibarra's criminal status: What provision is there for a case like Ibarra's? Considering that Venezuela's President Maduro has suspended repatriation flights? Where does a Venezuelan criminal like Ibarra go? Who houses him in the meantime?
Has the Biden administration thought any of this through?
The questions around this crime go to the heart of our current immigration debacle – and we deserve answers. Apparently, ICE is currently taking the "no comment" approach at this time regarding the specifics of Ibarrra's status.
Laken Riley's death in Georgia begs big unanswered questions. Here are 10 | Fox News
No comments:
Post a Comment