Update on the Chicago Shooter

~ Clarissa

The 22-year-old man who shot an Orthodox Jew near a synagogue in Chicago is an illegal migrant from Mauritania.

He had been caught by Border Patrol in March 2023. And released into the country.

It’s impossible to comprehend why people caught crossing the border illegally are aided in their plans by border agents. This is the most insane immigration policy ever.

This is why I have fits when Kamala Harris prattles about “the bipartisan border bill” that will pay for more border patrols. Why is it good to have more border patrols if all they do is shuffle more people like the Chicago shooter of Jews into the country?

The immigration problem has nothing to do with money. It requires no money to be solved immediately. Simply stop releasing illegal crossers into the country. That’s all. Costs enormously less than bringing them in and supporting them here. Or keeping them in the law enforcement system like the Chicago shooter Sidi Mohamed Abdallahi who has now been charged with 14 felonies. Tons of money will now be expended on his trial and incarceration. Why do we need all this? What is the enormous benefit he brought into the country that we now have to pay for for decades?

Unknown's avatar

Published by Clarissa

76 thoughts on “Update on the Chicago Shooter”

  1. The bipartisan border bill will pay for more patrols to catch more criminals, and pay for more judges so that cases like this can be adjudicated at the border without having to let criminals in. The reason why so many are let in “to await their court date” is because there are so few judges.

    Like

    Reply

      1. Applying for asylum is a human right. Getting it is not — which is why we have judges to listen to each case and decide on the merits. When Jewish refugees were coming in droves to the US after pogroms in Europe, they were processed in record time by immigration judges, not made to wait and go through “visa processes”. Many who were turned back were to face devastating tragedies when the Nazis took over later. This is why we have judges, and not just assume that everyone coming is a criminal.

        Glad to help.

        Like

        Reply

        2. Ah, I love how absolutely anything can be a “human right” if it feels right to you. No need for any kind of legal justification, actual law to back you up, historical precedent, you don’t have to find it enumerated in the constitution… no, just POOF I said it: now it’s a Human Right. I want to make up some human rights! Puppy videos are a human right. Rain-on-demand is a human right. Free mulch is a human right. High-paying jobs are a human right. Owning a home is a human right. Italian leather shoes are a human right. Feeding wildlife is a human right. Trespassing is a human right.

          Entering a country where you are not a current citizen is not a human right, no matter how sympathetic the reason for wanting to. It’s why refugee camps exist: because over, and over, and over, across the globe, country after country after country has faced the situation of large numbers of people crossing into their territory (for whatever reason: jobs, famine, war, persecution), and for practical reasons, found it untenable to simply let them settle there, en masse.

          Why?

          Why are the Philippines, Indonesia, Greece, South Sudan, Kenya, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Pakistan, Thailand, Burma, Bangladesh, Nepal, Yemen, Turkey, et al so *mean* and *unwelcoming*? Why not just let them all in, give them a generous stipend, and ship them to cities and towns across the country while they wait for vetting?

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

          1. Never said it was a right to be let in. It was a right to “apply”.

            You can’t blame me for your bad-faith lack of comprehension.

            Like

            Reply

            1. Apologies for misreading your intent.

              I take it we are in complete agreement, that anyone can apply… from outside the US, and wait for their paperwork to be processed. Which is how the process worked until Biden took office.

              That seems perfectly reasonable to me.

              Liked by 2 people

              Reply

              1. They can also apply at the border — which is a human right. They don’t have to be let in, which is why we need more lawyers. If congress passes the law today, there’d be more people processing them at the border and sending them back or letting them in as necessary. Fewer judges mean longer wait times, which leads to people being let in on the promise that they’d show up for their date. A terrible idea.

                Like

              2. What document says that it’s “a human right” to apply at the border? Why does that human right only apply to the US?

                Leaving that aside, processing claims at the border, means detention camps. And separating children from adults. Is that what you support? Just the time it takes to find a translator means there will be a delay. Or are you in favor of forcing translators to move to the border in droves? Where would those translators and judges all live? What will they eat? At the very least, you need cooks. This is turning into a whole army of people being separated from their families and sent to the border. Who’ll pay their rents back home then?

                The plan you describe is a fantasy. It can’t work. Isn’t it possible that it’s not meant to work?

                Liked by 1 person

              3. Where is “the border” you are referring to?

                This is confusing because you seem to think “the border” is some magical place that is neither inside the US nor in another country. Is it an interesting legal technicality like national embassies?

                Like

              4. You can apply for asylum from anywhere. I’m sure some are doing it at embassies, at consulates, at airports. Those doing it at border crossings choose that perhaps because it’s efficient — certainly more dangerous. A pragmatic observer will understand this as proof that those doing it are desperate — which is one of the conditions that push people to asylum in the first place. Again, hence judges whose job is to take each case and apply it to the country’s law and stated requirements.

                Like

              1. Unless the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights is no longer valid because Clarissa said so.

                Like

              3. It’s an exercise in heartlessness to ask a Ukrainian to read documents from a criminal organization that is complicit in many war crimes in Ukraine.

                Yes, Amnesty thinks the UK has to process refugees inside the UK. It’s their opinion. Mine is different.

                Like

              4. Speaking as someone from the UK, Amnesty.org.uk are a rent-seeking pressue group who can’t be trusted to speak the truth. Take for example their comment in your link
                However, there is no rule or principle in international law requiring a person to claim asylum in any particular country.

                and compare it to the EU rule and principle (which admittedly no longer applies to the UK):

                https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/migration-and-asylum/common-european-asylum-system/country-responsible-asylum-application-dublin-regulation_en

                Like

          2. This is why I ask people to abstain from talking in terms of “rights.” Its an empty concept unless we are talking about specific rights guaranteed by a specific document and enforced by specific institutions of a specific country. The US Constitution, for example, guarantees the right to due process. But the US government doesn’t enforce it beyond the country’s borders. The actual, existing, enforced rights are different for every country, and their number is quite small. There cannot possibly be a right for a Mauritanian to move to the US because he feels like it.

            People need to stop talking about vague, imaginary rights and concentrate on reality.

            Like

            Reply

            1. But you’ve just confirmed my position, which is that the US constitution guarantees the right to due process. Current enforcement mechanisms follow “due process”. But it’s not efficient, because of lack of manpower. A Mauritanian on US soil is entitled to due process. Or is it your position that non-Americans are not protected by the due process clause?

              Cos that would be wrong. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/us/politics/due-process-undocumented-immigrants.html

              Like

              Reply

              2. Meth, you’re wrong. The due process clause is applied to EVERYONE who is under US jurisdiction. You shouldn’t be this loud and wrong at once.

                Like

        3. “When Jewish refugees were coming in droves to the US after pogroms in Europe”

          Yeah at that time there was no coordinated network of human traffickers made up of organized crime and NGOS facilitating them. Times change and laws made for one situation do not fit another.

          Current asylum laws are not fit for purpose and pretending they are to feel virtuous is getting Americans killed.

          You’re very welcome.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

    2. Dude. You can’t “pay for judges.” Judges aren’t waitresses at a diner. They take a long time to train. And how will you ship these judges to the border? Im sure they have families. Why would they want to go?

      Why does anybody need to be adjudicated in the country anyway? I was adjudicated into Canada from home. That’s where people have all the paperwork and they can go get additional documents if needed. Why did this dude have to schlep over here from Mauritania? Have you looked it up on a map? What’s the logic of needing him to be in Chicago for years before you can scrounge up a judge?

      Like

      Reply

      1. A judge is just a lawyer that has been trained in the relevant laws. There are thousands (if not millions) of them around the country. Let congress pass relevant laws and they’ll all be ready to work. Most asylum cases can be heard and dismissed, if necessary, in one session. We processed more people via Ellis Island in a few years than the number of people that have reportedly crossed the southern border. It’s doable.

        Like

        Reply

        1. There are millions of lawyers who will be eager to abandon their current employment, retrain in a different specialty and schlep to the border for an unknown period of time? I assume they are all jobless, single and homeless currently. And there are millions of them.

          That’s fascinating but wouldn’t it make more sense not to inconvenience all these American lawyers but to simply ask the migrants to apply from their countries or the safest countries next to theirs? Wouldn’t that be more convenient for everybody, including the migrants?

          Like

          Reply

              2. OK, great. I even have some-great-grandparents who came through Ellis Island.

                Are you seriously proposing that people should live at airports for three years until their papers are processed?

                Because right now, in the US, we don’t have a fast, efficient immigration process. We also don’t have a frontier to settle and wild Comanches to subdue, or a burgeoning industrial revolution hungry for millworkers, which is a big part of why we let so many Europeans in, back in the 19th century when my peeps came through Ellis. It was deemed in the national interest.

                The reasons for what was done at Ellis, are no longer operative.

                What is the for-the-good-of-the-country urgent reason why the US desperately needs hordes of unskilled, uneducated people from other countries? The US doesn’t let in immigrants for the good of the *immigrants*. It’s not a charity operation. The US lets in immigrants when it’s in the interests *of the US*. It’s lovely when the interests of the US coincide with the interests of the immigrants, of course, but… there’s no reason they must.

                Liked by 1 person

              3. Nobody even tried to explain why the Mauritanian dude couldn’t have applied from back home or a country close by. Are we suggesting that the entire continent of Africa is such a cesspit that there’s no safe place anywhere in it?

                Like

              4. IKR? You can’t apply from Ecuador anymore? Guatemala? Honduras?

                Like, we know a fair number of Guatemalans and Hondurans who are here completely legally on work visas… they applied for them from their home countries. They go back on holidays to visit their families. There’s no reason they have to be insta-processed like it’s a life-and-death emergency.

                Back when Peru got a bunch of Venezuelan wannabe migrants on their border, they resolved the situation by compassionately sending them food, water, and a plane to take them back to Venezuela. I read about it in El Comercio– it was a hilarious bit of propagandizing– almost sounded like satire, but EC would never do that. Oh, no! The poor Venezuelans are stuck at the border! No food! It’s a humanitarian crisis– good thing we generously helped them get back to Caracas!

                I see no reason at all we shouldn’t treat the completely voluntary “humanitarian crisis” trying to cross our borders the same way.

                Like

            2. “but we felt it best to have them come on ships, and process them at Ellis Island”

              That was a regulated immigration process: nothing to do with asylum.

              Also, current legislation on asylum (Human Rights conventions, Geneva convention and the like) was thought of and designed in a totally different era, when it was neither envisaged nor generally feasible for massive numbers of people to move around the globe with relative ease.

              Up to and including the First World War, for example, there were no passport requirements for people moving through different European countries: no documents were necessary to travel from Britain to France or from France to Spain. The numbers of people travelling were risible, local authorities had the right to allow or deny admission, to expel non-citizens and to deport long-resident aliens at will if they were considered a threat to the stability of the country.

              The nation-state has been purposely, relentlessly and vigorously undermined over the past 75 years by a conglomerate of multifarious interests. Amnesty International, like many other NGOs, has long ceased to be a militant voice in favour of free speech and freedom of conscience, has turned into one of the worst examples of self-serving institutions dedicated to self-perpetuation and is among the worst culprits in the neoliberal project of worldwide dominance through globalisation and the demise of the nation-state system.

              With the current number of refugees and asylum seekers throughout the world and the enormous rise in fake claimants, the system based on the post-WWII arrangement is ungovernable and is left standing precisely in order to ensure its failure, thereby entailing the destruction of any viable nation state, which is what globalists of all hues are working towards, whether they be anarchists, eco-warriors, liberal progressives, antifa fascists or neoliberal capitalists.

              After all, for ALL these people it makes sense: there are no borders across the Internet, Google is Google anywhere in the world (not China though, nor North Korea) and you can TikTok your way throughout the globe: technology makes it impossible to foster individual tradition. The digital revolution implies – and imposes – the Empire of the Liquid, the Reign of the Fluid, the victory of the Transhumanist Cyborg that is the final consummation devoutly to be wished by each and any of these anti-human and inhumane globalist defenders of so-called “Human” “Rights”.

              Liked by 1 person

              Reply

          2. Clarissa your reply actually raises an interesting point that I’m not sure if Old Reader realizes about international amnesty/refugee laws.

            “but to simply ask the migrants to apply from their countries or the safest countries next to theirs”

            By the international law for amnesty/refugee status, anyone fleeing must go to the nearest country to apply for said status.

            The point of this is the borders are being flooded with people from Africa, the Middle East, South America and Central America. Even by the standards Old Reader is trying to claim non of them should be showing up at the borders of the US or any nation in Europe. With the sole exceptions of Mexico, Turkey, and a few Baltic countries.

            Speaking of that, Old Reader would you perhaps care to explain why these endless floods of invaders head to the US, Europe, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand? Why not India, China, Egypt, Iran, Columbia, etc. You know countries next to their own homelands.

            • – W

            Liked by 2 people

            Reply

            1. They go to those places too. But none of them has a statue of Liberty asking the “wretched yearning to breathe free” to come through “the golden door”. I’m happy that the world wants to come here. It enriches the country. But there should be order and speed, hence my support for a comprehensive bill that gives the border more resources: judges, agents, drones, and everything being asked for. The other guys just complain, and that’s boring.

              Like

              Reply

              1. That statue was a gift from the nation of France, and that saying was from a poem. Neither of them national policy dictate.

                This is my home, this is my parents and grandparents home, this has been my families home since my ancestors arrived to wilderness in early colonial days and helped build a first a colony and later a new nation. Our name is enshrined in the city streets of one of the first American cities.

                I am not happy the “world” wishes to flood into my home, it does not “enrich” the country, it causes not but strife and division.

                You claim the “other side” is wrong because they just “complain, and that’s boring.” You absolute child, how dare you sit there and demand that the floodgates be opened to “enrich” my home via endless invaders. Since you are feeling so righteous, call up the border patrol, and feel free to have them send a half dozen of their catch and release to live in your house.

                If you find foreign culture so rewarding. Leave. Go live in said nations. Even better explain to their governments that they should allow floods of invaders into their lands to “enrich” their nations as well Go on, but no you wont.

                In fact lets test your logic. By your definition having floods of foreigners enter your country “enriches it.” Would India accept this? Would China accept this? Would South Africa accept this? How about the Dominican Republic? Cuba? Brazil? None of them would accept this.

                The whole idea is absolutely ludicrous.

                • – W

                Liked by 2 people

              2. W,

                Well, let’s agree to disagree. Immigration is either good or bad.

                You can’t claim on one hand that it was good, so your ancestors could come, but it’s bad now because other people’s ancestors are coming. That’s what gets you laughed out of the room.

                I’m arguing for a principle while you seem to be arguing for privilege. No one is saying that ALL those who apply for asylum should get it. But when Cubans were being killed by Castro, it was a good thing we opened the doors. Same for Ukraine. Same for Haiti, Same for the Irish and the Jews, Italians, etc, etc. Some won’t make it, because they’re criminals. If they’re not, and judges see them qualified, according to rules that Congress writes they get to come in and partake of the American dream. Absolutely.

                Like

              3. I will most certainly not agree to disagree.

                There is no hypocrisy in my statement. When my ancestors arrived there was no civilization, this was wilderness. My family and others like us built first a colony and then later a nation from dirt and trees. You are demanding that this nation allow waves of foreigners to partake of the fruits of our labors.

                I don’t give a damn what fluffed up words you use to try justify your demands. It is wrong. There will always be some migration, yes this is true. Nor is it wrong to allow refugees from neighboring counties, or those whom are tied by blood during times of crisis.

                However this nation was not. I repeat it was never a so called melting pot. You have taken words of a poet and proclaimed all the world welcome. They are not.

                The Irish are tied to America by blood, as is Britain, Wales, and to some extent France and Germany. In times of trouble accepting them is fine. They are kin. The Cubans are annoying, but reasonable as long as most of them go back home once Castro and his regime are gone.

                The rest not so much. Haiti has two nations between them and America. That’s not counting the Central American Nations, or the other islands that are closer to it.

                Ukraine which might I remind you is not our people, has at least 2 neutral countries bordering it for those who wish to flee and ask for refuge.

                The Jews have their homeland back. Is it peaceful, not particularly, but it is quite literally the land promised to them by God.

                The Italians once more, surrounded by other nations. Plus not of our blood and kin.

                You are wrong on this. I don’t particularly care who exactly warped your thought process to think this action you are supporting is not only ok, but good. In the end it doesn’t matter, this will not end well for anyone. History has shown repeatedly pushing tribes and peoples together that are not tied by blood, typically ends horribly for everyone once bad times start.

                Also I note you flat out ignored the question of would those other countries be ok with their lands and peoples being “enriched” by waves of foreigners.

                You also seemed to have skipped by the question of would you allow the invaders into your home.

                Not to mention you seemed to have missed the question of if you find foreign culture so enriching, why you don’t move to said nations.

                • – W

                Like

              4. Old Reader

                Sadly, you wouldn’t know a “principle” if one leapt up and bit your arse. What the hell do you imagine happens to working class Americans when their wages are undercut by an invasion of tens of millions of illegal aliens?

                Liked by 1 person

    3. Dude. You can’t “pay for judges.” Judges aren’t waitresses at a diner. They take a long time to train. And how will you ship these judges to the border? Im sure they have families. Why would they want to go?

      Why does anybody need to be adjudicated in the country anyway? I was adjudicated into Canada from home. That’s where people have all the paperwork and they can go get additional documents if needed. Why did this dude have to schlep over here from Mauritania? Have you looked it up on a map? What’s the logic of needing him to be in Chicago for years before you can scrounge up a judge?

      Like

      Reply

  2. Personally I prefer the more expensive method of collecting them all, collecting all the Non-Profit groups funding them, and collecting all the traitors in the country trying to promote bringing them in. Then flying them to Central Africa and abandoning them there. Its a bit more expensive, but people get queezy when you call for shooting the illegals at the border after they have slipped through. And simply tossing them out does nothing as they will try to slip right back on across. After all they are not paying for this, the Non-Profit groups are.

    By dumping them and their supporters in Central Africa that discourages them to try again, especially if you also strip their supporters of the citizenship. Which honestly should be done anyway as what they are doing definitely counts as treasonous actions.

    • – W

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  3. The tenor of the articles on this story are way more focused on why he hasn’t been charged with a hate crime yet. Seems pretty open and shut to me.

    I couldn’t find any information on his other crimes prior to illegally crossing the Mexican border.

    Do you have any other information?

    Like

    Reply

    1. In a normal immigration process, like the one I underwent, immigrants provide proof of clean criminal record before setting foot in the country. Can you explain to me why you personally are opposed to doing it that way?

      Like

      Reply

  4. Ah. So conservative media hasn’t found anything yet. I was hoping you’d tell me. They were the only outlets mentioning the illegal border crossing. They’ll find it soon. If INS somehow missed it.

    So INS doesn’t screen asylum applicants from Mauretania for criminal behavior? That’s fucked.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Remain in Mexico is too *slow* and *careful* when what you need is an army of non-English-speaking, radically exploitable warm bodies to game the electoral college numbers with, before the next census.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

    2. “never understood the crying over it”

      The goal/process has nothing to do with asylum. The goal of the architects of the current situation is to institute permanent open borders with Mexico.

      Their flying monkeys are well-intentioned but low-information lib-progressives who are still stuck in memes from the past (jews fleeing nazis! Ellis Island! Statue of Liberty!) and who have no idea of the vast human trafficking networks that run from Africa through China with the aid of organized crime and NGOs among others. It’s a bit like the slave trade but without labor and with the consent (often enthusiastic) those being trafficked. And they don’t want to know because that would require a fundamental reorientation of their image of the world and their place in it.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      2. I feel like there ought to be a scorable talking-points bingo game for these people. Mark your card any time you can elicit the programming: “Fox news!” “Talk Radio” “injecting bleach” “fine people”… that would at least be fun. We could compete for points.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. Should have mentioned Fox News in my recent post about outdated progressivism. A person anchored in the present would say, the Joe Rogan podcast, the Matt Walsh show, the Daily Wire, the Takimag. But Fox News as a beacon of right-wing narratives is from 2002. MAGAs despise Fox News. They hate it worse than MSNBC. Hello! It’s 2024!

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

  7. “No one is saying that ALL those who apply for asylum should get it.”

    So… what do you want to do to those who don’t receive asylum? Especially when you haven’t kept track of where they are?

    Like

    Reply

    1. You’re asking me to solve a problem I’m saying we don’t need to have. More judges and more border agents will help that all future asylum cases are adjudicated and resolved at the border. So you don’t need to keep track of anyone. If you’re refused, you leave. If you’re granted, you come in. Just like we did at Ellis.

      Like

      Reply

      1. How about my questions about the logistics of the process? Do you advocate for detention camps and children separation? How do you propose to convince these judges and interpreters to relocate to the border and abandon their families, friends and lifestyles?

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

        2. How did we do it at Ellis? Did people have to relocate? When did we become the can’t-do country? Did we advocate for camps and children separation at Ellis? If you’d use some googling, you’d find how it was done then. We put a man on the moon, we can surely process people through an imaginary line in the sand.

          Like

          Reply

            1. The same way it has been since the country was founded. If it was in our interest then, it still is. If it wasn’t in our interest then, point to what was wrong about it.

              Like

              Reply

              1. No, it isn’t. The US no longer has a frontier to conquer by population replacement, nor is it undergoing industrialization, with its accompanying need for millworkers.

                We shipped our industry overseas, remember?

                Like

              2. …also, not building railroads. That was why we let the Chinese in. The Irish worked our cotton mills. The Germans farmed the frontier.

                So what gaping need are we importing Haitians to fill?

                Like

          2. Ellis Island is tiny. The Southern border of the US is not. People cross it in places where there are no large cities like NYC.

            Analogy is the favorite tool of an impotent intellect. You keep grabbing onto irrelevant examples of past activities to hide from the fact that you have no answers to my questions.

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply

            1. Hence the hiring of border agents and more judges. You keep missing this important detail. Those who processed immigrants at Ellis were paid for their job. There’s nothing wrong in the FG temporarily creating new jobs.

              Like

              Reply

              1. “hiring of border agents and more judges”

                Well border guards and judges need….

                -places for them to live (a lot of the border, especially places where lots of people cross) is not close to inhabited areas)

                -facilities in which to keep people while their cases are being processed (asylum generally requires documentation that has to be checked)

                -people to staff the facilities and places for them to live, which include both law enforcement (asylum camps tend toward the raucous and violent) and cleaning staff and clerical staff to keep track of records of both staff and asylum seekers (and each other)

                That’s just off the top of my head… just staffing and building all this is a multi-year project during which crowds of people who should be allowed in are streaming along and the Biden administration and it’s ‘border czar’ Harris have done jack all…

                Liked by 2 people

              2. The absolute childishness people exhibit when talking about this beggars belief. The “bipartisan immigration bill” calls for letting 1,8 million people to cross the border yearly. That doesn’t include anybody who come with a visa of any kind. 1,8 million. The idea that we can just ship enough judges, interpreters, and support staff to the 2,000 mile border and that this operation will somehow resemble the Ellis Island in the 1930s is ludicrous. I don’t understand how people can keep a straight face while suggesting this.

                Liked by 2 people

              4. “The Border” is also a magical place. We won’t have any trouble getting judges and workers there, because it isn’t in another country, but it also isn’t in the US. So everybody can commute there by just taking one step “redward” and making a quarter turn to the left.

                Like

          4. “How did we do it at Ellis?”

            How many people at Ellis island were requesting asylum?

            One of the things I hate most about modern political discourse is the tendency to collapse very different things into single categories.

            I once more submit my preliminary, provisional taxonomy of those who move/go to other countries…. I think it’s important because policies for immigrants vs refugees vs asylum seekers vs resource seekers would be very different….

            I have no idea who’s coming in across the southern border, but the gang members are clearly resource seekers and some are wanderers very few are immigrants in the true meaning of the word.

            Immigrants and the Non-Immigrantly Mobile

            Like

            Reply

Leave a reply to cliff arroyo Cancel reply