Sexual Assault Suspect Was Deported a Whopping FIVE Time Before Latest Attack
The question must be asked: Would the wall have kept him out?
After each conviction – five of them, Nicodemo Coria-Gonzales was sent back to his native Mexico.
And every time, he crossed back into the U.S. – illegally, to commit more crimes and worse ones.
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has promised to build a wall on the southern border to protect Americans from Nicodemo Coria-Gonzales, but that vow has served as a lightning rod drawing scorn from self-righteous liberals who refuse to use the words “illegal” and “alien” in the same paragraph, let alone sentence.
But he promise of a wall has won the endorsement of 20,000 border agents for Trump.
“Every time you commit that offense the range of punishment gets higher and higher, but that's not enough to deter some people who really want to be here no matter what. And so if the punishment doesn't deter them, I don't know what will,” said Immigration specialist Thomas Esparza, Jr.
Coria-Gonzalez, who is now being held without bond after admitting he preyed upon prostitutes, faces six counts of serial rape, aggravated sexual assault and kidnapping in the Austin, Texas area.
The victim of one of the rapes told police Coria-Gonzalez had poured gasoline on her face and attempted to set her on fire.
After his arrest, authorities discovered Coria-Gonzalez U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement had deported him on five previous occasions, but Esparza sounded baffled more than bothered when interviewed.
“Five times deported and he's still here? What did he do the first time to get himself deported? And why didn't he learn after the second or the third or the fourth time?”
There are more questions.
Questions like: Would Donald Trump’s wall have prevented six women in Austin from being raped?
Would the wall that Hillary Clinton opposes have prevented one victim from living through the experience of having her rapist pour gasoline on her face and light a match?
And maybe the most important question: Why wouldn’t Clinton want to protect those women?