Friday, February 24, 2017
Donald Trump returned to CPAC with all the bravado of a conquering hero this year.
Posted by Barbara at 5:33 PM
Immigration: Since when is enforcing an existing law something to be derided and scoffed at. Border Security, Homeland Security Enterprise, Immigration Enforcement
The law that Kelly plans to enforce is the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, which was approved by 52 Democrats in the Senate and 202 Democrats in the House in a Democrat-controlled Congress.
Congress began debating and would eventually pass the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965, co-sponsored by Representative Emanuel Celler of New York and Senator Philip Hart of Michigan and heavily supported by the late president’s brother, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts. During Congressional debates, a number of experts testified that little would effectively change under the reformed legislation, and it was seen more as a matter of principle to have a more open policy. And was approved by 52 Democrats in the Senate and 202 Democrats in the House in a Democrat-controlled Congress.
Indeed, on signing the act into law in October 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson stated that the act “is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions….It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives or add importantly to either our wealth or our power.”
What the memos say, however, is that DHS will enforce the 1965 law.
Critics say, for example, Kelly wants to enlist local law enforcement to help identify and arrest illegals. CNN says the memos "expand the federal government's ability to empower state and local law enforcement agencies to perform the functions of immigration officers."
Not true. This ability is drawn directly from the 1965 law and has been used ever since as a "force multiplier." It was Obama who sharply scaled the program back — after he won re-election in 2012.
The decision to ship illegals back to Mexico, even if they came from another country, is also drawn directly from the law — which also, by the way, makes it clear that illegals can be deported simply for the crime of being in the country illegally.
As far as "stripping" immigrants of "privacy protections," what Kelly's memo actually says is that DHS will abide by the 1974 Privacy Act, which provides privacy protections for information collected by the federal government about U.S. citizens. These protections, the law makes clear, do not extend to visitors or aliens.
In early 2009, the DHS decided on its own to extend the Privacy Act to illegals, because it was easier to do so. Kelly's memo simply rescinds that 2009 "guidance memorandum."
This doesn't strip immigrants of any privacy rights — which they didn't have to begin with — but simply better aligns DHS policy with federal law.
It's true that Kelly plans to hire 10,000 more agents and officers, but many of these personnel will go toward speeding up what is an absurdly long removal process and to better enforcing existing laws.
In any case, the memos make clear that DHS still intends to prioritize their deportation efforts on illegals who are 1) criminals, 2) drug traffickers or 3) national security risks. Anyone want to object to that? Source: IBD
Posted by Barbara at 4:36 PM
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Feb. 23, 2017
Feb. 23, 2017
STATE CAPITOL, PHOENIX – Democratic House Leader Rebecca Rios, D-Phoenix (District 27), released the following statement regarding HB 2372:
"House Democrats stood with community members and stakeholders who are holding the Republicans accountable for both cutting Temporary Assistance for Needy Families two years ago and for pushing legislation that falls short of fully restoring those cuts. To be clear, HB 2372 will punish Arizona children and families as they struggle to recover from crisis. The governor said he was committed to correcting this problem, but tonight he and Republicans fell short of the that commitment and failed Arizona kids. This is a bad deal."
Posted by Barbara at 7:54 AM
Thursday, February 23, 2017
Rep. Richard Andrade, D-Phoenix (District 29), introduced HB 2342, a bill that would ensure Arizona Department of Veterans' Services has funding for ten new Veteran Benefits Counselors. To read the bill click here.
|Feb. 22, 2017|
Posted by Barbara at 5:20 PM
Rep. Ken Clark, D-Phoenix (District 24), introduced HB 2074, a bill that would give money to the State Fair Board for the renovation and preservation of Arizona's historic fairground buildings. To read the bill click here.
|Feb. 22, 2017|
Posted by Barbara at 5:19 PM
Posted by Barbara at 8:44 AM
Wednesday, February 22, 2017
Statement by Attorney General Jeff Sessions on the Withdrawal of Title IX Guidance
The Department of Justice and the Department of Education today withdrew guidance for educational institutions, issued in 2015 and 2016, that took the position that the prohibitions in Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and implementing regulations against discrimination on the basis of sex require access to sex-segregated facilities on the basis of gender identity rather than biological sex. Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued the following statement:
“The Department of Justice has a duty to enforce the law. The prior guidance documents did not contain sufficient legal analysis or explain how the interpretation was consistent with the language of Title IX. The Department of Education and the Department of Justice therefore have withdrawn the guidance. Congress, state legislatures, and local governments are in a position to adopt appropriate policies or laws addressing this issue. The Department of Justice remains committed to the proper interpretation and enforcement of Title IX and to its protections for all students, including LGBTQ students, from discrimination, bullying, and harassment.”
Posted by Barbara at 6:05 PM
The findings of this analysis show that if a border wall stopped a small fraction of the illegal immigrants who are expected to come in the next decade, the fiscal savings from having fewer illegal immigrants in the country would be sufficient to cover the costs of the wall. This analysis takes the likely education level of illegal border-crossers and applies fiscal estimates developed by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) for immigrants by education level. NAS calculates the future fiscal balance immigrants create — taxes paid minus costs. NAS reports fiscal balances as "net present values", which places a lower value on future expenditures than on current expenditures.
Based on the NAS data, illegal border-crossers create an average fiscal burden of approximately $74,722 during their lifetimes, excluding any costs for their U.S.-born children. If a border wall stopped between 160,000 and 200,000 illegal crossers — 9 to 12 percent of those expected to successfully cross in the next decade — the fiscal savings would equal the $12 to $15 billion cost of the wall.1
Among the findings:
- There is agreement among researchers that illegal immigrants overwhelmingly have modest levels of education — most have not completed high school or have only a high school education.
- There is also agreement that immigrants who come to America with modest levels of education create significantly more in costs for government than they pay in taxes.
- A recent NAS study estimated the lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) of immigrants by education. Averaging the cost estimates from that study and combining them with the education levels of illegal border-crossers shows a net fiscal drain of $74,722 per illegal crosser.2
- The above figures are only for the original illegal immigrants and do not include any costs for their U.S.-born descendants. If we use the NAS projections that include the descendants, the fiscal drain for border-crossers grows to $94,391 each.
- If a border wall prevented 160,000 to 200,000 illegal crossings (excluding descendants) in the next 10 years it would be enough to pay for the estimated $12 to $15 billion costs of the wall.
- Newly released research by the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) done for the Department of Homeland Security indicates that 170,000 illegal immigrants crossed the border successfully without going through a port of entry in 2015.3 While a significant decline in crossings from a decade ago, it still means that there may be 1.7 million successful crossings in the next decade. If a wall stopped just 9 to 12 percent of these crossings it would pay for itself.
- If a wall stopped half of those expected to successfully enter illegally without going through a port of entry at the southern border over the next 10 years, it would save taxpayers nearly $64 billion — several times the wall's cost.
Important Caveats and Observations About These Estimates
- In addition to crossing the border surreptitiously, aliens join the illegal population primarily by overstaying a temporary visa. A southern border wall would not address this part of the illegal flow.
- A large share of the net fiscal cost of illegal immigrants is at the state and local level, not the federal level. The costs of building the wall will be borne by the federal government.
- To create its long-term fiscal estimates for immigrants by education level, the NAS uses the concept of "net present value" (NPV). This concept, which is commonly used by economists, has the effect of reducing the size of the net fiscal drain that unskilled immigrants will create in the future. The NAS does this because costs or benefits years from now are valued less in economics relative to more immediate costs. But this means the actual net lifetime fiscal cost of illegal border-crossers, given their education levels, is possibly $140,000 to $150,000 each in their lifetimes if the NPV concept is not used.4 MORE
Posted by Barbara at 9:55 AM