Illinois is Broke, Don’t Bother with a Lottery Ticket

Posted on June 20, 2017June 20, 2017 by Denise Simon

No wonder the Obama’s chose not to move back….seems that community organizing resulted in a financial collapse…Rahm? You have a call holding on line 3.

Illinois careens into financial meltdown – and not even the lottery is safe

Illinois is grappling with a full-fledged financial crisis and not even the lottery is safe – with Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner warning the state is entering “banana republic” territory.

Facing billions in unpaid bills and pension obligations, the state is hitting a cash crunch that is rare even by Illinois standards.

A top financial official just warned 100 percent of the state’s monthly revenue will be eaten up by court-ordered payments. Rauner is calling a special session of the Democrat-led General Assembly in a bid to pass what he hopes will be the first full budget package in almost three years.

And Illinois will – literally – lose the lottery if the budget fails.

The state lotto requires a payment from the legislature each year. The current appropriation expires June 30, meaning no authority to pay prizes. In anticipation of a budget deadlock, the state already is planning to halt Powerball and Mega Millions sales.

“It is disappointing that the legislature’s inability to pass a budget has led to this development and will result in Illinois lottery players being denied the opportunity to play these popular games,” Illinois Lottery Acting Director Greg Smith told Fox News.

“We’re like a banana republic,” Rauner said earlier this month, after the General Assembly failed, yet again, to pass a budget package by the regular session deadline. “We can’t manage our money.”

The governor has called for a special session starting Wednesday. The state so far is operating on a series of stopgap spending packages.

But the problems are years in the making, caused in large in part by the state’s poorly funded pension system— which led Moody’s Investors Services to downgrade the credit rating to the lowest of any state. The state currently has $130 billion in unfunded pension obligations, and a backlog of unpaid bills worth $13 billion.

Reports have suggested the state could be the first to attempt to declare Chapter 9 bankruptcy — but under the law, that’s impossible unless Congress gets involved.

“Nobody here in Illinois is considering bankruptcy—first of all, it’s not allowed,” said Steve Brown, press secretary for Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan. “Second of all, it would damage the reputation of the state and it’s just not necessary.”

U.S. Sens. Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth, both Democrats from Illinois, declined to respond to Fox News’ request for comment on whether they would consider getting involved in introducing a measure allowing state bankruptcy.

“Illinois is the fiscal model of what not to do,” Rep. Peter Roskam, R-Ill., told Fox News, while not commenting on the bankruptcy question. “This avoidance in behavior toward dealing with our challenges is what leads to the devastating impacts we are seeing today.”

Just last week, the Illinois comptroller, who is responsible for paying the state’s bills, warned the office would be paying out 100 percent of Illinois’ monthly revenue, leaving negative funds for “discretionary spending. ”

But Rauner claims the Republicans have a new plan that could remedy the state’s crippling financial situation.

“Republicans in the General Assembly have laid out a compromise budget that I can sign,” Rauner said, calling it a “true compromise.”

The plan incorporates reforms like property tax relief, term limits, and spending caps, which have caused an “ongoing confrontation” between Madigan and the governor, one Republican leader told Fox News, adding that the two have been in a “stalemate” since Rauner took office two years ago.

“Gov. Rauner inherited this financial mess when he took office, and his proposals have been met by resentment from the speaker,” Deputy House Republican Leader Dan Brady said.

Brady added, “we are asking that the speaker allow for a date and a vote before June 30.”

But Brown told Fox News the governor isn’t making enough concessions.

“He’s not walking many back—the financial issues are serious enough, and he’s forcing things that have nothing to do with state government,” Brown said. “The biggest problem here is that the governor keeps associating a lot of things that do not have anything to do with the budget.”

Rauner has pushed for structural reforms, government consolidation and pension reform—some components that were able to pass on the Senate side.

“The people and businesses of Illinois deserve stability, not this ongoing chaos,” Senate President John J. Cullerton, a Democrat, told Fox News. The Illinois State Senate approved a balanced budget before the initial May 31 deadline that “matches” the governor’s spending proposal.

If the General Assembly fails to pass a budget package, they do have an option to pass another stopgap package, which lawmakers say is an option, but “not a good one.”

“We have a very real deadline looming,” Senate Republican Leader Christine Radogno told Fox News. “The alternative to not finding a compromise will be devastating to Illinois.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Terror Funding, Likely Given their Names

Posted on June 20, 2017June 20, 2017 by Denise Simon

21 MEN INDICTED IN MASSIVE CIGARETTE SMUGGLING SCHEME

AFTER INVESTIGATION BY BRONX DA, NYPD, NYS TAX DEPT.,

HOMELAND SECURITY INVESTIGATIONS

Nearly 10,000 Cartons Seized, Alleged Tax Fraud is $20 Million

Cheap Cigarettes Sold in Stores Citywide, Undercutting Law-Abiding Merchants (official indictment here)

Bronx cigarette smuggling could be financing more than just fancy houses and jewels; police worry about terror funding

THE BRONX — When police raided the Bronx home of cigarette smuggling suspect, Hector Rondon, on Leland Avenue recently, they didn’t find him right away.

Then, one of the agents felt something odd under a rug in Rondon’s bedroom.

It turned out to be a trap door that led to a crawl space.

That’s where Hector Rondon was found naked — his hiding spot a failure.

Rondon is one of three, accused ringleaders in a massive cigarette smuggling ring with roots in North Carolina.

That’s where cartons of cigarettes were purchased for about $50 a piece, far cheaper than the sales price in New York of $120 to $130 a carton.

The ring allegedly purchased 5,000 cartons of cigarettes every week in North Carolina and Virginia and sent them to New York.

A $5.00 pack of cigarettes down south can fetch $8.00 on the black market in New York, where heavily-taxed smokes normally sell for $13.00 a pack.

“It’s an incredibly lucrative business,” said Jean Walsh, Chief of Investigations for the Office of Bronx District Attorney, Darcel Clark. “In many ways, it’s more lucrative than drug dealing.”

Walsh believes millions in illegal proceeds could have been transferred overseas, although her office has also accounted for millions in real estate, gold, and jewelry.

“Cash is very difficult to track,” Walsh told PIX11. “They know that. They know we know that.”

Shareef Moflehi, 30, was at the top of the hierarchy of 21 men who were indicted.

Walsh said he recently bought a Mediterranean-style villa in Mount Vernon, New York for $675,000 cash.

Now, the District Attorney’s Civil Forfeiture Unit will try to seize $15,210,000 in assets from Moflehi and his alleged cohorts.

It will seek to take $1,757,945 from another defendant, Saleh Ali Qasem of the Bronx.

The DA is looking to seize five houses, cash, jewelry, and gold.

Jean Walsh told PIX11 her office is still working to track all the money, but she and the NYPD, along with state investigators and federal agents, are well aware of how cigarette smuggling has been tied to terror funding in the past.

Going way back to 1993, financing for the first, World Trade Center bombing was directly linked to cigarette smuggling in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn.

Not long after the 9/11 terror attacks, two Lebanese-born brothers were convicted in North Carolina of sending their smuggling profits to Hezbollah, a group with a stated goal of wiping out Israel.

More recently, a 2015 cigarette smuggling ring in the Bronx was sending vast amounts of cash overseas to the Middle East and Africa.

New York smokers looking for a bargain may not be aware of all this.

But they’re very aware of the places that sell untaxed cigarettes—which they can find in 60 to 80 percent of the delis and smoke shops in New York City.

“There’s always a secret stash of the untaxed cigarettes that are just out of sight,” Tarek Rahman, Chief of the Special Investigations Bureau in the DA’s office, told PIX11.

****

DEFENDANTS

NOMAN ALBAHRI, 36, 1875 Gleason Ave, Bronx

SAMIR HOSIN, 29, 98 Ridgewood Ave, Bronx

OMAR JHURY, 26, 49 N. 10th Ave, Mount Vernon

JAMAL KARKAT, 26, 1735 Hobart Ave, Bronx

TAHIR KASTRATI, 50, 1723 Colden Ave, Bronx

HECTOR RONDON, 44, 826 A Leland Ave, Bronx

SHAREEF MOFLEHI, 30, 121 Stephens Ave, Bronx, & (recently) 369 Westchester Ave, Mount Vernon

PAZAL MOHAMMED (AKA JOHN), 30, 28 Bobwhite Plain, Hicksville, NY

ABRAHAM SHARHAN (AKA IBRAHIM), 34, 4165 Grace Ave, Bronx, 63 Sherwood Ave, Yonkers, NY

YASSER SUFYAN (AKA MALIK), 31, 191 Bennett Ave, Yonkers, NY

AMMAR SHAMAKH, 33, 101 Vincent Drive, Clifton, NJ

NAGIB MOHAMED SHARIF ALI, 39, 3746 Riverside Drive, Raleigh, NC

SHAHER DAHJAT DARI (AKA BOO BOO), 28, 1269 Waterloo Drive, Rocky Mount, NC

MAEEN M. ALSAYIDI, 34, 11 East 2nd Street, Clifton, NJ

OMAR NASSER, 22, 508 Woosdwalk Lane, Rocky Mount, NC

ILYAS MAMUN, 47, 3459 Dekalb Ave, Brooklyn, NY

ABDUL WAHED SALIM (AKA AMIGO), 32, 207 Maddux Drive, Pikesville, NC

SALEH ALI QASEM, 34, 1025 Underhill Ave, Bronx

MOHAMED SIDI AMAR, 39, 300 Addison way, Petersburg, VA

YAHI OULD CHEBIH, 36, 29 Craterwoods Court, Petersburg, VA

TAHIR OULD ELY LEMINE, 39, 169 Craterwoods Court, Petersburg, VA

The Slow Death of Britain and Europe

Posted on June 20, 2017June 20, 2017 by Denise Simon

There have been a number of terror attacks in recent weeks in Britain and across Europe. No one is willing to discuss the causes for fear of retribution by migrant groups, religious organizations and government leaders.

The most recent attack occurred when Darren Osbourne, originally from Whales rented a van and ran into several people outside the Finsbury Park mosque killing one and injuring several others. He is being charged with terror activities. Islamists have been waiting for this reckoning and the powder keg continues to smolder.

The Finsbury Park mosque has a nasty history.

*** Moving on to yet another secret in Britain…

Why Did British Police Ignore Pakistani Gangs Abusing 1,400 Rotherham Children? Political Correctness

A story of rampant child abuse—ignored and abetted by the police—is emerging out of the British town of Rotherham. Until now, its scale and scope would have been inconceivable in a civilized country. Its origins, however, lie in something quite ordinary: what one Labour MP called “not wanting to rock the multicultural community boat.”

Imagine the following case. A fourteen-year old girl is taken into care by the social services unit of the town where she lives, because her parents are drug-addicted, and she has been neglected and is not turning up in school. She is one of many, for that is the way in Britain today. And local government entities—Councils—can be ordered by the courts to stand in for parents of neglected children. The Council places the girl in a home, where she is kept with others under supervision from the social services department. The home is regularly visited by young men who try to entice the girls into their cars, so as to give them drugs and alcohol, and then coerce them into sex.

***

The girl, who is lonely and uncared for, meets a man outside the home, who promises a trip to the cinema and a party with children of her age. She falls into the trap. After she has been raped by a group of five men she is told that, if she says a word to anyone, she will be taken from the home and beaten. When, after the episode is repeated, she threatens to go to the police, she is taken into the countryside, doused in petrol, and told that she is going to be set alight, unless she promises to tell no one of the ordeal.

Social workers tell girls they cannot help them

Meanwhile she must accept weekly abuse, in return for drugs and alcohol. Soon she finds herself being taken to other towns in the area, and hired out for sexual purposes to other men. She is distraught and depressed, and at the point when she can stand it no longer, she goes to the police. She can only stutter a few words, and cannot bring herself to accuse anyone in particular. Her complaint is dismissed on the grounds that any sex involved must have been consensual. The social worker in charge of her case listens to her complaint, but tells her that she cannot act unless the girl identifies her abusers. But when the girl describes them the social worker switches off with a shrug and says that she can do nothing. Her father, his drug habit notwithstanding, has tried to keep contact with his daughter and suspects what is happening. But when he goes to the police, he is arrested for obstruction and charged with wasting police time.

Over the two years of her ordeal the girl makes several attempts on her own life, and eventually ends up abandoned and homeless, without an education and with no prospect of a normal life.

Impossible, you will say, that such a thing could happen in Britain. In fact it is only one of over 1,400 cases, all arising during the course of the last fifteen years in the South Yorkshire town of Rotherham, all involving vulnerable girls either in Council care or inadequately protected by their families from gangs of sexual predators. Almost no arrests have been made, no social workers or police officers have been reprimanded, and until recently the matter was dismissed by all those responsible as a matter of no real significance. Increasing public awareness of the problem, however, led to complaints, triggering a series of official reports. The latest report, from Professor Alexis Jay, former chief inspector of social work in Scotland, gives the truth for the first time, in 153 disturbing pages. One fact stands out above all the horrors detailed in the document, which is that the girl victims were white, and their abusers Pakistani.

***

Sociologists convinced government that the police are racist

Fifteen years ago, when these crimes were just beginning, the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry into the conduct of the British police was made by Sir William Macpherson a High Court judge. The immediate occasion had been a murder in which the victim was black, the perpetrators white, and the behaviour of the investigating police lax and possibly prejudiced. The report accused the police – not just those involved in the case, but the entire police force of the country – of ‘institutionalised racism’. This piece of sociological newspeak was, at the time, very popular with leftist sociologists. For it made an accusation which could not be refuted by anyone who had the misfortune to be accused of it.

However well you behaved, however scrupulously you treated people of different races and without regard to their ethnic identity or the colour of their skin, you would be guilty of ‘institutionalised racism’, simply on account of the institution to which you belonged and on behalf of which you were acting. Not surprisingly, sociologists and social workers, the vast majority of whom are professionally disposed to believe that middle class society is incurably racist, latched on to the expression. MacPherson too climbed onto the bandwagon since, at the time, it was the easiest and safest way to wash your hands in public, to say that I, at least, am not guilty of the only crime that is universally recognised and everywhere in evidence.

Police more concerned with political correctness than crime

The result of this has been that police forces lean over backwards to avoid the accusation of racism, while social workers will hesitate to intervene in any case in which they could be accused of discriminating against ethnic minorities. Matters are made worse by the rise of militant Islam, which has added to the old crime of racism the new crime of ‘Islamophobia’. No social worker today will risk being accused of this crime. In Rotherham a social worker would be mad, and a police officer barely less so, to set out to investigate cases of suspected sexual abuse, when the perpetrators are Asian Muslims and the victims ethnically English. Best to sweep it under the carpet, find ways of accusing the victims or their parents or the surrounding culture of institutionalised racism, and attending to more urgent matters such as the housing needs of recent immigrants, or the traffic offences committed by those racist middle classes.

Americans too are familiar with this syndrome. Political correctness among sociologists comes from socialist convictions and the tired old theories that produce them. But among ordinary people it comes from fear. The people of Rotherham know that it is unsafe for a girl to take a taxi-ride from someone with Asian features; they know that Pakistani Muslims often do not treat white girls with the respect that they treat girls from their own community. They know, and have known over fifteen years, that there are gangs of predators on the look-out for vulnerable girls, and that the gangs are for the most part Asian young men who see English society not as the community to which they belong, but as a sexual hunting ground. But they dare not express this knowledge, in either words or deed. Still less do they dare to do so if their job is that of social worker or police officer. Let slip the mere hint that Pakistani Muslims are more likely than indigenous Englishmen to commit sexual crimes and you will be branded as a racist and an Islamophobe, to be ostracised in the workplace and put henceforth under observation.

Rotherham Town Hall, Wikipedia

No One Will Be Fired

This would matter less if fear had no consequences. Unfortunately political correctness causes people not merely to disguise their beliefs but to refuse to act on them, to accuse others who confess to them, and in general to go along with policies that have been forced on the British people by minority groups of activists. The intention of the activists is to disrupt and dismantle the old forms of social order. They believe that our society is not just racist, but far too comfortable, far too unequal, far too bound up with fuddy-duddy old ways that are experienced by people at the bottom of society – the working classes, the immigrants, the homeless, the illegals – as oppressive and demeaning. They enthusiastically propagate the doctrines of political correctness as a way of taking revenge on a social order from which they feel alienated.

Ordinary people are so intimidated by this that they repeat the doctrines, like religious mantras which they hope will keep them safe in hostile territory. Hence people in Britain have accepted without resistance the huge transformations that have been inflicted on them over the last thirty years, largely by activists working through the Labour Party. They have accepted immigration policies that have filled our cities with disaffected Muslims, many of whom have now gone to fight against us in Syria and Iraq. They have accepted the growth of Islamic schools in which children are taught to prepare themselves for jihad against the surrounding social order. They have accepted the constant denigration of their country, its institutions and its inherited religion, for the simple reason that these things are theirs and therefore tainted with forbidden loyalties.

And when the truth is expressed at last, nobody is fired, no arrests are made, and the elected Police and Communities Commissioner for Rotherham, although forced to resign from the Labour Party, refuses to resign from his job. After a few weeks all will have been swept under the carpet, and the work of destruction can resume.

The Strange Death of Europe is a highly personal account of a continent and culture caught in the act of suicide. Declining birth-rates, mass immigration and cultivated self-distrust and self-hatred have come together to make Europeans unable to argue for themselves and incapable of resisting their own comprehensive change as a society. This book is not only an analysis of demographic and political realities, but also an eyewitness account of a continent in self-destruct mode. It includes reporting from across the entire continent, from the places where migrants land to the places they end up, from the people who appear to welcome them in to the places which cannot accept them. Told from this first-hand perspective, and backed with impressive research and evidence, the book addresses the disappointing failure of multiculturalism, Angela Merkel’s U-turn on migration, the lack of repatriation and the Western fixation on guilt. Murray travels to Berlin, Paris, Scandinavia, Lampedusa and Greece to uncover the malaise at the very heart of the European culture, and to hear the stories of those who have arrived in Europe from far away. In each chapter he also takes a step back to look at the bigger issues which lie behind a continent’s death-wish, answering the question of why anyone, let alone an entire civilisation, would do this to themselves? He ends with two visions of Europe – one hopeful, one pessimistic – which paint a picture of Europe in crisis and offer a choice as to what, if anything, we can do next. – See more at: http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/the-strange-death-of-europe-9781472942241/#sthash.LFXH2Clt.dpuf

Emoluments Clause v. Donald Trump, Expanded Investigation

Posted on June 15, 2017June 16, 2017 by Denise Simon

Update: June 16, 2017, 1:07 pm, est. One of President Trump’s own lawyers, Michael Cohen has now hired a lawyer, Stephen M. Ryan. Cohen apparently has agreed to testify before the House Intelligence Committee on September 5. Additionally, Michael Caputo, the White House advisor hired by Paul Manafort has been contacted by the FBI and too has hired a lawyer, Dennis Vacco. Vacco is a former New York state attorney general. Vice President Pence has hired a Virginia attorney, Richard Cullen.

Don’t shoot the messenger, this is merely an attempt to further explain the expanded Special Counsel Robert Mueller investigation into President Trump and others on his team. There is a multi-track investigation that has been launched by the Mueller team in addition to a multi-track investigation being performed by the Senate Judiciary Committee, which does include Loretta Lynch.

This post is an attempt to offer information on the other moving parts for some additional clarity.

***

Emoluments Clause

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 8

***

almost 200 Democratic members of Congress to be filed against President Trump for violations of the “Foreign Emoluments Clause” of the Constitution. This is on top of another Emoluments Clause lawsuit brought by Maryland and D.C. earlier this week. The general theory is that under the Constitution, the President has an obligation to insulate himself from any foreign influence that would come in the shape of gifts or profits, and that the kinds of profits President Donald Trump receives through his international corporation are precisely the kind that violate such an obligation. In other words, presidents can’t take bribes, and doing business with foreign governments and large foreign companies is something of a bribe per se. Another similar case, CREW v. Donald J. Trump, was filed three days after the inauguration and is currently awaiting a response to Trump’s motion to dismiss in the Southern District of New York (that case is proceeding before Judge Ronnie Abrams, sister of LawNewz founder Dan Abrams).

*** Image result for robert mueller

The Hill reports in part that Mueller is investigating the finances and business dealings of Kushner as well as other Trump associates.Those being looked into include former national security adviser Michael Flynn, former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Carter Page, another campaign adviser to Trump.

“We do not know what this report refers to,” Jamie Gorelick, Kushner’s lawyer, told the newspaper.

“It would be standard practice for the Special Counsel to examine financial records to look for anything related to Russia. Mr. Kushner previously volunteered to share with Congress what he knows about Russia-related matters. He will do the same if he is contacted in connection with any other inquiry.”

***

There is have significant pushback by the Trump White House and several outside advisors to Trump including Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Newt Gingrich and recently hired by Trump, Jay Sekulow. All of these people are correct to earnestly object to continuing investigations with regard to the Russian election intrusion and Trump, at least it appears to be the case and former FBI Director James Comey noted several times.

However, the expanded track of the Mueller investigation team also goes to the financial realm which does include financial corruption, money laundering, public corruption, organized crime and violations of the False Claims Act.

Sounds creepy for sure. There is evidence in this area and the Mueller investigation is not exclusive to finding guilt, but also to eliminate guilt and intent. All investigations include those two conditions and it requires repeating. We cannot know in full what President Trump or those on his team fully revealed financially on paper which is required as a government employee and for security clearance purposes.

Those items are remain undisclosed at this time in open source, however in a classified or undisclosed condition, all financial traces are being requested, gathered and examined by experts.

It should be noted here that additional names could be added to the list under the expanded investigation.

Mueller was named to be special counsel by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Mueller has mobilized and interesting team so far. The backgrounds of the lawyers listed below provide an indication upon which Mueller is taking the investigation.

For your reference, they include:

Aaron Zebley, Former FBI assigned to global terrorism and cyber security

Steve Gaudin, Former FBI interrorgator and al Qaeda expert

James Quarles, Lawyer specializing in corporate and taxation law (Whitewater case)

Jeannine Rhee, Lawyer specializing in public corruption, criminal, securities enforcement

Andrew Weissmann, Former FBI and DOJ, criminal fraud division (Enron case)

Michael Dreeban, Former Solicitor General, criminal law

Lisa Page, FBI lawyer with organized crime, money laundering specialty, Russian/Soviet crime

*** Witness interviews have not begun and the time this article was published and Mueller’s office is located on D Street and has not been fully established. In full disclosure, three people on the Mueller team have previously donated to Democrats while one of the three also made donations to Republicans.

Lisa Page is of particular interest on this team due to her trial record which included on Semion Mogilevich. Several of Mogilevich’s associates own condos in Trump Tower in New York and the former felon and friend of Trump, Felix Sater was a Moglievich lieutenant. Additionally, Andrew Weissmann prosecuted several cases in US District Court in New York of mafia families and their infiltration of Wall Street.

For more details on those of the Mueller team, click here. Of note, this website has published more than one article regarding Felix Sater, Russian oligarch money laundering in the United States and Cyprus connections including documentation from the Panama Papers. The search feature is a useful tool to locate those articles.

At Least 34 Years of Immigration Debate, Loopholes and Dollars

Posted on June 15, 2017June 15, 2017 by Denise Simon

The proposed Department of Justice budget request for 2018 for the Executive Office of Immigration is $421.5 million and includes 2600 employees with 831 lawyers. Judges assigned to immigration courts are being hired, shuffled around the country and have in some areas have a five year base backlog.

Image result for immigration court FoxLatino

The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) was created on January 9, 1983, through an internal Department of Justice (DOJ) reorganization which combined the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) with the Immigration Judge function previously performed by the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) (now part of the Department of Homeland Security). Besides establishing EOIR as a separate agency within DOJ, this reorganization made the Immigration Courts independent of INS, the agency charged with enforcement of Federal immigration laws. The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) was added in 1987. In 2013, EOIR observed its 30th anniversary.

EOIR is also separate from the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices in the DOJ Civil Rights Division and the Office of Immigration Litigation in the DOJ Civil Division.

As an office within the Department of Justice, EOIR is headed by a Director who reports directly to the Deputy Attorney General. Its headquarters are located in Falls Church, Virginia, about 10 miles from downtown Washington, DC.

New York City Law Creates Loophole To Avoid Deporting Criminal Illegal Immigrants

A New York City law that reclassifies several low-level offenses as non-criminal went into effect Tuesday, allowing citizen offenders to keep clean records and illegal immigrant offenders to potentially avoid deportation.

The law, passed by the city council and signed by Mayor Bill de Blasio in 2016, allows police to classify trial summonses for petty crimes as civil summonses, rather than criminal summonses. The change would affect crimes including public urination and drinking and staying in the park after dark, DNA Info reports. The change critically affects the impact of an executive order from President Donald Trump this spring ordering the deportation of illegal immigrants convicted of crimes.

Under the new law, illegal immigrants convicted of these crimes would receive a civil rather than criminal summons, which frees local law enforcement from the obligation of reporting the offender’s immigration status to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

The law would affect cases such as Alejandro Luna, a former gang member and an illegal immigrant caught in central park after dark June 5 who now faces deportation. This would be Luna’s second deportation, the first came in 2006 after he was convicted of home-invasion and robbery. He then illegally entered the country again only to be detained on the June 5 park offense. More here.

***

Illegals presently have access to government funded healthcare. However:

The ‘Verify First Act’ by Rep. Lou Barletta (R-PA) would subsequently end American taxpayer-funded money going to illegal aliens in the form of healthcare insurance credits. The plan is being supported by NumbersUSA, a group which has staunchly advocated for Trump’s America First agenda.

“We applaud Rep. Lou Barletta for introducing the Verify First Act to ensure that illegal aliens cannot qualify for taxpayer-funded health insurance credits,” NumbersUSA Peter Robbio said in a statement. “We are grateful that the Ways and Means Committee and House Republican Leadership agreed to move this important bill forward.”

Since Obamacare’s enactment, illegal immigrants received more than $700 million in healthcare insurance credits by 2015, according to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

In Barletta’s plan, healthcare insurance recipients through the American Health Care Act (AHCA) would have their citizenship and immigration statuses verified by the Social Security Administration (SSA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). More here.

***

In part: Traditional sanctuary policies are often described as falling under one of three categories. First, so-called “don’t enforce” policies generally bar the state or local police from assisting federal immigration authorities. Second, “don’t ask” policies generally bar certain state or local officials from inquiring into a person’s immigration status. Third, “don’t tell” policies typically restrict information sharing between state or local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities. This report provides examples of various state and local laws and policies that fall into one of these sanctuary categories. The report also discusses federal measures designed to counteract sanctuary policies. For instance, Section 434 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) and Section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) were enacted to curb state and local restrictions on information sharing with federal immigration authorities.

State or local measures limiting police participation in immigration enforcement are not a recent phenomenon. Indeed, many of the recent “sanctuary”-type initiatives can be traced back to

activities carried out by churches that provided refuge—or “sanctuary”—to unauthorized Central American aliens fleeing civil unrest in the 1980s.13 A number of states and municipalities issued declarations in support of these churches’ actions.14 Others went further and enacted more substantive measures intended to limit police involvement in federal immigration enforcement activities.15 These measures have included, among other things, restricting state and local police from arresting persons for immigration violations, limiting the sharing of immigration-related information with federal authorities, and barring police from questioning a person about his or her immigration status.16

Still, there is no official definition of a “sanctuary” jurisdiction in federal statute or regulation.17 Broadly speaking, sanctuary jurisdictions are commonly understood to be those that have laws or policies designed to substantially limit involvement in federal immigration enforcement activities,18 though there is not necessarily a consensus as to the meaning of this term.19 Some jurisdictions have self-identified as sanctuary cities.

The federal government’s power to regulate immigration is both substantial and exclusive.23 This authority is derived from multiple sources, including Congress’s Article I powers to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization” and “regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states,”24 as well as the federal government’s “inherent power as a sovereign to conduct relations with foreign nations.”

The Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling in Arizona v. United States—which invalidated several Arizona laws designed “to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States”28 as preempted by federal law—reinforced the federal government’s pervasive role in creating and enforcing the nation’s immigration laws.29 “The Government of the United States,” the Court said, “has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens.”30

Yet despite the federal government’s sweeping authority over immigration, the Supreme Court has cautioned that not “every state enactment which in any way deals with aliens is a regulation of immigration and thus per se preempted” by the federal government’s exclusive power over immigration.39 Accordingly, in Arizona the Supreme Court reiterated that, “[i]n preemption analysis, courts should assume that the historic police powers of the States are not superseded unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.”40 For example, in Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. v. Whiting, the Supreme Court upheld an Arizona law—related to the states’ “broad authority under their police powers to regulate the employment relationship to protect workers within the State”41—that authorized the revocation of licenses held by state employers that knowingly or intentionally employ unauthorized aliens.42 Even though the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) expressly preempted “any State or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions … upon those who employ, or recruit or refer for a fee for employment, unauthorized aliens,” the Supreme Court concluded that Arizona’s law fit within IRCA’s savings clause for state licensing regimes and thus was not preempted.43

Accordingly, based on current jurisprudence, federal measures that impose direct requirements on state or municipal authorities appear most likely to withstand an anti-commandeering challenge if they (1) are not directed at a state’s regulation of the activities of private parties; and (2) apply to the activities of private parties as well as government actors.

Finally, Congress does not violate the Tenth Amendment when it uses its broad authority to enact legislation for the “general welfare” through its spending power,62 including by placing

conditions on funds distributed to the states that require those accepting the funds to take certain actions that Congress otherwise could not directly compel the states to perform.63 However, Congress cannot impose a financial condition that is “so coercive as to pass the point at which ‘pressure turns into compulsion.’”64 For example, in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court struck down a provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) that purported to withhold Medicaid funding to states that did not expand their Medicaid programs.65 The Court found that the financial conditions placed on the states in the ACA (withholding all federal Medicaid funding, which, according to the Court, typically totals about 20% of a state’s entire budget) were akin to “a gun to the head” and thus unlawfully coercive.66

violations of federal immigration law may be criminal or civil in nature, with alien removal understood to be a civil proceeding.71 Some immigration-related conduct potentially constitutes a removable offense and also may be subject to criminal sanction. For example, an alien who knowingly enters the United States without authorization is not only potentially subject to removal,72 but could also be charged with the criminal offense of unlawful entry.73 Other violations of the INA are exclusively criminal or civil in nature. Notably, an alien’s unauthorized immigration status makes him or her removable, but absent additional factors (e.g., having reentered the United States after being formally removed),74 unlawful presence on its own is not a criminal offense.

Some jurisdictions have adopted measures that restrict or bar police officers from making arrests for violations of federal immigration law. In some jurisdictions restrictions prohibit police from detaining or arresting aliens for civil violations of federal immigration law, like unlawful presence.75 Other jurisdictions prohibit police from making arrests for some criminal violations of federal immigration law, like unlawful entry.76 Still others prohibit assisting federal immigration authorities with investigating or arresting persons for civil or criminal violations of U.S. immigration laws.77 And some other jurisdictions have prohibitions that are broader in scope, such as a general statement that immigration enforcement is the province of federal immigration authorities, rather than that of local law enforcement.

Some states and localities have restricted government agencies or employees from sharing information with federal immigration authorities, primarily to prevent federal authorities from using the information to identify and apprehend unlawfully present aliens for removal.88 For instance, some jurisdictions prohibit law enforcement from notifying federal immigration authorities about the release status of incarcerated aliens, unless the alien has been convicted of certain felonies.89 Similarly, other jurisdictions prohibit their employees from disclosing information about an individual’s immigration status unless the alien is suspected of engaging in illegal activity that is separate from unlawful immigration status.90 Some jurisdictions restrict disclosing information except as required by federal law91—sometimes referred to as a “savings clause”—although it appears that the Department of Justice has interpreted those provisions as conflicting with federal information-sharing provisions. For the full summary and context with access to footnotes, go here.