Mediaboss Marketing

Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

Over the past year, Gov. Greg Abbott has issued disaster declarations across the state for a number of tragedies: the coronavirus pandemic that killed more than 50,000 Texans, a winter storm that left millions of people in freezing temperatures without power for days, hurricanes and floods that wiped out homes and local infrastructure.

The disaster declarations give the governor broad power to suspend state laws and regulations that hinder a jurisdictions recovery from a disaster and to allow the use of available resources to respond to the disaster.

Then, on May 31, the two-term Republican governor who is seeking reelection next year took the unprecedented step of declaring a disaster for 34 counties based on an increase of illegal immigration at the Texas-Mexico border. The declaration allowed Abbott to request the reallocation of $250 million of legislatively appropriated funds toward a border wall construction project pushed by his office.

Its extraordinarily unusual, said Jon Taylor, professor of political science at the University of Texas at San Antonio. Traditionally, its used for natural disasters, he added, though state law does allow for its use for some man-made disasters.

Abbotts move raises questions about the executive branchs emergency powers, rekindling concerns raised during the early days of COVID-19 last year when Abbott used his broad emergency powers to enact restrictions shutting down businesses to curb the pandemic. In response, the Legislature tried without success to rein in Abbotts authority this session.

But now, critics are questioning whether an increase in illegal immigration constitutes a disaster that merits emergency action by the governor.

State Rep. John Turner, D-Dallas, said Abbotts use of a disaster declaration to reallocate legislatively appropriated funds to a project from his office stretches the concept of emergency authority to its breaking point.

A governor should not be able to circumvent the legislative process by declaring such matters to be emergencies and then implementing whatever measures he wishes, Turner said in a statement. If a governor can commence such a long-term, multi-hundred-million-dollar public works project under the cover of emergency powers, it is difficult to know what the limits of those powers are.

I hope the Legislature will reassert its authority and resist this ill-considered action by the Governor, he added.

Under the Texas government code, governors are allowed to declare disasters for an occurrence or imminent threat of widespread or severe damage, injury, loss of life or property resulting from any natural or man-made cause. The code gives the executive branch broad authority that covers natural disasters, like fires, hurricanes,and storms, as well as man-made catastrophes like riots, hostile military action and cybersecurity events.

Renae Eze, a spokeswoman for Abbott, said the governor is acting together with leaders in both chambers of the Legislature, who signed off on his request to transfer legislative funds for the border wall last week. She said the action was warranted because of a 20-year record high of migrant crossings at the border.

This is not a red or blue issuethis is a public safety issue, she said. President Bidens reckless open border policies have led to a crisis along our southern border Until the Biden Administration starts doing their job, Texas is stepping up to secure our southern border and protect Texans.

In a news conference last week, Abbott acknowledged that his move stepped outside of the historical precedent for disaster declarations.

I am unaware of a governor ever declaring a disaster at county requests because of the tidal wave of illegal immigrants coming across the border, wrecking havoc in communities and residents who live here in Texas, he said.

Abbott said the flow of illegal immigration through the state had cost Texas billions of dollars and thousands of hours of staff resources while hurting border residents whose properties were damaged and lives were threatened. Eze said this week that the Department of Public Safety has also seized 95 pounds of fentanyl smuggled across the border this year, which puts other areas of the state at risk.

In 2019, President Donald Trump declared a national emergency at the border as he sought to fulfill a campaign promise to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Trump similarly said the emergency declaration was needed to stop illegal drug trafficking, human trafficking and gang violence.

Trump also faced backlash over executive overreach but his emergency order stayed in place until February when the Biden administration formally ended it.

Alberto Gonzales, a former U.S. Attorney General and Texas Supreme Court justice, said he generally supports having statutory authority within the governors office to respond to almost any kind of crisis because its hard to anticipate all the emergencies that might arise. Gonzales said he was speaking broadly because he did not have first-hand knowledge of the issues surrounding Abbotts declaration.

Gonzales, now dean of the Belmont University College of Law, said his experience as White House counsel for President George W. Bush during the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks have shaped his views of executive authority.

Only the executive can respond quickly and decisively, in unexpected emergencies, he said.

In exchange for allowing strong emergency powers, lawmakers should demand strict accountability once the disaster has passed, including complete disclosure of the actions taken by the executive branch and an accounting of how state funds were used, Gonzales said.

Abbott critics could still argue that an increase of illegal immigration does not meet the standards for a disaster declaration and gives the governor power he would not have under normal circumstances, Taylor said.

The disaster declaration allows the state to transfer money already appropriated in the budget to respond to the disaster. In this case, the state will transfer $250 million appropriated by lawmakers for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to Abbotts border wall initiative. State officials have said they will identify funding to replace that money in the agencys budget.

Lawmakers who oppose the wall could argue that their authority over the states purse strings is being side-stepped by the governor for his own initiative.

Its absolutely an encroachment, Taylor said. That gives a lot more authority than what I think people interpreted under the Texas constitution. This has been a problem for legislature-gubernatorial relations since at least Ann Richards but definitely since [Rick] Perry. There's been a decided push to expand gubernatorial power whenever possible.

Last year, Democrats and Republicans complained that Abbott had overstepped his authority through his orders to curb COVID-19. Democrats criticized the governor for not deferring to local officials, who they argued were better positioned to make decisions for their communities. And Republicans blasted Abbotts orders to shut down businesses and require masks.

The Legislature debated curbing the governors emergency powers during this years regular session, but the Senate and House had different approaches to the issue and were unable to reach a compromise before lawmakers returned home.

The Senate rallied around two proposals by state Sen. Brian Birdwell, R-Granbury, that would have applied to all declared disasters. The legislation, which would have needed a sign off from Texas voters before it could take effect, would have required the governor to call a special session to declare a state emergency that lasts longer than 30 days. The special session would give lawmakers the chance to terminate or adjust executive actions taken by the governor, or pass new laws related to the disaster or emergency.

In the House, state Rep. Dustin Burrows, R-Lubbock, spearheaded House Bill 3, a sweeping piece of legislation that would have curbed emergency powers only during a pandemic as opposed to all disasters, which include hurricanes and tornadoes. Neither Burrows' nor Birdwells offices responded to requests for comment.

But neither of the Republican-dominated chambers seems opposed to Abbotts use of a disaster declaration to tackle illegal immigration.

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and House Speaker Dade Phelan flanked Abbott at a news conference on the subject last week, and the respective chambers chief budget writers Sen. Jane Nelson, R-Flower Mound, and Rep. Greg Bonnen, R-Friendswood, signed off on the transfer of budgeted funds for Abbotts down payment for the border wall.

Phelan, a Beaumont Republican in his first term as speaker, said earlier this month that lawmakers will debate curbing the governors emergency powers again at some point but deferred to Abbott on whether it will be included in a special session agenda. Phelan has said he sees no need for lawmakers to convene during natural disasters.

Can you imagine trying to have a special session in an off-year, everyone coming up to Austin when they need to be back home taking care of their constituents? Phelan said during an interview with the Tribune after the regular legislative session.

State Rep. Chris Turner, who chairs the House Democratic Caucus, said Abbotts focus on immigration at the border is all about politics.

I think the governor should have emergency powers in certain circumstances because emergencies do arise, Turner said. But, he added, the fact that Trump is going to tour the border with him next week is proof that this is more about Republican primary politics than it is serious policy.

Abbott has dismissed those criticisms as nonsense.

Taylor said as long as the legislative and executive branches are dominated by the same party and agree on the issue being tackled by a disaster declaration, there is no incentive for lawmakers to try to rein in the governors power. Under those circumstances, Abbott may keep testing the limits of his office.

Its the idea of, he saw an opening, he took the opening, Taylor said. It suggests to me that hes thinking Stop me until I spend again.

But even if lawmakers do not push back on Abbotts emergency power, Gonzales said valid questions remain. The governors opponents could argue in federal court that the state is usurping the federal governments responsibility over immigration enforcement and preempt Abbotts actions.

They could also challenge what constitutes a disaster.

If something is anticipated can you really call it an emergency? Gonzales said. Is there time for the Legislature to take action? Is there time for the executive to sit down with the Legislature and say This is the problem, heres the action Id like you to take?

Disclosure: The University of Texas at San Antonio has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

Here is the original post:
Gov. Greg Abbott is using a disaster declaration to help fund a border wall. Democrats say it's an overreach of executive powers. - The Texas Tribune

Homeland Security will allow some illegal immigrants ousted under the Trump administration to reenter the U.S and renew their cases, according to a news report Tuesday.

CBS News said the policy will apply to people who had showed up at the border, made asylum claims that got funneled into the so-called Remain in Mexico program, were pushed back across the boundary to wait for their immigration hearings, but then failed to show for those hearings.

They will now be allowed to come into the U.S. and begin their claims again.

Congressional Democrats who oversee Homeland Security cheered the policy.

Too many people were denied their right to due process and rejected for entry into the United States under the abhorrent Remain in Mexico policy, said Reps. Bennie G. Thompson of Mississippi and Nanette Barragan of California.

The two Democrats who, respectively, chair the Homeland Security Committee and its subcommittee on border security said the Trump policy discouraged people from showing up for their hearings, and they deserve a chance to make their cases.

Immigrant-rights activists have been pressuring the Biden administration to find ways not only to roll back Trump policies, but to bring back people deported during the Trump era.

The new move doesnt go that far, but it is a step in that direction.

Tens of thousands of people were pushed into the Remain in Mexico program, which takes advantage of a portion of U.S. law that allows people who show up without permission to be ordered back across the border to wait while their immigration cases proceed.

Trump officials said the logic was to deny people with bogus cases a foothold in the U.S., which many abused by disappearing into the shadows while their claims were being judged. Indeed, the policy worked in solving the 2019 border surge, according to Border Patrol agents.

But immigrant-rights activists said the human costs were too high: Many illegal immigrants ended up in camps on the Mexican side where they became targets for extortion or other abuse by smuggling cartels. Many also tried to jump the border again.

See original here:
DHS to readmit illegal immigrants ousted under Trump: Report - Washington Times

By Larry Whitlow| Bucks County Courier Times

First and foremost, I love this country and I've always been proud to say I'm an American no matter where I have traveled. Lately it seems that there are many of my fellow citizens that don't share those sentiments.

Complaints about our sometimes-dysfunctional government which is certainly justified, protests, racial strife, gun violence and immigration problems just to name a few are in the news every day.

So, I decided to sit down and do some research as to where things are better for us to go so that we can live a more peaceful and less turbulent life. I didn't have to look too far. Canada.

Here are some very interesting facts:

What really stands out isCanada's immigration policy, which is such a hot button topic here. Canada actively solicits immigrants and has done so for years. Over 20% of all Canadians are foreign born. The obvious question is 'Why is Canadian public opinion on immigration so different from ours?"

The answers are quite interesting.

Canadians are convinced of the positive economic benefits of immigration and believe immigrants create jobs. Most immigrants to Canada are authorized under a points system tied to their credentials and employment potential. About half of Canadian immigrants have bachelor's degrees and evidence suggests that the balance of immigrants are highly skilled and net contributors.

Secondly, Canadians see multiculturalism as an important component of national identity. Other factors allow Canada to be more inviting. The country has very little to worry about from illegal immigration. Like the U.S., it shares a long southern border with a country suffering from high levels of crime,gun violence, unemployment and income inequality.

But there aren't millions of Americans yearning to get into Canada. That reduces unauthorized immigration and eases public anxiety about it like we have here.

Incidentally, the emphasis on multiculturalism points to an interesting normative distinction between the U.S. and Canada. Both this country and Canada have robust legal protections against discrimination.

But here you rarely hear somebody advocate for immigration on the grounds that it adds to the social fabric of the country. Apparently when that argument arises in Canada it has a humanitarian dimension.

Canada has its problems to be sure, but it seems to have a much better handle on the many issues that plague our country.

Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea to suggest that our so-called divided political leaders in Congress and the Senate who never seem to compromise on anything for the American good should visit our neighbors to the north on one of their many recesses and holiday breaks and take a working vacation to be schooled on how to govern.

As for me, despite all our supposed problems in this great country, I'm staying put in Bucks County. Life is good. For those who continue to protest and complain, pack some warm clothes and look to the north if they will have you.

Larry Whitlow is a resident of New Hope.

Link:
Like a good neighbor, Canada is there - Bucks County Courier Times

(The Center Square) As the crisis at the southern border continues to grow worse, a top Biden administration immigration official has been removed.

U.S. Customs and Border Patrol announced Thursday that Raul Ortiz would take over as the new Chief of U.S. border patrol to replace Rodney S. Scott, who served in the role for 17 months, part of his 29-year career. Notably, Scott supported former President Donald Trumps border wall and was removed as the Biden administration takes increasing criticism over its handling of the flood of illegal immigration at the border.

I personally thank Rodney S. Scott for his 29 years of service with the U.S. Border Patrol and for his seventeen months of service as Chief of the U.S. Border Patrol, Acting Commissioner Troy Miller said. He has dedicated his career to public service, and I am grateful for the depth of experience and knowledge he has brought to U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

The announcement comes a day ahead of Vice President Kamala Harris visit to the southern border. She has taken heat for weeks for not visiting the border after Biden tapped her to head up the immigration crisis earlier this year.

Harris will visit El Paso, Texas, with Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

Former President Donald Trump has been a steady critic of Harris and has planned his own border visit with Texas Gov. Greg Abbott June 30.

"After months of ignoring the crisis at the Southern Border, it is great that we got Kamala Harris to finally go and see the tremendous destruction and death that they've created a direct result of Biden ending my very tough but fair Border policies," Trump said in a statement after Harris announcement. "Harris and Biden were given the strongest Border in American history. And now, it is by far the worst in American history."

The calls for Harris to visit have grown louder as federal data shows a major increase in illegal immigration this year.

CBP released immigration data earlier this year that showed agents encountered 172,000 illegal immigrants attempting to cross the southern border in March, a major increase from the previous month and much higher than the same time last year. Those numbers have remained high since then, even increasing by several thousand.

A group of House Republicans called on Biden to replace Harris as head of the immigration issue last week.

The Biden administration has directly undermined our nations sovereignty, security, and well-being with the Biden border crisis, said Mike Howell, former Department of Homeland Security oversight counsel and expert at the Heritage Foundation. It is a constitutional crisis when those charged with keeping us safe and enforcing our laws are instead encouraging, facilitating, and rewarding an invasion on our states and local communities. As the administration continues to take steps to make matters worse, their motivations are made plain for all to see. This crisis is by design, and removing what little protections that remain for this country proves that point beyond dispute.

See the article here:
Top immigration official ousted as border crisis worsens - The Center Square

Keely Sullivan is a freelance journalist.

European conservatives go-to model for ending illegal immigration doesnt look so solid anymore. For the first time in decades, a court in Australia has freed an inmate from the Pacific nations zero-tolerance immigrant detention system, calling into question the legal foundation of how it handles asylum seekers.

European migration hawks have long eyed Australias approach because it worked. Though decried by human rights advocates, the systems supporters note that Australia has had next to no illegal sea arrivals since 2013. Instead, migrants intercepted at sea have often been diverted to processing camps on the Pacific islands of Manus and Nauru, stranding them there with no guarantee of release.

A lawsuit filed by Ahmed Mahmoud, a 29-year-old Syrian national, calls that system into question. A former legal resident of Australia who had lost his visa after an assault conviction in 2011, Mahmoud was freed from the system after nearly six years, after a court ruled that his long-term detention was illegal. He had bounced between 11 different detention centers including Christmas Island, halfway between Australia and Indonesia in the Indian Ocean.

Opponents of Australias system say Mahmouds case AJL20 vs. Commonwealth of Australia sets a precedent with important implications for how long Australia can keep asylum seekers in detention.

Any time that the court expresses limitations on the governments power to detain people is so important, said David Burke, legal director for Human Rights Law Centre. The case, he added, was effectively a clarification of the limits of when the government can do that. The case was decided in September. The Australian government is currently appealing the ruling.

The ruling is restricted to Australia, but critics of the countrys immigration policy say they hope it will cause Europeans looking to the country to reconsider.

The idea of stopping immigration by outsourcing responsibility to other countries has been gathering steam on the Continent. In a December 2016 interview with POLITICO, Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz then foreign minister endorsed the Australian approach and called for the EU to impose a similar system. In the U.K., Home Secretary Priti Patel has also advocated for an Australia-style system that included offshoring illegal refugee arrivals to Britain.

And in 2018, citing the ongoing migrant boat traffic in the Mediterranean, the EUs General Secretariat of the Council urged the European Council and Commission to study the feasibility of an offshore model similar to Australias.

The country that has taken the most practical steps so far to set up such a system is Denmark, where Immigration Minister Mattias Tesfaye signed an agreement with the Rwandan government widely-viewed as the first step toward opening an overseas asylum processing center there, 9,000 kilometers from European shores.

But while the system appeals to politicians hoping to look tough on migration, human rights advocates say it takes an unacceptable toll on those caught in the system.

Amnesty International has called Australias system a deliberate abuse of cruelty and a nightmare for asylum seekers, who have alleged physical abuse, sexual assault and insufficient medical care. Harsh detention policies have some populist appeal, particularly around election time, said Graham Thom, a refugee advocate with Amnesty International Australia.

A 2018 UNHCR finding noted a pervasive sense of helplessness and hopelessness among asylum seekers and refugees on Manus Island, citing declining mental health, insufficient assistance with bureaucracy, rough living conditions and uncertainty.

Copying Australia would be difficult in Europe, said Lina Vosyliute, a research fellow at Brussels-based Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS). Where Australian law is not always adhered to in offshore locations under the Australian system, EU laws and jurisdiction would be under an EU offshore system, including due process and human rights protections.

Wherever EU money is going, EU values and obligations are following, Vosyliute said.

The Australian offshore model currently offers no path to residency for refugees, who are instructed to settle permanently in a third nation, seek asylum elsewhere or return to their home country. If they cant or wont, they are left indefinitely in internment. The average length of detention in Australia has risen from four months to nearly two years since 2013.

I have met people in detention who havent got a lawyer for half a decade, said Alison Battisson, the lawyer representing Mahmoud. Its unlikely such a system would be ruled legal under EU law.

Opponents of the Australian system say they will use the Mahmoud decision to slow momentum for offshoring in Europe. This wonderful system that youre trying to promote does have cracks in it, said Judith Sunderland, associate director for Human Rights Watchs Europe and Central Asia division. We would certainly try to use it to shift the debate.

The decision would set the precedent for maybe Danish officials, who are thinking to do something like Australia did, said Vosyliute. This could be a good indication that its a no go for policymakers.

Here is the original post:
Doubts rise over Australias offshore handling of refugees - POLITICO Europe