Tag Archives: border control

Business

There’s beeen an increase in egg smuggling attempts across the border, says San Diego Customs

Leave a comment



CNN
 — 

High prices are driving an increase in attempts to bring eggs into the US from Mexico, according to border officials.

Officers at the San Diego Customs and Border Protection Office have seen an increase in the number of attempts to move eggs across the US-Mexico border, according to a tweet from director of field operations Jennifer De La O.

“The San Diego Field Office has recently noticed an increase in the number of eggs intercepted at our ports of entry,” wrote De La O in the Tuesday tweet. “As a reminder, uncooked eggs are prohibited entry from Mexico into the U.S. Failure to declare agriculture items can result in penalties of up to $10,000.”

Bringing uncooked eggs from Mexico into the US is illegal because of the risk of bird flu and Newcastle disease, a contagious virus that affects birds, according to Customs and Border Protection.

In a statement emailed to CNN, Customs and Border Protection public affairs specialist Gerrelaine Alcordo attributed the rise in attempted egg smuggling to the spiking cost of eggs in the US. A massive outbreak of deadly avian flu among American chicken flocks has caused egg prices to skyrocket, climbing 11.1% from November to December and 59.9% annually, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The increase has been reported at the Tijuana-San Diego crossing as well as “other southwest border locations,” Alcordo said.

For the most part, travelers bringing eggs have declared the eggs while crossing the border. “When that happens the person can abandon the product without consequence,” said Alcordo. “CBP agriculture specialists will collect and then then destroy the eggs (and other prohibited food/ag products) as is the routine course of action.”

In a few incidents, travelers did not declare their eggs and the products were discovered during inspection. In those cases, the eggs were seized and the travelers received a $300 penalties, Alcordo explained.

“Penalties can be higher for repeat offenders or commercial size imports,” he added.

Alcordo emphasized the importance of declaring all food and agricultural products when traveling.

“While many items may be permissible, it’s best to declare them to avoid possible fines and penalties if they are deemed prohibited,” he said. “If they are declared and deemed prohibited, they can be abandoned without consequence. If they are undeclared and then discovered during an exam the traveler will be subject to penalties.”



Read original article here

US

House Republicans lay groundwork for Mayorkas impeachment as moderates balk

Leave a comment



CNN
 — 

Senior House Republicans are moving swiftly to build a case against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas as they strongly weigh launching rare impeachment proceedings against a Cabinet secretary, a plan that could generate sharp backlash from GOP moderates.

Key committee chairmen are already preparing to hold hearings on the problems at the southern border, which Republicans say could serve as a prelude to an impeachment inquiry against Mayorkas. Three House committees – Oversight, Homeland Security and Judiciary – will soon hold hearings about the influx of migrants and security concerns at the border.

The House Judiciary Committee, which would have jurisdiction over an impeachment resolution, is prepared to move ahead with formal proceedings if there appears to be a consensus within the GOP conference, according to a GOP source directly familiar with the matter. The first impeachment resolution introduced by House Republicans already has picked up support, including from a member of the GOP leadership team.

A GOP source said the first Judiciary Committee hearing on the border could come later this month or early February.

One top chairman is already sounding supportive of the move, a sign of how the idea of impeaching President Joe Biden’s Cabinet secretary has moved from the fringes to the mainstream of the conference.

“If anybody is a prime candidate for impeachment in this town, it’s Mayorkas,” Rep. James Comer, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, told CNN.

It’s exceedingly rare for a Cabinet secretary to be impeached, something that has only happened once in US history – when William Belknap, the secretary of war, was impeached by the House before being acquitted by the Senate in 1876. Yet it’s a very real possibility now after Kevin McCarthy – as he was pushing for the votes to win the speakership – called on Mayorkas to resign or face potential impeachment proceedings.

With no signs that Mayorkas is stepping aside, House Republicans are signaling they’re prepared to move ahead, even as a bevy of members are uneasy about the approach.

Indeed, McCarthy has to balance his base’s demands for aggressive action with the concerns from more moderate members – many of whom hold seats in swing districts central to his narrow majority. And some in safer seats aren’t yet sold on whether the GOP should pursue that route.

“Clearly, the management of the Southern border has been incompetent,” Rep. Dusty Johnson, a Republican of South Dakota, told CNN. “That is not the threshold in the Constitution for impeachment – it’s high crimes and misdemeanors. … I would want to think about the legal standard the Constitution has set out – and whether or not that’s been met.”

If he loses more than four GOP votes on an impeachment resolution, the effort would fail in the House and could mark a huge embarrassment for the GOP leadership. Already, he has potentially lost one vote – Rep. Tony Gonzales of Texas who signaled he is opposed to the effort right now – and several other members who are far from convinced that charging Mayorkas with committing a high crime and misdemeanor is warranted, even if they believe he’s done a lackluster job in helping secure the southern border.

“Has he been totally dishonest to people? Yes. Has he failed in his job miserably? Yes,” Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, a Florida Republican, said of Mayorkas. “Are those grounds for impeachment? I don’t know.”

Indeed, Republicans from swing districts are urging their colleagues to not rush into impeachment, which would be dead-on-arrival in the Senate and could turn the American people off if the party is perceived as overreaching.

“The border is a disaster and a total failure by the Biden administration. We should first to try to force change through our power of the purse,” Rep. Don Bacon, who represents a Biden-won district in Nebraska, told CNN. “Maybe after more oversight we’ll see where middle America is at, but I don’t think independent, swing voters are interested in impeachments.”

Asked Tuesday about his pre-election warning that Mayorkas could be impeached by the House over the GOP concerns about the borders, McCarthy railed on the problems at the border.

“Should that person stay in their job? Well, I raised the issue they shouldn’t. The thing that we can do is we can investigate, and then that investigation could lead to an impeachment inquiry,” McCarthy told CNN, adding it could “rise to that occasion” of an impeachment if Mayorkas is found to be “derelict” in his duties.

During the first working week of their new majority, Rep. Pat Fallon, a Texas Republican, introduced articles of impeachment for Mayorkas over problems at the southern border, and Rep. Andy Biggs, a hard-right Arizona Republican, vowed to re-introduce a similar resolution in the coming weeks, which could serve as a template for eventual impeachment proceedings.

Fallon’s resolution says Mayorkas has “undermined the operational control of our southern border and encouraged illegal immigration,” also contending he lied to Congress that the border was secure.

Democrats say Republicans are threatening to impeach Mayorkas for pure political reasons, and say policy disputes hardly rise to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Mayorkas has already testified in front of Congress numerous times since he assumed his post, and his agency says he is fully prepared to continue complying with oversight in the GOP-led House. So far, there have been no formal requests for hearings or testimony, with congressional committees still working to get off the ground, though Republicans last year sent numerous letters and preservation requests telegraphing their plans for the majority.

In a statement, a spokeswoman for Mayorkas made clear he has no plans to resign and called on Congress to come together to fix the nation’s immigration system.

“Secretary Mayorkas is proud to advance the noble mission of this Department, support its extraordinary workforce, and serve the American people. The Department will continue our work to enforce our laws and secure our border, while building a safe, orderly, and humane immigration system,” the spokeswoman said in a statement. “Members of Congress can do better than point the finger at someone else; they should come to the table and work on solutions for our broken system and outdated laws, which they have not updated in over 40 years.”

Yet there are signs that the push is gaining steam in the House GOP.

Fallon’s resolution has attracted the support of several Republicans who previously held off on calling for impeachment, including Rep. Dan Crenshaw, a Texas Republican and member of the Homeland Security Committee, and Oklahoma Rep. Stephanie Bice, a new member of the GOP leadership team – signaling the idea is hardly isolated to the fringe wing of the party.

Fallon, too, had not previously backed impeaching Mayorkas until this Congress. Fallon said that he introduced impeachment articles to help get “the ball rolling,” but still believes it’s key to show the American public why they believe Mayorkas deserves to be removed from his post.

“It is important, it is an emergency, you need to break the glass, you really do need to take it up, and then we’re going to have an additional investigation,” Fallon told CNN. “While that’s why I filed the articles, you can always just sit on them and not do anything with them. That starts the ball rolling, we’re going to give Mayorkas the opportunity to defend himself and his department.”

Meanwhile, key committee chairs are vowing to hold hearings on the crisis at the southern border and prepping plans to haul in officials for interviews. GOP Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, who leads the powerful House Judiciary Committee where impeachment articles would originate, suggested the issue would be one of the first hearings when his panel gets up and running.

GOP leaders are cognizant of the fact they can only afford to lose four Republicans on any given vote, and want to build a thorough case for impeachment that can bring the entire party along. But pressure is already building on McCarthy, who has emboldened members of his right flank in his bid to claim the speaker’s gavel – and even given them a powerful tool to call for his ouster if he doesn’t listen to their demands.

Rep. Chip Roy, a Texas Republican and one of the key negotiators in the standoff over McCarthy’s speakership and who was the first to call for Mayorkas’ impeachment, told CNN: “I’ve been very public about my belief that he has violated his oath, that he has undermined our ability to defend our country.”

The primary committees that would be involved in building a case against Mayorkas are both chaired by members of the hardline House Freedom Caucus: Jordan and Tennessee Rep. Mark Green, the newly elected leader of the House Homeland Security Committee.

Part of Green’s pitch to become chairman has centered on how he will hold the Biden administration accountable over the southern border. Green told CNN he has a “five-phase plan” to delve into the issue.

“And if it turns out that (impeachment) is necessary, we’ll hand that over to Judiciary,” Green said. “We’ll have a fact-finding role.”

There’s also been talk of holding field hearings at the southern border, while Republicans plan to keep making visits there, as they did in the last Congress.

Jordan told reporters that the border problems will likely be one of his first hearings as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. But a source close to Jordan, who has become a close McCarthy ally, cautioned that they will not move ahead with impeachment unless the party is fully on board

And it’s clear that House Republicans are not yet in agreement on the issue.

Freshman Rep. Mike Lawler, who represents a Biden-won district in New York, told CNN shortly before being sworn in: “I think the top priority is to deal with inflation and the cost of living. … I don’t want to see what we saw during the Trump administration, where Democrats just went after the President and the administration incessantly.”

But there are some Republicans in Biden districts already lining up behind impeachment articles for Mayorkas, suggesting the politics could be moving in the GOP’s direction.

Freshman Rep. Nick Langworthy, another New York Republican, is among the 26 co-sponsors who have signed on to Fallon’s impeachment articles so far.

And another freshman New York Republican from a swing district, Rep. Anthony D’Esposito, has also expressed support for impeaching Mayorkas.

D’Esposito contended that many Customs and Border Protection agents are tired of the leadership from the top.

“They are the ones that will tell you flat out that Secretary Mayorkas is not living (up) to his oath and he is failing to secure our homeland,” he added.

And South Carolina Rep. Nancy Mace, also a Republican who hails from a swing district, said Mayorkas needs to go.

“When you raise your hand and take an oath to protect our country’s border, and you intentionally and willfully neglect to do that job, you should lose it,” said Mace, who pointed to the influx of drugs across the southern border. “Either way, Secretary Mayorkas has to go.”

House Republicans who have long been itching to impeach Mayorkas have been trying to keep the pressure on their leadership, holding a news conference last month and urging McCarthy to more explicitly spell out where he stands on the issue before they voted him speaker.

McCarthy traveled to the southern border shortly after the November election, where he called on Mayorkas to resign and threatened him with a potential impeachment inquiry, though he has not explicitly promised he would go that route.

But even if an impeachment resolution is approved in the House, winning a two-thirds majority in the Senate to convict Mayorkas has virtually no chance of succeeding. Some Senate Republicans, such as Senate GOP Whip John Thune of South Dakota, were noncommittal about backing such a move. And Democrats are roundly dismissing the idea.

“A wonderfully constructive action,” Sen. Chris Coons, a Delaware Democrat, said sarcastically when asked about the impeachment talk.

Coons quickly added: “I think that’d be an enormous waste of time.”

This story has been updated with additional developments Tuesday.

Read original article here

US

Mike Lee, Title 42 drama holds up omnibus passage

Leave a comment

An effort led by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) to maintain Title 42 is threatening efforts to pass a sweeping government funding bill before a shutdown deadline later this week.

Congressional negotiators on both sides say the biggest holdup is ongoing negotiations to decide what the voting threshold would be to pass the amendment.

Lee’s amendment to the bipartisan deal would cut funding for Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas’s office unless the Biden administration reinstates the border control policy known as Title 42, a Trump-era policy that allows for migrants to be quickly expelled at the border without asylum processing.

The administration may not be able to fully reinstate the policy, as its permanence is currently under review by the Supreme Court, after having been found illegal by a federal judge.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), chair of the Senate Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee, took aim at the push, while raising concerns about its chances of passing a Democratic-led House.  

“We have a difference of opinion on immigration policy. We’re not going to solve that in this budget,” he told reporters late Wednesday. “And to let that disagreement take down aid to Ukraine to keep people alive during a cold winter, especially tonight, is pretty unthinkable.”

The hold-up scuttled tentative hopes the Senate would be able to vote on the government funding bill overnight, though late Wednesday Senate Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) said he thought the chamber may be able to move forward on the bill Thursday morning.

“There’s been some progress made. … I wouldn’t say breakthrough yet,” he said.

Title 42 was due to end Wednesday, but a group of GOP-led states successfully got Chief Justice John Roberts to delay that sunset on Monday.

On Tuesday, the Biden administration, which had appealed the federal judge’s order to end Title 42, asked Roberts to go ahead with ending the policy, which was based on an expired public health order issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Title 42 was originally put in place in 2020 by the Trump administration under the guise of pandemic public health protections, but subsequent reports have revealed that the CDC was pressured politically to issue the public health order by then-White House advisor Stephen Miller.

Under the policy, many migrants who arrive at the border can be summarily expelled without being screened for asylum claims.

U.S. officials have carried out around 2.5 million expulsions under the policy, nearly two million of which have been carried out by the Biden administration.

While Title 42 allowed for speedy expulsions, the regular border protocol known as Title 8 allows for expedited removals of certain migrants, and also allows for border officials to refer migrants for criminal prosecution for repeat illegal entries.

The Biden administration had staunchly implemented and defended Title 42 until Tuesday, when it asked Roberts to lift his stay, but Republicans have nonetheless consistently used the policy to attack the administration.

A Senate Democratic aide said conversations are still ongoing with Republicans, while claiming Lee’s “goal is to kill” the omnibus amid speculation such an amendment couldn’t pass the House.

Lee’s latest push comes as Republicans have once again pulled attention to the border, and as Lee and a group of Senate Republicans look to sidetrack the long term budget deal.

GOP backers behind the push say the delay is necessary to allow the incoming GOP-led House more sway in government funding talks. However, there are many Republicans in the Senate who are pushing instead for Congress to pass an omnibus before year’s end, citing concerns about funding for areas like defense. 

Updated at 10:58 p.m.

Read original article here

US

Title 42: Appeals court rejects bid by GOP-led states to keep Trump-era border policy in force

Leave a comment



CNN
 — 

A federal appeals court on Friday rejected a bid by several Republican-led states to keep the so-called Title 42 rule in force, after a district court struck the controversial Trump-era border policy down.

The new ruling from the DC Circuit US Court of Appeals sets the stage for the case to go to the Supreme Court. The Biden administration is set to stop enforcing Title 42 – which allows for the expulsion of migrants at the US-Mexico border – on Wednesday.

The Republican-led states previously indicated that if the appeals court ruled against them, they’d seek the intervention of the Supreme Court.

In the new order, the DC Circuit denied the states’ request to intervene in the case and dismissed as moot the states’ request that it put the lower court’s ruling on hold.

The unsigned order was handed down by a circuit panel made up of an Obama appointee, a Trump appointee and a Biden appointee.

They wrote that the “inordinate and unexplained untimeliness” of the states’ request to get involved in the case “weighs decisively against intervention.”

The case is a lawsuit the American Civil Liberties Union, representing several migrants brought In January 2021 challenging the program. The appeals court noted on Friday that the Republican-led states had long known that their interest in keeping the policy in force would diverge from the Biden administration’s approach to the case.

The appeals court wrote that “more than eight months ago, the federal government issued an order terminating the Title 42 policy.”

“Yet these long-known-about differing interests in preserving Title 42—a decision of indisputable consequence—are the only reasons the States now provide for wanting to intervene for the first time on appeal,” the DC Circuit said. “Nowhere in their papers do they explain why they waited eight to fourteen months to move to intervene.”

The ACLU attorney representing the migrants praised the court’s decision.

“The states are clearly and wrongly trying to use Title 42 to restrict asylum and not for the law’s intended public health purposes,” the attorney, Lee Gelernt, told CNN in an email. “Many of these states were vigorously opposed to past COVID restrictions but suddenly believe there is a need for restrictions when it comes to migrants fleeing danger.”

White House spokesperson Abdullah Hasan said after the ruling that the administration has a “robust effort underway” for managing the border following the policy’s expected lifting next week.

“To be clear: the lifting of the Title 42 public health order does not mean the border is open. Anyone who suggests otherwise is doing the work of smugglers spreading misinformation to make a quick buck off of vulnerable migrants,” Hasan said in a statement. “We will continue to fully enforce our immigration laws and work to expand legal pathways for migration while discouraging disorderly and unsafe migration. We have a robust effort underway to manage the border in a safe, orderly, and humane way when Title 42 lifts as required by court order.”

The White House also urged Republicans in Congress to agree to more border funding and work on comprehensive immigration reform. The Biden administration has asked Congress for more than $3 billion as it prepares for the end of Title 42 to help shore up resources for border management and technology.

The administration’s handling of Title 42, which the Trump administration put in place during the Covid-19 pandemic, has been the target of litigation from both supporters and opponents of the program.

Last month, US District Judge Emmet Sullivan struck down the program. But Sullivan put his ruling on hold for five weeks so that the Biden administration would have time to prepare for the policy’s wind down. The administration has also appealed the ruling, arguing that the program was lawful, even if federal public health authorities have determined it is no longer necessary.

As the December 21 deadline for Sullivan’s ruling to go into effect approaches, officials have been preparing for a surge of migrants. More than 1 million migrants have been expelled under the rule, which is a public health authority the Trump administration began using at start of the Covid-19 pandemic to expel migrants before they went through the asylum application process.

Republican-led states, in their attempts to intervene in the case, allege that allowing the policy to terminate would “cause an enormous disaster at the border.”

They have argued that the “greatly increased number of migrants that such a termination will occasion will necessarily increase the States’ law enforcement, education, and healthcare costs.”

The Biden administration opposed the states’ attempt to intervene and their request to keep the policy in place, calling the requests untimely and unjustified.

“The States could have sought to intervene after the CDC acted to terminate the Title 42 orders in April 2022,” the administration wrote.

The migrants who challenged the program in the case also opposed the states’ request, writing in a court filing that the states were “transparently interested in Title 42 as a restriction on immigration and asylum” rather than as a public health measure.

The Biden administration tried to wind down the Title 42 program in 2021, but a coalition of mostly GOP-led states – in a separate case filed in Louisiana – successfully sued to block the Department of Homeland Security from ending enforcement.

This story has been updated with additional details.

Read original article here

World

Immigration: Biden admin working on plan to manage flow of Venezuelan migrants, sources say

Leave a comment



CNN
 — 

The Biden administration is considering a new program to have Venezuelan migrants apply to arrive at US ports of entry, like an airport, instead of unlawfully crossing the southern border, if they have a pre-existing tie in the US, according to four sources familiar with discussions.

The proposal comes amid an influx of migrants from those nationalities at the US-Mexico border, straining federal resources and border cities. In August, 55,333 migrants encountered at the border were from Venezuela, Cuba or Nicaragua, a 175% increase from last August, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

The plan is intended to serve as an expanded and more orderly process. If migrants meet the criteria and are approved, they’d then be paroled into the US at an airport with the ability to also work legally.

Mexico is also expected to take a number of Venezuelans under a Trump-era pandemic emergency rule, known as Title 42, that allows authorities to turn away migrants at the US-Mexico border, according to two sources.

Administration officials have been grappling with mass migration throughout the Western Hemisphere for months, stressing the need for all countries to help alleviate the flow and create better conditions in country. The issue was a topic of discussion again last week at a meeting of foreign ministers in Lima, Peru.

The shift in demographics – with many of the migrants now from Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua – is uniquely difficult for the US given, in part, frosty relations with those nations that largely bar the administration from removing people from those countries.

The proposal that’s under consideration is an acknowledgment of the reality that Venezuelans are largely released in the US while they go through immigration proceedings, and in some cases, have family or friends they are joining in the country.

CNN has reached out to the White House for comment.

The Biden administration took a similar approach as the one under consideration with Ukrainians fleeing their war-torn country, allowing them entry into the United States as well as the ability to work for a temporary period. That program was set up to avoid having Ukrainians to the US-Mexico border and come through an orderly process.

Poor economic conditions, food shortages and limited access to health care are increasingly pushing Venezuelans to leave – posing an urgent and steep challenge to the administration as thousands arrive at the US southern border.

More than 6 million Venezuelans have fled their country amid deteriorating conditions, matching Ukraine in the number of displaced people and surpassing Syria, according to the United Nations. More than 1,000 Venezuelans are apprehended along the US-Mexico border daily, according to a Homeland Security official.

Venezuelans apprehended at the US-Mexico border are generally paroled into the US and released under an Immigrations and Customs Enforcement program that monitors people using GPS ankle monitors, phones or an app while they go through their immigration proceedings. But the latest proposal is expected to take a more organized approach.

The jump in Venezuelans moving in the hemisphere came up during a meeting at the White House last month with 19 Western Hemisphere nations, a senior administration official previously told CNN.

“We do find that a lack of coordination leads to more migrants being exploited,” the senior administration official said. “There’s consensus that there’s value in us working more closely and trying to synchronize our policies.”

This story has been updated with additional information Tuesday.

Read original article here

US

DeSantis’ migrant flights to Martha’s Vineyard appear outside the scope of Florida transport program guidelines, state documents show

Leave a comment



CNN
 — 

A pair of flights carrying migrants from Texas to Martha’s Vineyard last month, orchestrated by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, may have exceeded the original scope of the state’s plan to transport undocumented individuals, according to records obtained by CNN.

The records show that in the months leading up to those flights, Florida had planned a narrower mission for a controversial new state program to transport migrants to other states. The goal, according to a callout to contractors and guidelines for the program, was to, “relocate out of the state of Florida foreign nationals who are not lawfully present in the United States.”

But that’s not what transpired. On September 14, two planes picked up 48 migrants in San Antonio – not Florida – and dropped them off in Martha’s Vineyard.

The documents, provided to CNN through a records request and released Friday evening by the Florida Department of Transportation and the governor’s office, offer new details about the stunt that thrust DeSantis even deeper into the middle of a national debate on immigration. From the White House to Florida, Massachusetts and beyond, the condemnation from Democrats was swift. So was the praise from Republicans for DeSantis, who only further bolstered his standing in his party as he considers running for President in 2024.

A Democratic state lawmaker is already suing the state and asking a judge to stop future flights, arguing the DeSantis administration was illegally spending taxpayer dollars. The budget act that created the $12 million program specified the money was set aside to relocate “unauthorized aliens from this state.”

The governor’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The records for the first time also directly tie a $615,000 state payment made to Vertol Systems Company for the September flights that sent migrants from San Antonio to Martha’s Vineyard. Previously, the payment to Vertol was disclosed by the state, but the governor’s office for weeks declined to confirm that the check was linked to the flights that landed in Massachusetts.

The Florida Department of Transportation, the agency tasked with executing the new migrant relocation program, received a price quote from Vertol CEO James Montgomerie on September 6 for “the first Project,” one document showed. Montgomerie identified that project as “the facilitation of the relocation of up to fifty individuals to the State of Massachusetts or other, proximate northeastern state.” The price, he said, was $615,000.

The next day, FDOT officials sent a letter asking for authorization for the $615,000 and the state made the payment within the next 24 hours, according to financial statements maintained on the Florida Chief Financial Officer’s website previously reported by CNN.

In communications with FDOT earlier during the summer, Montgomerie offered the state services that suggested a considerably less ambitious mission for the migrant relocation program.

On July 26, after a discussion with FDOT’s general counsel, Montgomerie gave the agency estimates for his company to charter flights that could carry four to 12 people from Crestview, Florida, to the Boston or Los Angeles areas, according to an email from the Vertol executive to FDOT.

“We are certainly willing to provide you with pricing information on specific ad-hoc requirements on a case by case basis,” Montgomerie wrote in the email.

The prices quoted for flights originating from Florida more closely aligned with FDOT’s guidelines for the program that it sent to prospective contractors and the agency’s request for quotes. In the three-page guidelines, FDOT stipulated the chosen company needed to ensure “that the Unauthorized Alien has voluntarily agreed to be relocated out of Florida.” The quotes also showed Montgomerie early on anticipated Vertol would be moving less people. Later, in September, his quotes evolved to include many more people on board.

Ultimately, the planes that left San Antonio briefly touched down in Crestview before eventually landing in Massachusetts.

At the time of the state’s request for contractors, DeSantis was publicly claiming that President Joe Biden could send buses of migrants from the US-Mexico border to Florida. But DeSantis acknowledged last month those buses never arrived, and his focus began to shift hundreds of miles away to Texas.

DeSantis has said the intention of executing the flights from Texas was to stop the flow of migrants at the source before they came to Florida.

“If you can do it at the source and divert to sanctuary jurisdictions, the chance they end up in Florida is much less,” DeSantis told reporters in September.

DeSantis has vowed to use “every penny” of the $12 million allocated to his administration for migrant transports. However, the state has not publicly taken credit for any transports since the two planes landed in Martha’s Vineyard.

State Sen. Jason Pizzo, the lawmaker now suing DeSantis, said the governor cannot choose to ignore the law when spending state money.

“You can’t even play by your own rules,” Pizzo told CNN last month when speaking of DeSantis. “This isn’t something that we passed 12 years ago. It was done four months ago at your request.”

DeSantis’ office previously said the lawsuit by Pizzo was an attempt at “15 minutes of fame.”

The state has paid Vertol $1.6 million so far through its migrant program, which is funded by interest earned on federal coronavirus relief money, according to the state budget documents. The initial payment of $615,000 was made by the FDOT on September 8, six days before the Martha’s Vineyard flight. Another payment for $950,000 followed on September 16, though it’s not clear what that payment went for.

A few days after that second payment, reports of a similar flight plan from San Antonio to Delaware, Biden’s home state, sent officials there scrambling to prepare for migrant arrivals. The flights, though, never arrived.

The state did not provide a contract with Vertol in the records released Friday night. Nor do the documents offer further insight into why Vertol was chosen over two other companies that appeared to submit quotes to the state, according to records.

CNN has reached out to Montgomerie for further comment.

Vertol had an existing link to a DeSantis administration official prior to its work with the state. Lawrence Keefe, Florida’s “public safety czar” appointed by DeSantis to lead the state’s crackdown on illegal immigration, represented the aviation company from 2010 to 2017.

In its quoted price to the state, Vertol said it was providing “Project management, aircraft, crew, maintenance logistics, fuel, coordination and planning, route preparation, route services, landing fees, ground handling and logistics and other Project-related expenses,” according to the documents.

The request for quotes from the state also asked that potential contractors have “multilingual capability for Spanish.” The chosen contractor would also have to develop procedures for “confirming with Partner Agencies that the person to be transported is an Unauthorized Alien.” Pizzo and others have questioned whether the migrants are considered “unauthorized” by the federal government if they are legally seeking asylum.

Read original article here

US

Kelly warns ‘wheels’ could ‘come off our democracy’ while Masters tries to tie him to Biden in Arizona Senate debate

Leave a comment



CNN
 — 

While trying to distance himself from his own party, Arizona Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly warned during an hour-long debate on Thursday that the “wheels” could “come off our democracy” if candidates like his GOP opponent, Trump-backed Blake Masters, are elected in November.

But Masters aggressively pushed back on those attacks, portraying Kelly, who’s running for a full six-year term, as a rubber stamp for the Biden administration, while refusing to acknowledge that he has attempted to moderate his positions on abortion and the 2020 presidential election.

The Arizona Senate race is among the most competitive in the country, and with the chamber currently split 50-50, every race matters. But Kelly appears to have strengthened his position over the past two months as Masters has struggled to keep up with the Democrat’s fundraising prowess. A new CNN poll released Thursday found that 51% of likely voters are behind Kelly, with 45% backing Masters.

Masters – a venture capitalist and political novice who won the primary in large part because of former President Donald Trump’s endorsement and the financial backing of billionaire Peter Thiel (his former boss) – released a campaign video last year proclaiming that he believed Trump won the 2020 election. But after the primary, he removed language from his website that included the false claim that the election was stolen.

Masters attempted to maneuver around questions about the election during Thursday’s debate – just days before Trump, whose 2020 loss in Arizona set off a cascade of election denialism in the state, heads there to campaign for Masters and other Republicans.

When the moderator asked him whether President Joe Biden, who narrowly carried Arizona, is the “legitimately elected President of the United States,” Masters replied: “Joe Biden is absolutely the President. I mean, my gosh, have you seen the gas prices lately?”

“Legitimately elected?” the moderator interjected.

“I’m not trying to trick you,” Masters said. “He’s duly sworn and certified. He’s the legitimate president. He’s in the White House and unfortunately for all of us.”

When the moderator followed up by using Trump’s language, asking whether the election was “stolen” or “rigged in any way” through vote counting or election results, Masters replied: “Yeah, I haven’t seen evidence of that.”

But Kelly argued that Masters has espoused “conspiracies and lies that have no place in our democracy.”

“I’m worried about what’s going to happen here,” Kelly said. “This election in 2024. I mean, we could wind up in a situation where the wheels come off of our democracy, and it’s because of folks like like Blake Masters that are questioning the integrity of an election.”

Masters insisted that he does not want to get rid of mail-in voting as Kelly alleged. He said he believed military service members should be able to mail ballots back from overseas and said he’d be fine with other voters sending their ballots back by mail if they included a copy of their driver’s license.

Masters and Kelly repeatedly clashed over immigration, with Masters claiming Kelly supports “open borders” and Kelly rejecting those attacks as he insisted that he’s brought more resources to Arizona to deal with that issue.

When asked whether he had done enough to address immigration concerns, Kelly distanced himself from national Democrats.

“When I got to Washington, DC, one of the first things I realized was that Democrats don’t understand this issue. And Republicans just want to talk about it, complain about it, but actually not do anything about it. They just want to politicize that. We heard this tonight from my opponent Blake Masters.”

Masters charged that Biden and Kelly have put out “the welcome mat” to migrants. “We treat these people better than we treat our own US military service members. I find that shameful.”

Kelly said he’s pushed back on the Biden administration multiple times on immigration issues, including when the administration planned to end Title 42, the pandemic-era policy that allowed border patrol agents to send migrants back to their home countries.

“I’ve stood up to Democrats when they’re wrong on this issue … including the President.”

“When the President decided he was going to do something dumb on this, and change the rules,” Kelly said, “I told him he was wrong.”

Some of the sharpest exchanges were over abortion as the moderator and Libertarian candidate Marc Victor drew attention to the fact that Masters scrubbed some of the language about his anti-abortion stances from his website as he tried to pivot toward the general election.

Abortion rights have been a subject of fierce controversy in Arizona since the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade, because there are conflicting abortion laws in the state – leading to debate over which one should take precedence.

The state legislature passed a 15-week ban earlier this year that does not include exceptions for rape or incest, only medical emergencies. Masters has said he supports that plan, which was signed into law by Republican Gov. Doug Ducey.

But Arizona also had a pre-statehood law on the books banning nearly all abortions that was enjoined in 1973 after the Roe decision. A Pima County Superior Court judge recently ruled that it could go back into effect at the urging of the state’s GOP attorney general.

Kelly argued that Masters wants to make decisions for Arizona women and curtail their rights. “I think we all know guys like this,” said Kelly, also faulting Masters for supporting a national ban on abortion at 15 weeks that has been proposed by South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham.

“You know, guys that think they know better than everyone about everything,” Kelly continued.

“What I’m doing is I am protecting your constitutional rights,” he added.

When the moderator pressed Kelly to explain what limits he would support on abortion, Kelly said he supports the kind of framework contemplated by the Roe v. Wade decision where “late term abortion in this country only happens when there is a serious problem.”

Read original article here

US

Steve Bannon indicted on state charges of money laundering, conspiracy and fraud related to border wall effort

Leave a comment



CNN
 — 

Former Donald Trump aide Steve Bannon was indicted on state charges of money laundering, conspiracy and fraud related to an alleged online scheme to raise money for the construction of a wall along the southern US border, according to an indictment obtained by CNN.

Bannon surrendered Thursday morning to authorities and is expected to plead not guilty when arraigned, his attorney Robert Costello told CNN.

The state charges are based on the same conduct Bannon was charged with by federal prosecutors in 2020 that alleged he and three others had defrauded donors in the border wall effort, which raised more than $25 million.

Presidential pardons do not apply to state investigations, however.

According to the indictment, one of Bannon’s associates who isn’t named created an online fundraising platform to raise money to build a wall on the border. In order to receive the money from donors, the organizer promised that “100% of the funds” would go towards building a boarder wall, and he would not be taking a salary from the project, prosecutors say.

Bannon’s associates discussed telling the public that no one involved in the “We Build The Wall” project would take a salary, according to the indictment. In a text message, one of the associates told Bannon that the claim “removes all self interest taint on this” and it “gives [the CEO] saint hood,” the indictment says.

Bannon publicly claimed he was acting “kind of as a volunteer” for We Build The Wall, prosecutors said in the indictment. Behind the scenes, Bannon allegedly helped to funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars to himself and his associates.

Bannon appeared to blame his situation on political motivations.

“This an irony, on the very day the mayor of this city has a delegation down on the border, they are persecuting people here, that try to stop them at the border” he told reporters outside the DA’s office Thursday.

“This is all about 60 days from the day,” he said later, referencing the November election.

The Manhattan district attorney’s office launched a criminal investigation into Bannon’s “We Build the Wall” crowd-fundraising activities early last year after then-President Trump pardoned Bannon on federal fraud charges relating to the same alleged scheme.

Bannon had been federally charged with diverting more than $1 million to pay an alleged co-conspirator and cover hundreds of thousands of dollars in personal expenses. Prosecutors alleged that the donors, including some in New York, were falsely told that all the money contributed would go toward the construction effort.

In recent months, several people close to Bannon were brought before the state grand jury.

Manhattan prosecutors subpoenaed bank records and quietly worked on the investigation over the past year as they investigated Trump and his real estate business, sources familiar with the matter previously told CNN. But the district attorney’s office deferred a charging decision on Bannon until federal prosecutors concluded their case against his three co-defendants, who were not pardoned.

Bannon issued a statement late Tuesday, in part calling the indictment “phony charges” and “nothing more than a partisan political weaponization of the criminal justice system.”

“I am proud to be a leading voice on protecting our borders and building a wall to keep our country safe from drugs and violent criminals,” he said in the statement, adding: “They are coming after all of us, not only President Trump and myself. I am never going to stop fighting. In fact, I have not yet begun to fight. They will have to kill me first.”

A federal jury in July found Bannon guilty of contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena from the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, US Capitol attack. He is scheduled to be sentenced in October and faces a minimum sentence of 30 days in jail, according to federal law.

This story has been updated with additional details.

Read original article here