Texas Weekly Online

Texas-trans-white
Menu
Menu

Author:

What would a President Pritzker do on immigration, border crisis?

What would a President Pritzker do on immigration, border crisis?

With ongoing speculation about whether President Biden will remain the Democratic 2024 presidential nominee after a disastrous debate performance last week, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker is one of the names being raised as a replacement. But the ongoing crisis at the southern border remains a top issue for voters across the country, and there are signs of the extent to which Pritzker might take a different approach to the crisis than the current administration. Illinois has been one of the states hit by the knock-on effects of the immigration crisis, where migrants have moved through the southern border into cities like Chicago by the tens of thousands.  HOW WOULD A PRESIDENT WHITMER HANDLE IMMIGRATION, BORDER CRISIS?  While Pritzker has been broadly supportive of most of President Biden’s efforts at the southern border, he has also been one of a number of Democrats who have been critical of the federal government’s handling of the crisis. In October, Pritzker sent a letter to Biden stressing that he believes in the right “of every human, especially those facing persecution, to find refuge and live with dignity in this great country of ours.” However, he warned that the crisis is “overwhelming” the states and criticized the federal government. “Unfortunately, the welcome and aid Illinois has been providing to these asylum seekers has not been matched with support by the federal government. Most critically, the federal government’s lack of intervention and coordination at the border has created an untenable situation for Illinois,” he said. “There is much more that can and must be done on a federal level to address a national humanitarian crisis that is currently being shouldered by state and local governments without support,” he said. Specifically, he requested a number of actions, such as the waiving of fees for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and “significant” increases in logistical coordination, including the federal government taking over coordination of routing buses of migrants across the country. DO THESE POTENTIAL BIDEN REPLACEMENTS HAVE WHAT IT TAKES TO BEAT TRUMP? Pritzker also called for a “federal coordinator and task force” to be based at the border and solely to be dedicated to migrant resettlement. In addition, he called (as Biden’s administration has done) for more funding to states, local governments and non-governmental organizations and the expediting of work permits. He also called on Biden to approve requests from Illinois to allow waivers for Medicaid and housing vouchers for migrants. In January, he, along with a number of other governors, wrote to Biden calling again for more federal action while backing the administration’s supplemental funding request to Congress. It also backed claims by the administration that the immigration system is broken and in need of reform. “Without serious reform informed by evidence-based solutions, the challenges facing states and localities will only grow,” the letter said. Pritzker was also supportive of the Biden administration’s move last year to redesignate Venezuela for TPS, meaning that hundreds of thousands more were protected from deportation and given work permits. ILLINOIS GOVERNOR SAYS DEMOCRATIC VOTERS ARE ‘THROWING AWAY’ THEIR VOTES BY SUPPORTING ANYONE BUT BIDEN “Reducing wait times for employment approvals and expanding protection status for those coming from Venezuela will get people working and on a path to building a better future for themselves and their families,” he said. Meanwhile, at home, Pritzker has kept that focus on funding by approving significant amounts of funding to help the state deal with the number of migrants it is seeing. As he was pushing Biden for more funding last year, he also announced that the state was investing $160 million to address the crisis, including money for shelter and wraparound services. This year, Pritzker announced another $160 million for assistance, while taking another shot at inaction from Congress. “With thousands of asylum seekers continuing to come to Chicago in desperate need of support and with Congress continuing to refuse to act—it is clear the state, county and city will have to do more to keep people safe,” he said. Get the latest updates on the ongoing border crisis from the Fox News Digital immigration hub.

Biden’s SCOTUS critiques largely unprecedented, experts say, contrast with Clinton’s deference in 2000

Biden’s SCOTUS critiques largely unprecedented, experts say, contrast with Clinton’s deference in 2000

After the Supreme Court ruled presidents enjoy broad immunity in official acts, President Biden gave a speech lambasting the high court in a manner many observers considered unprecedented. On Monday, Biden declared “I dissent” during an evening address responding to the court’s 6-3 decision favoring Trump and pro-immunity arguments. “This nation was founded on the principle that there are no kings in America; each of us is equal before the law,” Biden said, calling the decision a “dangerous precedent, because the power of the office will no longer be constrained by the law…” In its ruling, the court narrowed Trump’s potential culpability, saying presidents have immunity from prosecution over official acts within their “sphere of constitutional authority.” STATE DEM LEADERS RALLY BEHIND BIDEN AFTER DEBATE An analysis of presidential responses to Supreme Court decisions revealed a handful of prior examples, while experts Fox News Digital spoke with suggested Biden’s tack, however, is indeed unprecedented. Mark Paoletta, who worked with Justice Clarence Thomas during his 1991 confirmation, called Biden’s attacks on the Supreme Court “dangerous.” “Obama criticized a single case in his State of Union, which is bad enough, but Biden does a nationwide primetime address to trash the court on immunity… though he did not have the courage or perhaps the mental acuity to take any questions,” Paoletta said. He added the president’s attacks on specific justices, including Thomas — regarding undisclosed trips — are similarly unprecedented. “The last time Biden attacked Thomas, it did not go well for him,” he said. “After Biden tried to destroy Thomas during his 1991 confirmation hearing, Thomas delivered one of the most epic takedowns in history, calling the attacks led by Biden a ‘high-tech lynching.’” Kyle Brosnan, chief counsel for the Heritage Foundation’s government accountability-focused Oversight Project, said President Biden’s behavior toward the court is unprecedented insofar as it is part of an overall recent ideological trend. ECONOMY, BORDER, ABORTION DIVIDE BIDEN’S HOMETOWN AS RESIDENTS SPEAK OUT “I see President Biden’s statements as another datapoint in a years-long crusade by the left to delegitimize the Supreme Court because they don’t like their rulings,” he said. “[The Trump immunity decision] is a win for the office of the presidency and President Biden should be celebrating that he’s likely insulated from facing potential charges for weaponizing the Justice Department to go after his political enemies.” Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., said last week that Biden “put a political target on the back of the Supreme Court” with his rebuke: “The greatest threat to American democracy today has just become Joe Biden.” While appearing on Fox News Radio, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley discussed the president’s rebuttal, adding how he previously wrote that Biden is the most anti-free-speech executive since former President John Adams. “The idea that [Biden] is really the symbol of constitutional fealty is really alarming,” Turley said. Previously, during the State of the Union, Biden said Roe v. Wade “got it right” and derided Republicans seated before him in asking, “My God, what freedom else would you take away?” CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP After the court handed down the Dobbs ruling, Biden publicly declared it part of a “deliberate effort over decades to upset the balance of our law” and a “tragic error” by the court. He claimed the high court, for the first time in history, had taken away a constitutional right.  After Biden took aim at Dobbs during a NATO event overseas, critics like Rep. Kevin Hern, R-Okla., called it “unthinkable” for a president to attack another branch of the U.S. government on the world stage. In 2010, after the Supreme Court sided with conservative advocacy group Citizens United in a case critics said opened the floodgates of corporate political spending, then-President Obama appeared equally incensed. “With all due deference to the separation of powers, the court last week reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections,” Obama said during that year’s State of the Union. In a rare but muted instance of criticism flowing in the reverse, Justice Samuel Alito was seen mouthing “not true” while Obama uttered the sentiment. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, told CNN at the time that Obama’s behavior was “a little over the top.” In 1974, while embroiled in the Watergate scandal, President Nixon invoked the landmark New York Times v. Sullivan decision, which ruled public officials face restrictions in suing news outlets for defamation. In his White House address, Nixon called out a “constitutional problem,” claiming some attorneys interpreted the case to be a “license to lie” about politicians or their family. “This is wrong. It is necessary that a change be made so that a candidate who runs for public office knows that he has recourse in case of such an attack which is totally untrue and would otherwise give him a right to sue for libel,” Nixon said, warning the situation dissuaded good men from running for office. Outside of Biden, Obama and Nixon, presidents have largely appeared magnanimous while accepting a political defeat brought about by a Supreme Court decision. The most iconic example is that of former President Clinton, who, while on a trip to North Aylesbury in England, appeared to graciously accept the fact his vice president, Al Gore, would not defeat then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush in the 2000 election. A divided nation, replete with “hanging chads” and the so-called “Brooks Brothers Riot,” could be brought together by the deference shown by the candidates following Bush v. Gore, Clinton said. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled Florida’s recount should be halted, reversing the Florida Supreme Court’s prior order. “[T]he essential unity of our nation was reflected in the words and values of those who fought this great contest. I was proud of both [candidates],” Clinton said, pledging support during Bush’s transition. Gallup polling from December 2000 showed Clinton ultimately gained six points in

How the printing of ballots could put Democrats on deadline to potentially replace Biden

How the printing of ballots could put Democrats on deadline to potentially replace Biden

To avoid potential confusion on the general election ballot, Democrats are limited in the time they have left to decide whether to keep President Joe Biden as the party’s nominee or replace him with a new candidate. Every presidential cycle, both Republicans and Democrats officially choose a candidate to represent their party on the general election ballot based on who receives the most state delegate votes at their national party convention.   With only one month left until the Democratic National Convention (DNC) in August, Democrats will have to decide whether Biden is their best bet at beating former President Donald Trump in November, or if concerns over his age and veracity outweigh his strength as a candidate. However, even more concrete than naming Biden as the nominee is the printing of millions of ballots with his name on them. UNCHARTED TERRITORY: COULD CAMPAIGN FINANCES KEEP BIDEN ON THE BALLOT? Once a candidate is named the party’s nominee at their affiliated convention, they are required to certify the selected candidates to each state’s Secretary of State or director of election. Each state has its own specific time frame and process for certifying a party’s presidential and vice presidential candidate’s name on the ballot before printing them. TRUMP CHALLENGES BIDEN TO SECOND PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE – BUT THERE’S A CATCH Some states require a party’s candidates to be certified to the director of election no later than the beginning of September, while others allow the candidate to be submitted at a later date. In the event that a candidate cannot continue in the race after being chosen as a nominee, it would be up to the national party to choose a replacement. However, difficulties could arise in the instance that a new nominee was chosen after states already began printing ballots with the previous candidate’s name on them. Given that some states will begin certifying the names to appear on the 2024 ballots by early September, Democrats will likely need to make a decision on whether Biden is their nominee before this date in order to avoid any potential confusion on the ballot. According to data from the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), there is variation among states regarding the dates they dispatch ballots to voters.  Arkansas, Delaware, Kentucky, Minnesota, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, West Virginia and Wisconsin mail ballots to voters more than 45 days before the election. Alabama, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Texas, Virginia and Wyoming are 45 days prior to the scheduled election day. Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, South Carolina and Vermont send out ballots 30 to 45 days before the election. And Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Utah and Washington allow voters the least amount of time, giving them 30 days before the election.

France ‘pushed into the hands of the far-left’ says leader of far-right

France ‘pushed into the hands of the far-left’ says leader of far-right

NewsFeed France’s leader of the far-right National Rally says a ‘dishonourable alliance’ prevented his party from winning a majority. Jordan Bardella spoke after exit polls showed the RN party coming in third, despite earlier projections for a far right victory. Published On 7 Jul 20247 Jul 2024 Adblock test (Why?)

In Australia, energy crunch prompts a heated debate on going nuclear

In Australia, energy crunch prompts a heated debate on going nuclear

Mudgee, New South Wales, Australia – The Mount Piper coal-fired power station sits just 25km (15 miles) to the west of one of Australia’s most scenic natural landscapes, Blue Mountains National Park, known for its spectacular eucalyptus-covered canyons, sandstone cliffs and waterfalls. The facility, set in hilly, drought-prone grazing country, is one of seven sites where conservative opposition leader Peter Dutton plans to build Australia’s first nuclear energy power stations should his Liberal and National Party coalition win next year’s federal election. Dutton has argued that the current centre-left Labor Party government will not be able to reach its target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 43 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 with renewables such as wind and solar alone. “I want to make sure that the Australian public understands today that we have a vision for our country to deliver cleaner electricity, cheaper electricity and consistent electricity,” Dutton told reporters last month. For many Australians, Dutton’s proposals lit a match under a discussion they had assumed was put to bed decades ago. In 1998, a previous conservative government banned nuclear power in favour of coal, a commodity that remains Australia’s second most valuable export after iron ore – the fuel last year made up 15 percent of total exports, worth some 102 billion Australian dollars ($68bn). But since 2006, conservative parties have periodically called for a new debate on the nuclear question – although never seriously while last in power between 2013-2022. Under the current government’s plans, Australia is one of the few major economies not using, or planning to use, nuclear energy to provide guaranteed power to underpin renewable sources like solar and wind. In Blue Mountains communities such as Lithgow, a gentrifying town that once hosted more than a dozen coal mines, the nuclear proposals have prompted mixed reactions. Larissa Edwards, one of a growing number of “tree changers” who have relocated to Lithgow to escape city life, said she was horrified when she learned of the plans. “I came because it’s a beautiful and special part of the world,” Edwards told Al Jazeera. “I was gobsmacked really. It’s an obvious spot for Dutton’s plan, which he had signalled to some degree. But as the whole area is moving to renewables, I was still shocked,” she said. “I don’t think it’s the right solution for the energy crisis, nor for the climate crisis that we’re in.” Australia’s opposition leader has proposed nuclear power as a solution to the country’s energy challenges [Peter Dutton Gray/AFP] However, coal miners in Lithgow who spoke to Al Jazeera on condition of anonymity expressed hope that a nuclear facility would bring new jobs for the next generation following the closure of all but three of the town’s mines. While there is a divide between those who prioritise the economy versus the environment, there is widespread dismay about the lack of consultation ahead of the announcement, or a detailed estimate of costs expected to be in the billions of dollars. “The polling I have carried out so far is on the ground in the Lithgow area and from what I can tell, there is already strong division between those supporting a reactor and those opposing it, with a heap of people in the middle asking for more details and information,” Andrew Gee, an independent MP who represents the region, told Al Jazeera. “The community can’t be expected to make an informed choice on this issue if there’s no consultation and the community simply doesn’t have the facts. Its leaders can’t be expected to either.” The governments of the affected states in Australia’s federated model have given Dutton’s nuclear plans a resounding “no”. Three of the five states with sites in the plan – New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland – have bans on the construction of nuclear facilities. In a further obstacle, the proposed sites are privately owned and, in most cases, have prior commitments for renewables projects. “It’s clearly got a fundamentally political objective, which is to differentiate the opposition on energy policy, and has been successful so far in that the government hasn’t yet worked out what its reaction should be,” Tony Wood, the director of the energy program at the Grattan Institute think tank, told Al Jazeera. The chosen sites all host ageing coal-fired electricity plants, which the incumbent government has promised to phase out as quickly as possible. On an optimistic timetable, nuclear energy would take at least 10-15 years to come online. Critics see the policy as aimed at propping up members of Dutton’s coalition in electorates where communities are anxious about the economic impact of the transition away from coal, as well as leveraging a backlash in regional areas against what many rural residents see as unsightly renewables projects. At the heart of the debate are questions about the economic viability of renewables as Australia transitions to net-zero emissions by 2050, a commitment supported by both major parties. While policymakers are tasked with finding the most effective solutions for the nation’s energy grid, they must also take heed of Australian voters’ sensitivity to rising power bills. Australia’s energy demand is forecast to double by 2050, according to a report released last month by the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO). Its key message was to speed up the rollout of renewables. “This doesn’t do anything for the cost of living. It could even make it worse, because it creates uncertainty,” the Grattan Institute’s Wood said of the nuclear proposals. Other critics have expressed concern about the lack of any plan for nuclear waste. “I am concerned about how things are going to be transported through the area and I’m concerned about the storage of waste and the impact that that would potentially have on an area that’s so close to our World Heritage environment,” Lithgow resident Edwards said. Such fears have been compounded politically by the fact that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has yet to say where waste from Australia’s planned fleet of nuclear submarines, the

Japan, Philippines sign defence pact with eyes on China

Japan, Philippines sign defence pact with eyes on China

Agreement comes as Manila and Tokyo share concerns about Beijing’s growing assertiveness in the region. Japan and the Philippines have signed a defence pact allowing the deployment of troops on each other’s soil amid shared concerns over China’s growing military power. Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs Yoko Kamikawa and Philippine Secretary of National Defense Gilberto Teodoro signed the Reciprocal Access Agreement on Monday during a ceremony in Manila. Under the agreement, Japanese forces will be able to deploy in the Philippines for joint military exercises and Filipino forces will be able to carry out combat training in Japan. The pact will need to be ratified by both countries’ legislatures to come into effect. The agreement comes as Japan and the Philippines, both long-standing allies of the United States, are wary of China’s growing assertiveness in the region. Beijing has laid claim to more than 90 percent of the South China Sea, including waters that lie within the exclusive economic zones of the Philippines and four other Southeast Asian countries. An international tribunal at the Hague in 2016 found that Beijing’s claims had “no legal basis”. China and the Philippines’s coast guards and navies have been involved in numerous confrontations in the disputed waters, including an incident last month during which Chinese coast guard personnel wielding knives and spears used motorboats to ram two Philippine navy supply vessels. Japan has a longstanding territorial dispute with China over the Senkaku Islands located between Taiwan and Okinawa. Under Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, Tokyo has sought to boost its military firepower, including through reciprocal access agreements with Australia and the United Kingdom. Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr has forcefully denounced China’s actions in the South China Sea and warned that his country would consider the death of any Filipino at its hands as close to “an act of war”. Manila has longstanding defence pacts with Australia and the US and is exploring a similar agreement with France. In April, the leaders of the US, Japan, and the Philippines held their first trilateral summit in Washington, DC as part of efforts to boost military cooperation between the sides. The summit came on the heels of joint military drills in the South China Sea that also included Australia. Adblock test (Why?)