Trump, Republican governors back Abbott's defense of the border

 By Kim Jarrett, The Center Square, Jan 25, 2024 - Twenty-five Republican governors said Thursday they back Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's decision to defend the state's border with Mexico.

Abbott invoked the invasion clause of the U.S. Constitution on Wednesday and said the federal government broke its compact with the states.

The "Guarantee Clause" of the U.S. Constitution (Article IV, Section 4) "promises that the federal government 'shall protect each [State] against invasion." Fifty-one Texas counties have declared an invasion, citing an imminent threat created by transnational criminal organizations bringing in enough fentanyl to kill the entire state's population, and expressing support to defend Texas' sovereignty.

"Because the Biden administration has abdicated its constitutional compact duties to the states, Texas has every legal justification to protect the sovereignty of our states and our nation," the governors said.

The Biden administration sued Texas over the placement of wire barriers at the border in Eagle Pass. The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday reversed a decision by a lower court that stopped the federal government from removing the wire.

Abbott has ordered the Texas National Guard to continue building the wire barriers.

"We stand in solidarity with our fellow Governor, Greg Abbott, and the State of Texas in utilizing every tool and strategy, including razor wire fences, to secure the border," the governors said in a statement. "We do it in part because the Biden Administration is refusing to enforce immigration laws already on the books and is illegally allowing mass parole across America of migrants who entered our country illegally."

Separately, former President Donald Trump also backed Abbott and the state of Texas' response.

"When I was President, we had the most secure Border in History. Joe Biden has surrendered our Border, and is aiding and abetting a massive Invasion of millions of Illegal Migrants into the United States," Trump wrote on Truth Social. "Instead of fighting to protect our Country from this onslaught, Biden is, unbelievably, fighting to tie the hands of Governor Abbott and the State of Texas, so that the Invasion continues unchecked. In the face of this National Security, Public Safety, and Public Health Catastrophe, Texas has rightly invoked the Invasion Clause of the Constitution, and must be given full support to repel the Invasion."

Trump and Biden appear to be headed for a rematch of the 2020 election in November.

The governors' statement is signed by Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey, Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy, Arkansas Gov. Sarah Sanders, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, Idaho Gov. Brad Little, Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry, Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves, Missouri Gov. Mike Parson, Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte, Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen, Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo, New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu, North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster, South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice and Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon.

Top Stories

Just how bad is the problem of Illegal immigration?

by Rod Williams, Nov. 12, 2023- Like anyone else who pays attention and watches the news, I knew things were bad at out southern border. I knew illegal border crossing were up and cities across America was feeling the strain. It is getting so bad that some major sanctuary cities are considering repealing their sanctuary city status. Other cities are declaring a state of emergency.  New York City is moving to repeal it's decades old 'right to shelter' law which requires the city to provide shelter to homeless people. Cities are buckling under the weight of illegal immigration. 

We in Nashville are not feeling the impact of illegal immigration as severely as many other cities. We can be thankful that Metro Nashville is not among those cities that are sanctuary cities. It is not for lack of trying that Nashville is not. We can thank the State for not allowing Nashville to adopt policies that would have made Nashville a magnet for illegal immigrants. 

I knew the problem of illegal immigration was bad, and knew it was much worse since Biden took office. With these liberal cities backing away from their support for open borders, I knew it had to be really bad. However, an article I read this morning in The New York Times, did more to help me comprehend the enormity of the crisis than anything else I have encountered. I recommend reading, Several Factors Add up to Illegal Border Crossings Being at Sustained Highs. 

I like charts and grafts. I like numbers and data. I find a chart can convey more information than paragraphs of text. Along with the text of the article, these charts tell the story.

Notice the drastic increase in illegal crossings since Biden took office. This is not an incremental increase, but multiple times increase. The last two years were the first time ever that illegal crossings were over two million a year. 

This is the recent monthly view of apprehensions. 

 

The above chart is one of the most frightening things about the recent surge in border crossings.  For a long time, illegal crossings were Mexicans and then starting about 2013 more than half were from the countries of the Northern Triangle.  Now, half are from other countries. Who are these people? We don't really know. US intelligence officials have found that smuggler with ties to ISIS have been smuggling in people from various mid-Eastern countries.  Maybe they are fleeing persecution or just trying to come to America for economic opportunities, but maybe not.  Maybe ISIS is smuggling in terrorist. I do not see how anyone could be unconcerned about this. 

Most people don't start paying close attention to issues until closer to the election.  Illegal immigration is a winning issue for Donald Trump.  If he is the Republican nominee, he will drive this message home.  He closed the border; Biden opened it.  Let a terrorist sleeper cell composed of members who slipped across the southern border get captured and the danger of an open border will hit home. God forbid an ISIS terrorist attack should occur composed of people who walked across our southern border. 

Even without something as drastic as a terrorist attack, the illegal immigration issue will be a big issue by November 2024.  Fentanyl deaths, crime, cities financial struggles, and other ill effects of massive illegal immigration will have an impact on how people view our open borders. Already, many do not care that Donald Trump continues to claim the 2020 election was stolen. They do not care that Donald Trump tried to engineer a coup to stay in office.  Donald Trump will fix the border; Biden can't.  That is not a persuasive argument for me, but it will be for many people.  If Joe Biden is smart, and I am not persuaded he is, he will start now changing his border policy.  Pretending it is not a serious problem, just plays into Donald Trump's hands. 

Top Stories

Governor Bill Lee Joins 24 other Republican Governors in Calling For Border Security

 

Top Stories

Mayor’s Immigration Task Force Delivers Final Report, Recommendations for Future Policy Decisions

Metro Press release, 12-13-2019 - Today, the Mayor’s Office released the final report of the Mayor’s Immigration Task Force, which includes an analysis of current Metro department practices and procedures related to requests from federal immigration authorities and recommendations for policy decisions moving forward. The report was created with input from immigration advocacy organizations, local law enforcement officials, and members of Metro Council.

Mayor Cooper’s Immigration Task Force Final Report

“The Immigration Task Force, especially Chairperson Shanna Hughey, have my sincere thanks for their hard work and dedication over these past several weeks,” said Mayor John Cooper. “I have said two things repeatedly about federal immigration enforcement in Nashville: Our city agencies cannot be expected to use its limited resources to do the work of the federal government, and it is my administration’s goal to help build a Nashville that works for everyone. This includes the valued members of our many immigrant communities. My administration will carefully review the task force’s report as we consider policy decisions related to federal immigration enforcement actions moving forward.”

The Mayor’s Immigration Task Force’s key findings are as follows: 

• A limited number of Metro Departments/Offices have received requests from federal immigration authorities.
• A limited number of Metro Departments/Offices have policies or practices governing their responses to requests from federal immigration authorities.
• Metro Departments/Offices do not have policies related to reporting to the Mayor’s Office about communications with federal immigration authorities.

“This report is an important step to take as we address this critical issue for Nashville’s immigrant families,” said Fabian Bedne, the Mayor’s Office liaison to the Immigration Task Force. “Metro Government clearly has work to do in creating and implementing a uniform reporting and response policy around requests from federal immigration officials.”

On October 14, 2019, Mayor Cooper rescinded Mayor Briley’s Executive Order No. 11, due to a lack of sufficient clarity for either immigrant families or Metro Government employees as noted by many community stakeholders, including immigration advocacy groups. At the time, the State of Tennessee had also given the Mayor’s Office a deadline of October 18, 2019 to address issues created by Executive Order No. 11 or risk losing four grants totaling over $1.1 million.

The Mayor’s Immigration Task Force, chaired by Shanna Singh Hughey, President of ThinkTennessee, gathered in publicly noticed sessions four times beginning on October 30, 2019. The group’s final meeting took place on December 9, 2019.

A complete list of the Mayor’s Immigration Task Force follows:

• Shanna Singh Hughey: President, ThinkTennessee (Chair)
• Juliana Ospina Cano: Executive Director, Conexion Americas
• Hank Clay: Chief of Staff, Metro Nashville Public Schools
• Bob Cooper: Director, Metro Nashville Department of Law
• Ana Escobar: Judge, Metro Nashville General Sessions Court
• Mike Hagar: Deputy Chief, Metro Nashville Police Department
• Daron Hall: Sheriff, Davidson County
• Mary Kathryn Harcombe: Legal Director, Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition
• Torry Johnson: Former Metro Nashville District Attorney General
• Sandra Sepulveda: Metro Councilwoman, District 30
• Zulfat Suara: Metro Councilwoman At-Large

Top Stories

House Speaker Sexton blast Briley over sanctuary city executive order, threatens funding.

Tennessee House Speaker Cameron Sexton has blasted Mayor Briley for his executive order discouraging Metro agencies from cooperating with immigration officials.  He warned Nashville that he might move to withhold State  funds over the issue.

He called the executive order "dangerous" and "a last minute political ploy and a slap in the face to all law abiding citizens and to our local law enforcement agencies."

"We are a representative republic of law and order, and no city or local mayor has the power to circumvent state or federal law", said Sexton. "The cities and the counties and the mayors don't have the ability to not follow the law,"

For more on this story see this link and this link.
Also see, Nashville warned to stop the obstruction of Federal immigration enforcement.
To read Briley's executive order see, Mayor Briley's Executive Order to fight sanctuary city status ban and to adopt sanctuary city policies.

Top Stories

Mayor Briley's Executive Order to fight sanctuary city status ban and to adopt sanctuary city policies

Top Stories

Nashville mayoral candiates on immigrantion policy, sanctuary city status, and more.

Last night a candidates' forum sponsored by The Tennessee Immigrant & Refugee Rights Coalition, the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, the American Muslim Advisory Council, Conexion Americas and sixteen other organizations was held at Plaza Mariachi. I did not get to attend the event but it was covered by local media. The program was interpreted live in Arabic, Kurdish, Somali, and Spanish.  Mayor David Briley, Rep. John Ray Clemmons, Councilman John Cooper, and Julia Clark-Johnson took part in the forum but Carol Swain did not. 

According to the media, all took a position opposing the government's immigration policy.  Briley went total partisan and said."the number one priority is to beat Donald Trump." 

Below is media coverage:

Nashville mayoral candidates on immigration policy: Here are the key takeaways

The Tennessean, by Yihyan Jeong - From deportation to police body cameras, four mayoral candidates discussed how they would lead Nashville on immigration issues Monday, at a time when the country remains divided.

It was standing room only at Plaza Mariachi where more than 700 people attended the evening forum

Metro Nashville Candidates Say ‘Yes’ to Sanctuary Cities and ‘No’ to ICE

The Tennessee Star, NASHVILLE, Tennessee — Metro Nashville Council At-Large candidate Gicola Lane told a crowd of more than 1,000 people Monday she wants city officials to stop working with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Later in the evening, Nashville mayoral candidate Julia Clark-Johnson said she wants to turn Nashville into a sanctuary city. ...

Mayor’s Race 2019: Candidates, Some More Than Others, Talk Immigration 

Nashville Public Radio, By Meribah Knight- .... Mayor David Briley addressed the topic directly, advocating for a combination of change at the federal level and policies at the local level.

“We’re supposed to be non-partisan, but I am going to say, the No. 1 priority is to beat Donald Trump,” Briley said.

Priority No. 2 was directed at a specific Metro department.
“Our police are directed not to ask about immigration status,”

Top Stories

Sen. Blackburn discusses the urgent need to secure our southern border

Top Stories

I applaud Lamar Alexander, Mike Lee, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul and other Republicans who took a principled stand for constitutional governance.

Twelve courageous Republican senators voted for the bill to terminate President Trump's emergency declaration yesterday. I am pleased that Tennessee's own Senator Lamar Alexander was among them. Alexander and the other who voted for the bill to terminate Trumps emergency declarations were not against the wall but were against President Trump's end run around the Congress to get it.  The Constitution gives Congress the power to appropriated money. Trump tried to get wall funding from Congress, Congress did not give it to him, so he declared a national emergency to reallocate funds. This is as much a blatant abuse of power as anything President Obama ever did. 

Most of the Senators who were outraged at President Obama's abuse of power and who wrapped themselves tightly in the Constitution were deafeningly silent when it came to Trump's abuse of power. There was not a louder critic of Obama's abuse of power than Senator Ted Cruz but he apparently developed a bad case of laryngitis. During the 2016 Republican campaign for the Republican nomination for president, I was tempted to support Senator Cruz and was torn between Cruz and Rubio. I ended up supporting Rubio. I am pleased to see Rubio was one of the twelve who voted for the bill to terminate President Trump's national emergency. I supported the better man. Curz is a strong advocate of the Constitution when it would frustrate a Democrat objective but not so much when constitutionalism would frustrate a Republican agenda. Rubio is principled.  

There is an argument to be made that technically President Trump's use of  calling a national emergency to get his funding for the wall is legal. It may withstand a constitutional challenge, but I hope it doesn't. It is time we returned to constitutional governance. The Congress have given too much power to the executive branch. The Executive branch has power never envisioned by the founders. Congress has passed vague bills and let the bureaucracy make rules and have given the bureaucracy the right to also adjudicate those rules.  Presidents have gradually assumed more power and Congress has let them.  President Obama famously ruled by a "phone and a pen." He unilaterally changed laws and got by with it.  He greatly expanded the power of the executive. I had hoped that a Republican president would reverse the trend toward the imperial presidency but President Trump is accelerating it. When a future Democrat president declares a national emergency to take money from the military to build wind mills because of the crisis of global warming, Republicans will have no right to complain. That president will be doing the same thing President Trump is doing.

Significant legislative powers were given to the executive branch by the National Emergencies Act of 1976. It gave the President the power to call a national emergency and provided Congress the option of  terminating the President's emergency declaration. In the past the power of the president to call a national emergency has been used occasionally, but never as a tool for the president to get by means of declaring a national emergency what he could not get legislatively. It has usually been used to respond to a crisis that could not wait for Congressional action. 

Senator Mike Lee proposed a bill to take back from the executive the power to rule by declaring national emergencies. His bill would have said that a national declaration would automatically end  after 30 days unless Congress voted affirmatively to extend the emergency.  This would still have given a President the power to call a national emergency but would have restored some balance to the balance of powers. His bill did not get any Democrat support. Democrats are no more concerned about constitutional governance than Republicans.  Like most Republicans, they are in favor of the Constitution when it advances their agenda and not so much when it would hinder their agenda. I applaud the twelve Republicans who took a principled stand for constitutional governance.  Below is a statement from several of the senators explaining their vote.

 
Senator Mike Lee:

Congress is supposed to be the first among the federal government’s three co-equal branches.For decades, Congress has been giving far too much legislative power to the executive branch. While there was attention on the issue I had hoped the ARTICLE ONE Act could begin to take that power back. Unfortunately, it appears the bill does not have an immediate path forward, so I will be voting to terminate the latest emergency declaration. I hope this legislation will serve as a starting point for future work on this very important issue.

Senator Rand Paul:

I stand with President Trump on the need for a border wall and stronger border security, but the Constitution clearly states that money cannot be spent unless Congress has passed a law to do so.

Senator Marco Rubio:

We have an emergency at our border, which is why I support the president’s use of forfeiture funds and counter-drug money to build a wall. However, I cannot support moving funds that Congress explicitly appropriated for construction and upgrades of our military bases. This would create a precedent a future president may abuse to jumpstart programs like the Green New Deal, especially given the embrace of socialism we are seeing on the political left

Senator Lamar Alexander:

I support the president on border security. I have urged him to build the 234 miles of border wall he has asked for in the fastest possible way by using $5.7 billion already approved by Congress. But his declaration to take an additional $3.6 billion that Congress has appropriated for military hospitals, barracks and schools is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution that I swore an oath to support and defend. 

Never before has a president asked for funding, Congress has not provided it, and the president then has used the National Emergencies Act of 1976 to spend the money anyway. The problem with this is that after a Revolutionary War against a king, our nation’s founders gave to Congress the power to approve all spending so that the president would not have too much power. This check on the executive is a crucial source of our freedom.

This declaration is a dangerous precedent. Already, Democrat presidential candidates are saying they would declare emergencies to tear down the existing border wall, take away guns, stop oil exports, shut down offshore drilling and other leftwing enterprises—all without the approval of Congress.

Top Stories

There ought to be a win-win to solve the border wall impasse.

Local conservative radio talk show host Ralph Bristol posted an essay on Facebook yesterday that I think is worth reporting here. He writes:

The game of chicken between President Trump and Democrat leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer raises the political “chicken” bar to heights never experimented with before in U.S. politics -- for one reason, and one reason only.

When the game is over, either President Trump or team Pelosi/Schumer will be able to raise billions of dollars for the next election cycle by claiming victory over the wall.

As a solution to the problems associated with illegal immigration, the wall is fairly inconsequential. As a capital expense (about 10 times what President Trump is asking for this year), it’s barely noticeable.

But, as a political dividing point, it may turn out to be unparalleled in modern history.
Either President Trump will raise billions telling his big rally audiences “I told you I would build a wall. We’re building a wall, and if you give me four more years, we’ll complete it.”

Or, Nancy and Chuck will tell their audiences and donors, “We told you if you returned us to power in Congress, we would stop that wall and everything it stands for -- and we did.”

One of them will have to admit defeat, and neither they nor their bases are prepared to do that – at least not yet. Political donors and the two party bases love victories and hate defeats, no matter how shallow or deceptive the victory and the methods to achieve it.

This game could last a long time.

I agree with Bristol.  A recent article by Jonah Goldberg in National Review says much the same thing and says the current  government-funding impasse is what happens when all involved treat politics like a movie. Goldberg  said the wall is a "MacGuffin" which was a new term to me but which Goldberg explains is a term of art in screenwriting. "It’s the thing the hero wants but the bad guys are trying to get, and therefore it drives the action of the story. In John Huston’s The Maltese Falcon, the Maltese Falcon is the MacGuffin. In Raiders of the Lost Ark it’s the Ark. In Dude, Where’s My Car? it’s the car."

"The border wall isn’t nothing," writes Goldberg, "but in the context of the partisan fight over the shutdown, it might as well be. For those who see Donald Trump as the hero of the story, what really matters is that he triumphs. For those who see him as the villain, what really matters is that he be defeated."

I agree with the point made by both Goldberg and Bristol.  The wall is being blown all out of proportion to the good it will do or, from a liberal point of view, to the damage it will do.  It is just not that significant.  In a follow up comment to his original post, Bristol explains what he meant when he said, “As a solution to the problems associated with illegal immigration, the wall is fairly inconsequential.” Here is what he wrote:

a. It won’t do much to stop illegal trafficking of drugs, since 90 percent of that comes through the ports of entry, hidden in cars and trucks. More is flown into the country in private planes than comes across the open border.

b. It won’t reduce the number of illegal immigrants already here. In fact, if the Democrats ever do agree to a wall, it will include a deal that legalizes at least all of the Dreamers, and probably their family members.

c. It won’t stop the black market in human smuggling, but it will make it more difficult, and therefore more expensive for their customers, and likely even more dangerous and violent.

d. It should reduce the number of people who cross the border illegally, but it’s unclear whether that will have a significant effect on crime. Illegal immigrants commit crimes at about the same rate as the population as a whole. Interestingly, legal immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than the population as a whole.

The most significant impact it will have is to the availability of illegal labor in the future. Those who actually do come here illegally to seek productive minimal employment may be less inclined to take the heightened risk of paying human smugglers. Those who come here for criminal purposes will have to invent new ways to avoid the wall, or make better use of the ways that about 50% of today’s illegal population – by abusing their visas, hiding out and waiting for the next amnesty,

I stand by my argument that the political consequences of who wins the wall fight are much bigger than are the limited strategic consequences.

Again, I think he is right. On his point A, we know very few drugs are carried across the border. They come concealed in vehicles at points of entry, in private planes, private boats, or through tunnels underneath the border.  Supporters of the wall ought to stop using the drug dealer argument.  This is just a fact. The amount of drugs entering the country by people walking across the border is insignificant. If you doubt it, do some research. The facts ought to matter.

Regarding Bristol's point about crime.  I know that when an illegal alien kills someone that is someone who would not have been killed if the illegal alien had been deported or denied illegal entry. I get it.  It is also true, however, that illegal aliens commit crime at about the same rate as American citizens. Some studies show they commit fewer crimes and thus lower the crime rate. Some illegal aliens kill some Americans, but most are not murders. Reducing illegal immigration will have an insignificant impact on the crime rate. We ought to stop "waving the bloody shirt."

I believe we needs some improved or additional border barriers but am not sure that a border wall is the best use of limited resources.  No doubt in some places a border wall would be helpful,  but even Trump has backed down from his campaign promise of building a big beautiful concrete wall from sea to shining sea.  A wall that is not manned will slow down illegal immigrant crossings but will not stop it.

The need for other immigration control and border security measures should be evaluated against border barrier enhancements.  We need more people guarding the border. We need e-verify. If illegal aliens could not find a job when they get here, fewer would make the arduous dangerous journey. We need to prosecute employers who hire illegals. We need more immigration judges so we can quickly adjudicate asylum claims and end search and release. We need to invest in more personnel and technology at points of entry to detect drug shipments. Currently we just do a random sampling searches and most drugs, and some people, enter concealed in vehicles that legally cross the border. We also need to be able to track people who simply overstay a visa.

We also need to recognize that we need some immigration. For one thing, America's fertility rate has been declining for several years. We are not replacing ourselves. Legal immigration can help supply the workers we need to pay into social security and meet the future labor needs of our country.  We also need agricultural workers.  Americans are not going to pick tomatoes in the hot Florida sun for minimum wage.  We need a very liberal guest worker program that does not provide a path to citizenship but allows immigrants to work here.  Many immigrants are not seeking American citizenship they just want a job. We need the labor and immigrants want to supply it.

It seems to me that this current impasse should be solvable. Trump's request is for only $5.7 billion which would only cover about 230 miles of steel fencing. Most people want to legalize the status of the dreamers. A compromise could include amnesty for the dreamers, e-verify and some other immigration controls and maybe half of the amount Trump is asking for a border barrier. Building 115 miles of fencing is half of what Trump is currently asking. Surely there is a need for some additional barrier. Unless Democrats advocate tearing down the hundred of miles of border barrier already in place, they should get off this posturing that walls are immoral.

I understand wanting your team to win, but sometimes we ought to look for a win-win, instead of an I-win-you-lose. Surely, we can find a win-win.

Top Stories

Randy Boyd's attack ad calls Diane Black weak on immigration.

Randy Boyd has put out a hard-hitting  "attack ad" against Diane Black.  I guess when one is attacked in a political ad, one has to attack back but I am disappointed. In this recent ad, Boyd criticizes Diane Black for saying "you can't build a wall;  that won't work." The statement was made in a 2016 interview. Since then Diane Black has become an advocate of building the wall and states that position on her website. She also has sponsored legislation that would raise funds for the wall along the southern border using crowdfunding.

My own view of building the wall is that it is a dumb idea and "you can't build a wall; that won't work."  There may be places where expanding the wall makes sense but to build a wall the full length of the border would accomplish nothing. For one thing, it would take a generation to obtain the right- of-ways necessary to do it. Property cannot be taken without due process and that can be a lengthy process. The cost would be enormous and there is no way to make Mexico pay for it.  Even if built, unless it is manned it would be useless. Walls can be climbed over, cut through and tunneled under and torn down. There are much wiser uses of funds to secure the border rather than building a $15 billion wall.

In frustration over the recent failure of "zero tolerance" I recently blogged that I was warming to the idea of building the wall. "Zero tolerance" means prosecuting those who cross the border illegally. The problem with that policy is that children can not be held in confinement with their parents for more than twenty days, and separating parents from their children is unacceptable and there is no way to prosecute an offender within twenty days.  So, for any person who crosses the border with a child, we are back to catch and release which means we release offenders from detention while they await immigration hearings with an order to appear for a hearing at some future date. Most never honor the order.

Frustration over the inability to implement zero tolerance does not however, mean building the wall the full length of the border is good idea. Some select corridors could probably benefit from an extended wall, but things like e-verity, improved visa control and changing the law to expedite the process of deportation makes more sense. I would be more pleased with Diane Black if she would have kept to her first position that "you can't build a wall; that won't work." 

The other example that Randy Boyd uses against Black in alleging she is weak on immigration is that she once supported giving drivers license to illegal immigrants. This occurred in May 2001when Diane Black was serving in the State legislature. Gov. Phil Bredesen proposed the policy that would allow people without Social Security numbers to obtain driver's licenses. The argument at the time was that they were driving anyway and with drivers license they would at least have to know the rules of the road and if stopped for a traffic violation the traffic law enforcement officer would know who they were. I thought that made sense at the time as did most of those serving in the State legislature.  Following the September 2001 terrorist attack on this country, security concerns led to that law being repealed.

I am not going to hold it against Diane Black that in May 2001 she voted to implement what most thought was a good policy at the time.  I know that in a thirty second TV ad one cannot really explain policy differences. All you can do is offer quick bummer sticker sound bites.  It is easy to simplify and distort an opponents record.  Anyone who has served in office any length of time or written things, anyone with a record, can have that record distorted. 

I hope Diane Black shows the good graces and dignity not to even hit lower than Randy Boyd.  I don't want our Republican nominee to be the person who can play the dirtiest. The contest should not be a contest to see who can win at best besmirching the reputation of their opponents.

Top Stories

State bill will strenthen sanctuary city prohibitions and stop Nashville from adopting sanctuary policies

Reposted from Tennessee Eagle Forum newsletter - Fifty-eight Tennessee House Republicans are named co-sponsors on the anti-sanctuary city bill HB2315.

Adding the bill's chief sponsor, State Rep. Jay Reedy (R-Erin), means that 80 percent of the House Republicans support strengthening and closing the loopholes in Tennessee's existing anti-sanctuary city statute. (Seventy-four of the 99 members of the Tennessee House of Representatives this session are Republicans, while 25 are Democrats.)

Tennessee's anti-sanctuary city law passed in 2009, only addresses written policies that prohibit local governments, officials and employees from cooperating with federal immigration authorities. This narrower definition of "sanctuary city" would likely not have applied to at least one of the sanctuary city ordinances proposed by the Metro Nashville Council last June.

The two ordinances proposed by the Metro Nashville Council would have made Nashville the most liberal sanctuary city in the country. One of the bills included a "don't ask so you don't have to know or tell" practice prohibiting Davidson County and Nashville employees, including law enforcement, from providing pertinent information to ICE regarding criminal aliens.

Reedy's bill expands the definition of sanctuary city to include practices that obstruct cooperation with federal immigration authorities and help shield illegal aliens who have also committed crimes. North Carolina and Georgia have included the expanded definition in their anti-sanctuary city laws.
The Metro ordinances, drafted with the assistance of the TN Immigrant & Refugee Rights Coalition, were withdrawn due to overwhelming grassroots opposition and pressure from state legislators.

State Sen. Mark Green's (R-Clarksville) Senate companion bill, HB2332, passed the Senate State and Local Government Committee last week on a 7 - 1 vote and is ready to be scheduled for a Senate floor vote.

Reedy's bill is scheduled to be heard in the House State Government Subcommittee on Wednesday.  With 59 House members already co-sponsoring the bill, if it makes it to the House floor, it already has enough votes to pass.

In a February ad released by a PAC called Tennesseans for Good State Government, GOP gubernatorial candidate Speaker Beth Harwell takes credit for "outlaw[ing] sanctuary cities," most likely a reference to the narrow 2009 law which the Metro Nashville Council's ordinances would have bypassed and which Rep. Reedy's bill will fix.

Harwell is not yet listed as a co-sponsor of Reedy's bill.

Here is the list of 58 Republican co-sponsors of the bill, listed in alphabetical order:



Tennessee Eagle Forum is an organization I support. Their newsletter is a good source of information on what is happening at the state level. To join the TN Eagle Forum mailing list follow this link. Rod Williams

Top Stories

Sen. Mark Green's sanctuary cities bill in committee Tuesday. It needs to pass.

SB 2332 to be heard in the State & Local Government Committee

Press Release, CLARKSVILLE, Tenn. – Senator Mark Green’s legislation to strengthen

Tennessee’s laws prohibiting sanctuary cities will be heard in the State & Local Government Committee tomorrow. This bill is introduced as sanctuary cities across the country are harboring criminals from the reach of federal law enforcement.

SB 2332 prohibits state and local governments from creating sanctuary cities and prohibits any local governments that enact sanctuary cities from receiving any state funding. Additionally, the bill allow Tennesseans to submit complaints to the Attorney General and authorizes law enforcement to cooperate with federal officials to enforce immigration laws.

“Sanctuary cities are illegal and dangerous--and it’s time for us to take action to protect our citizens who honor the laws of our great state and nation. By adding teeth to our existing immigration laws, hopefully our state can prevent tragedies like what happened to Kate Steinle in San Francisco,” noted Senator Green.

Co-sponsors for SB 2332 include Senators Mike Bell, Janice Bowling, Ed Jackson, Bill Ketron, Mark Pody, Kerry Roberts, and Steve Southerland. The legislation is sponsored by Rep. Jay Reedy in the House.

Tennesseans interested in the hearing can tune in on the Tennessee General Assembly’s website. Below are the details:

Date: March 13, 2018
Time: 10:00 AM CT
Link: Livestream the hearinghere.

For more information on Senator Green’s bills, please visit: http://www.capitol.tn.gov/senate/members/S22.html

Rod Williams' Comment: This bill needs to pass. There are no sanctuary cities in Tennessee at this time but there is a real danger Nashville could become one.  While Nashville does not inquire as to the immigration status of people who may have encounters with the police and while the city provides various services to residents regardless of their immigration status, this does not constitute being a sanctuary city. Sanctuary cities decline to cooperate with federal immigration officials outside of what is specifically required by law. When the police arrest someone, the arrest goes into a shared database. When the Immigration and customs Enforcement agency (ICE) sees a person of interest has been arrested, it will request local law enforcement hold the person for 48 hours to give, ICE time to pick up the person.  This is called a "detainer."  Sanctuary cities refuse to honor these request.  Nashville, does not do that.

However, in June of 2017 the Metro Council came close to passing a bill that may or may not have made Nashville a Sanctuary city. The bill had contradictory language that said we would not cooperate with federal authorities regarding immigration issues but then said we would follow federal law. In any event, Mayor Barry opposed the bill and it was withdrawn when it got to third reading. Despite former Mayor Barry's credentials as a progressive, she often governed fairly prudently. 

Mayor Briley in the past has made statements indicating he strongly favors Nashville becoming a sanctuary city. Maybe with the responsibility of office on his shoulders he would be more cautious and responsible, but that cannot be assumed. The move to make Nashville a sanctuary passed the Council on Second reading, so the Council has already gone on record favoring sanctuary city policies.  With the mayor's support, Nashville could very well indeed become a sanctuary city.  The State needs to pass Senator Geen's bill to prevent this from happening.

For more on the almost successful effort to make Nashville a sanctuary city follow this link.

Top Stories

Bob Corker says the President is Right to Want DACA Resolved Legislatively

On Tuesday, Senator Corker released the following statement regarding the Trump administration’s plan to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

"The president is right to want this issue to be resolved legislatively,” said Corker. “Hopefully, while addressing it, we also will deal with a myriad of other issues that need to be corrected with our broken immigration system, including enhancing enforcement and security measures.”

Top Stories

DACA phase-out puts onus on Congress, where it should be

Nashville, Tennessee, Latinos for Tennessee - Yesterday the Trump administration announced the phasing out of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program over the next six months. Former President Barack Obama enacted DACA by Executive Order in 2012 in order to delay deportation for illegal immigrants brought to the United States when they were young. In President Trump's announcement, he emphasized that Congress has the responsibility to address immigration reform with a long-term legislative solution.

 

In response to this announcement, Raul Lopez, Executive Director of Latinos for Tennessee commented, "As I've said in the past, we are a country of immigrants, as well as a country of laws. We cannot live in a free and fair society without the rule of law. President Trump did the right thing by restoring constitutional powers to their proper place-giving legislative authority to the legislature, and phasing out DACA until Congress asserts its legislative authority and works out a permanent fix to this emotionally-charged issue."

 

Lopez went on to add, "Critics of today's decision should not lose sight that by acting unilaterally, former President Obama directly contributed to this dysfunction. The former president could have worked with Congress, including Republicans on Capitol Hill, to craft immigration policy that would honor our immigrant heritage and the rule of law."

 

"Rather than kicking the can down the road again, Congress must craft immigration reform that will strengthen our border and end illegal immigration, but also deal compassionately with the children who came here at no fault of their own. Today's decision will allow Congress to take up the issue."

 

Democrats and Republicans have both expressed hope that the six-month delay in implementation will give Congress time to find consensus for a long-term solution.

 

Latinos for Tennessee is a statewide organization committed to protecting and promoting faith, family, freedom and fiscal responsibility. For more information, visit http://latinosfortn.com

 

Top Stories

Do illegal aliens take American jobs

In any discussion of immigration policy, the claim is made that illegal aliens or immigrants in general take jobs from Americans.  Attorney General Jeff Sessions recently made this claim when addressing the decision of the president to phase out DACA (link). Is that correct?

Obviously there are some illegal aliens or legal immigrants working at low skill jobs that would be filled by Americans if the illegal aliens were not available.  However, there are many jobs that would simply not exist without cheap labor.  Americans are not going to go to Florida and pick tomatoes in the hot sun for minimum wage. If we did not have the labor to  pick those tomatoes, then we would import more tomatoes from Mexico.  In may cases, we would either import the workers or import the products but in any case we are importing the labor.

I have often thought that America would be a lot less pretty place without illegal aliens. What I am talking about is that almost all yard maintenance and landscaping crews are made up of Hispanics. I don't know if they are legal or not, but I assume they are illegal.  I have been noticing this for some years.  Also, I have observed that there has been a dramatic growth in yard maintenance.  This is probably not a documentable fact because a lot of yard maintenance is done under the table.  It is either not reported or underreported as income.

I have worked for many years in a job that including providing financial advice to clients. Part of what I would do in this position is examine a households spending.  I have noticed as time goes by that fewer and fewer people cut their own grass but hire it done. The most often quoted price that people tell me they pay is $40 every two weeks.

When one points out that Americans would not pick Florida tomatoes in the hot sun and that we would have fewer people to do lawn care, critics will say we could get Americans to do those jobs if they paid more.  If we paid what Americans would require to do the lawn care, the price would not be $40 per cut, but $60 or $80.  There is a limit to what homeowners will pay for someone to do a low skilled job they can do themselves. Those jobs would not go to Americans, those jobs would just go away.

If those jobs just go away then the economic impact and the multiplier effect of that economic activity goes away.  Someone who now has a job because they provide goods and services to people who make a living providing lawn care, would then lose their job.

The argument that immigrants take American jobs takes looks at the economy as static.  That assumes that there are only X number of jobs available. While America may be less economically free and dynamic than it used to be, we are still relatively free. New services and innovations can come into existence without central planners allowing it or providing for it. We do not have a planned economy and jobs are not assigned. I think the argument that immigrants are taking American jobs is based on the same static view of the economy that says there is only so much wealth available and it is up to government to ensure everyone gets their fair share.

When you believe the pie is only so big it becomes more important to argue over the size of the slices.  When you believe the pie is only so big, it becomes important to make sure no one gets your slice.

Top Stories

Mayor Barry is wrong. Trump is not "slaming the door" on DACA.

Mayor Barry Statement on End of DACA 

September 5, 2017- Mayor Megan Barry has released the following statement after the Trump administration announced their intention to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program initiated by President Barack Obama:

The decision by President Trump to slam the door on hundreds of thousands of DREAMers across the nation is heartbreaking. Many of these children and young adults who are  DACA recipients have only ever known the United States as their home. They deserve the chance to gain an education, earn a living, and continue contributing to our community without fear or threat of deportation. I would urge Congress to recognize this and immediately pass legislation that restores DACA as the law of the land.

DACA recipients, as well as people wishing to learn more or take action to support DACA, are encouraged to contact Conexión Américas by emailing DACA@conexionamericas.org or calling (615) 320-5152.

Background on DACA provided by Conexión Américas:

The DACA program is an executive order announced by President Obama in 2012. DACA allows certain young people, often referred to as Dreamers, who came to the United States as children to qualify for protection from deportation proceedings and remain in the country. Young people who are approved for DACA receive a Social Security Number to be able to obtain employment and, in some states - including Tennessee - can get a driver’s license. DACA provides protection for two years, and individuals can reapply when close to their expiration date.

Over its five-year history, DACA has allowed over 800,000 young people to pursue higher education, earn better wages, own homes, start businesses, and more. Out of those who have been approved for DACA, over 700,000 are currently working. Repealing DACA would mean that the United States economy would lose an average of 7,234 workers every week. Without DACA, we would lose over $460.3 billion from the national GDP over the next decade.

In Tennessee, over 8,300 young people have received DACA. The Migration Policy Institute estimates that another 6,000 young people would be eligible for DACA in Tennessee when they turn 15 years old. Rescinding DACA would mean Tennessee would lose over $347.3 million annually in our state GDP.

#

My Comment:  President Trump is not "slamming the door" on DACA.  Slamming the door on DACA would be the immediate repeal. He is slowly, gently closing the door and giving Congress time to keep the door open by legally implementing DACA.  DACA was implemented as an unconstitutional executive overreach.  I do not disagree with the DACA policy but the President does not have the authority to rewrite immigration law. The policy should have been implemented legally by Congress.  How would liberals like it if Trump simply repealed Obamacare by executive action?  There is a reason we have three branches of government. The president is not a king who can rule by royal decree.   Congress should now act to extend DACA, either making it permanent or extending it for a period of time until a comprehensive immigration policy can be adopted.

Top Stories

What's on the Council Agenda for 9-5-17: More corporate welfare, Advocating for DACA, Condemning racism, new requirements for a building permit ...

The Metro Council will meet Tuesday, September 5th, 2017 at 6:30 PM in the Council chamber at the Metro Courthouse. To watch the Council meeting, you can go to the courthouse and watch the meeting in person, or you can watch the broadcast live at Metro Nashville Network's Government TV on Nashville's Comcast Channel 3 and AT&T's U-verse 99 and it is streamed live at the Metro Nashville Network's livestream site and you can watch it live on Roku. You can catch the meeting the next day (or the day after the next) on the Metro YouTube channel. If can stand the suspense and just wait, I will post the video on this blog the day after or the day after that and provide commentary.

If you are going to watch the Council meeting, you need a copy of the Council agenda and the Council staff analysis or you really will not know what is going on. You can get the agenda and analysis at the highlighted links.

There are 14 appointment to Boards and Commission on the agenda. To my knowledge, this Council has never turned down a Mayor's appointee.  They will all be approved without discussion.

Public Hearing
There are two resolutions and 25 bills on Public Hearing. A resolution is passed by a single vote and a bill requires three separate votes of the Council. The bills on Public Hearing are also on the second vote consideration of the Council or "second reading." The two resolutions are exempting establishments from the minimum distance requirements for obtaining a beer permit.

The bills on public hearings are all rezoning bills or related to planning and zoning policy.  While some cities, mostly smaller cities, have a kind of an open mic public hearing policy, where anyone may address their council on any topic, Nashville does not have such a policy.  Only zoning and zoning related bills or on public hearing and the operating budget and the capital improvements budgets.

Rezoning hearings bore me and I don't even try to form an opinion on the merits every rezoning bill before the Council.  Rezoning bills usually are of interest only to people who live near the proposed rezoning. People who don't care one way or the other do not show up and with rare exceptions the only people who speak in favor of rezoning bills are those who will benefit from the rezoning such as the property owner or the developer.  Opponents always make the same argument which boils down to one of these: 1) the change will result in stressing the infrastructure such as too much traffic on the roadway or overcrowd the schools, 2) will cause flooding, and 3) will change for the worse the character of the community. If you are interested in knowing what is permitted in different zoning districts, follow this link.

Public Hearing:  Below are the bills that I find of interest that are on public hearing. I find them of interest because they effect a lot of people and I expect them to be controversial or because they are disapproved by the Planning Commission and may be difficult to pass or for some other reason which I explain. Some zoning bills get a recommendation of disapproved as submitted but approved if the sponsor will make changes recommended by the Planning Commission. I am not listing as bills of interest those that fall in that category.  Usually the sponsor makes the recommended changes.

BILL BL2017-784   by Robert Swope would establish a maximum permitted height of ten feet for electric fences within any zoning district where electric fences are permitted. The Planning Commission recommended withdrawal. Usually there is a recommendation of "approved" or "disapproved," but I do not recall a recommendation of withdrawal.  A disapproved bill requires 27 votes to pass on third reading. I assume if the sponsor moves forward with a bill that the Planning Commission has recommended he withdraw, the bill could be passed by a simple majority, but I am unsure.  Maybe it has to go back to the Planning Commission for a recommendation. The staff analysis says it is anticipated that the sponsor will withdraw the ordinance in favor of alternative legislation so the recommendation for withdrawal will apparently not be a problem.

BILL BL2017-824 is another bill where the Planning Commission recommendation is for the bill to be withdrawn.  This is applying a Contextual Overlay District to certain properties in Councilman Murphy's district. A Contextual Overlay applies design standards to new development in a neighborhood to keep it in character with what is already there. The staff analysis does not address this bill so I do not know the consequences of a recommendation to withdraw the bill, if the sponsor does not withdraw it. 

BILL BL2017-852 in Councilman Mary Carolyn Roberts district would expand an Urban Zoning Overlay District by 1591 acres.  This is a huge expansion. An Urban Design Overlay, or UDO, is a zoning tool that requires specific design standards for development in a designated area. A UDO is used to either protect the pre-existing character of the area or to create a character that would not otherwise be ensured by the development standards in the base zoning district. This bill has not yet been considered by the Planning Commission.

Resolutions
There are 26 resolutions all of which are on the consent agenda. A resolution stays on the consent agenda if it passed the committees to which it was assigned unanimously. Since the committees have not met yet, some resolutions which are listed as on the consent agenda may not be on the consent agenda when the council meets. Bills on the consent agenda are usually not controversial and tend to be routine matters, such as accepting grants from the Federal or State Government or appropriating money from the 4% fund. Resolutions on the consent agenda are passed by a single vote of the Council rather than being considered individually. Any member of the body may have a bill pulled off of the consent agenda or have there "no" vote or abstention recorded. Below are the resolutions of interest.

RESOLUTION RS2017-836  is a PILOT (payments in lieu of taxes) deal for an affordable housing project. This is the sixth time PILOT has been used to build affordable housing. Usually it is used as an incentive to lure a business to locate or expand in Nashville. This deal would be for a private developer to develop a 209 unit project restricted to seniors aged 62 or older whose income is below below 60% of the average median income which for a single person is $28,140.  What this does is basically give the developer a break on property taxes for a ten year period which will amount to about $2.9 million.

RESOLUTION RS2017-839  is the settlement of a lawsuit for $17K.  My view on settling lawsuit is that if the legal department says settle, I am not going to second guess them.  This council has not been so bad about it, but there was a time when some members of the Council would grandstand and get an explanation at the Council meeting of what happened and ask what punishment was handed out to the employee that caused the incident. They would make a big deal out of appropriating the money. Now, thankfully this is handled in committee and no one votes against these settlements and it has almost become routine.

RESOLUTION RS2017-860  supports the continuation of DACA, (the federal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals  program) and encourages Congress to create a permanent path to legal residency for DACA recipients. I support this. I know that some conservatives denounce DACA as amnesty.  My view is that those children who were brought here by their parents illegally and had no say in the matter, who are Americanized,  who may not even speak their native language, who have stayed out of trouble, and are either serving or served in the military or are in school or working, should not be deported to a country they may have never even known.

I generally think the Metro Council should avoid opining on national issues, but I would make an exception for this.  There are thousand of these young people in our community and are our co-workers and classmates and neighbors.  I remain critical of President Obama for implementing this policy.  My problem is not with the policy itself however but that President Obama did it by executive action rather than submitting the policy to Congress to ask it be enacted legislatively.  I am please that this resolution asks Congress to pass legislation rather than simply asking President Trump to extend the policy.  President Trump is being forced to take a stand on this due to a pending lawsuit brought by several states challenging the legality of the policy.  On Tuesday, President Trump is to announce his intentions regarding DACA.

It should be pointed out that a resolution of this kind only expresses the will of the Council.  It has no impact.  It is not even even really "adopted."  It is passed by the Council, but is not an official position of the Metro Government.  The mayor returns memorializing resolutions unsigned which is essentially a veto. To pass a resolution unsigned by the Council, the Council would then have to pass it a second time.  That never happens. If I were in the Council, I would not vote for a bad memorializing resolution, but in reality they are pretty meaningless. I expect there will be some wasted time pontificating on the issue.

RESOLUTION RS2017-861  says "that Nashville is opposed to and stands against racism and bigotry in all its forms and urging all to seek unified solutions to encourage the inclusive society our founders envisioned."  Last Council meeting, the sponsor attempted to get this considered as a late resolution, but two objecting members kept it from being considered. I am pleased that this was stopped last Council meeting.  There was no emergency that required suspension of Council rules. While this is motivated due to President Tump's comments following the violence in Charlottsville, there is nothing in the text of the resolution that calls out the President.  There is nothing objectionable in the wording of the resolution unless you actually happen to be a racist. If the sponsor will pass this without making a useless speech denouncing Trump, then if I were in the Council I would keep quite and vote for it. If, however, the sponsor grandstands, I would offer an amendment condemning all political violence and hatred including that of  Antifa. If no one votes against it in committee then this will be passed on consent and no one will speak on it. I think that is the best outcome.

Bills on First reading: There are 36 bills on first reading. First reading is a formality that gets bills on the agenda and they are not considered by committee until after they pass first reading. I do not read them until they get to second reading. Bills on First Reading are all lumped together and pass by a single vote.

Bills on Second Reading. These are the ones of interest:

BILL NO. BL2017-800 would make a modest change to the juvenile curfew laws. It would make the curfew slightly more restrictive. I do not see the need for this but could be persuaded in committee. This was on Second Reading on July 21st and deferred to this meeting.

BILL BL2017-835   would increase the size of, number of, and required information on a building permit for any building permit for a project of over $2500. The sign would have to be two feet by three feet.  That seem ridiculous.  A very small remodeling project can exceed $2500 dollars and may be done in as little as a day. The sponsor is going to offer an amendment increasing the dollar limit to $5000. I would oppose this even at the higher limit.  I just do not see the need for this. 

Bills on Third Reading:

BILL BL2017-834 would amend the time restriction of when beer could be sold or served for on-premises consumption passes.  Under this bill a small number of restaurants could sell beer anytime except from 3AM to 4AM. For a more detailed explanation given when the bills was on Second Reading  follow this link and go to timestamp 23:54 in the video.

BILL BL2017-836 is a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILOT) deal for the Keystone Automotive Industries to build an administrative office.  This is the kind of corporate welfare that almost all cities engage in.  We will in effect be subsidizing this company about $1.23 million and they promise to create 120 new jobs. That is a little over $10K per job. I would hope the Council would reject this.  For more on this, read the bill and see the staff analysis.

Top Stories