Connect with us

Missouri

Missouri and Arkansas governors to join other Republican governors at U.S./Mexico border

Published

on

Missouri and Arkansas governors to join other Republican governors at U.S./Mexico border


JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (WGEM) – Missouri Governor Mike Parson’s office announced he will travel to Texas on Sunday to participate in an event branded as a “security briefing” hosted by Gov. Greg Abbott, that state’s National Guard, Department of Public Safety and its Border Czar.

The governors of Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Utah – all Republicans – are also planning to participate in the event.

Parson has been critical of the Biden administration and the federal government for a “crisis” at the U.S./Mexico border.

While hundreds of thousands of border encounters are reported each month, U.S. Customs and Border Protection reports encounters saw a decrease in the first two weeks of January.

Advertisement

“CBP’s total encounters along the southwest border in December were 302,034,” the agency reported. “Consistent with historical trends and enhanced enforcement, the first two weeks of January saw an over 50% decrease in southwest border encounters between ports of entry according to preliminary figures.”

Parson and other Republican officials have largely tied the concern at the southern U.S. border to the rising rates of deaths related to Fentanyl, an extremely powerful and potent opioid.

“Children dying from fentanyl is 100% preventable,” Parson said in his recent State of the State Address. “And while President Biden and the federal government failed to do their jobs by securing our southern border, Missouri will act.”

In 2021, 86.3% of convicted fentanyl drug traffickers were U.S. Citizens, according to the United States Sentencing Commission, which was ten times greater than convictions of illegal immigrants for the same offense.

Furthermore, over 90% of fentanyl seizures happen at legal crossing points or vehicle checkpoints, not on illegal migration routes, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

Advertisement

Missouri state Senate Minority Leader John Rizzo, D-Independence, said the trip by Republican Governors to the southern border is nothing more than a political stunt which aims to district from a chaotic presidential primary and a tenuous, ineffective Republican majority in the House.

“It’s a show,” Rizzo said. “Just because Donald Trump wants to run on immigration, and the Republican Party wants to run on immigration in the next election, they have to blow it up, because the Supreme Leader said so.”

A Bipartisan Solution

A group of Republican and Democratic U.S. senators has been negotiating a piece of legislation which, according to those familiar with the bill, would end the “catch and release” practice of allowing asylum-seeking migrants to wait in the U.S. for their claim to be processed.

Under the proposal, migrants who try to cross the border illegally would be immediately arrested and would have to wait for their claim to be processed while in detention.

Advertisement

If their claim to asylum is rejected, the migrant would be removed within 15 days.

A new “removal authority program” would be created to conduct initial asylum interviews within 90 days with migrants who come to the U.S. border at official ports of entry. Notably, though, those migrants would not be released into the U.S., but instead, detained under government watch. If that initial claim fails, those migrants would be removed immediately, but if they pass, it would extend their stay by 90 days as the rest of their claim process plays out.

Successful cases would eventually qualify for citizenship.

Former President Donald Trump, and many of his devout followers in Congress, have publicly opposed the bipartisan deal – with many accusing the 2024 Republican front-runner of stalling a solution in order to preserve the crisis as campaign fuel.

“As the leader of our party, there is zero chance I will support this horrible open borders, betrayal of America,” Trump said in a recent rally in Las Vegas. “A lot of the senators are trying to say respectfully, they’re blaming it on me.’ I said, ‘that’s ok. Please blame it on me, please.’ Because they were getting ready to pass a very bad bill and I’ll tell you what a bad bill is– I’d rather have no bill than a bad bill.”

Advertisement

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Missouri, admitted he places a greater priority on denying President Biden a ‘win,’ than addressing the situation at the southern border.

The first-term Missouri Senator, who is running for reelection in November, was asked in a recent Fox News interview if he believes the bipartisan border deal is ‘dead.’

“I hope so,” Hawley responded. “It should be. If it’s not dead yet it should be dead. There is absolutely no reason to agree to policies that would further enable Joe Biden.”

Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Missouri, said he opposes the deal because he believes Pres. Biden has authority to take action, rendering legislative action unnecessary.

“My contention is, you don’t need new language for Joe Biden to continue to ignore He’s ignoring existing law,” Schmitt said.

Advertisement

President Biden does not have the authority to unilaterally change U.S. asylum law. Recent restrictions at the U.S. border, made under the Trump administration and continued under the Biden administration for multiple years, were imposed as an emergency response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Those restrictions have since been lifted.

“A bipartisan bill would be good for America and help fix our broken immigration system and allow speedy access for those who deserve to be here, and Congress needs to get it done,” Pres. Biden said on January 27. “It’ll also give me, as president, the emergency authority to shut down the border until it could get back under control. If that bill were the law today, I’d shut down the border right now and fix it quickly.”

The drafted language of the border legislation has not yet been released to the public.



Source link

Advertisement

Missouri

Missouri’s Mitchell named to men’s basketball All-SEC second-team | Jefferson City News-Tribune

Published

on

Missouri’s Mitchell named to men’s basketball All-SEC second-team | Jefferson City News-Tribune


Missouri senior forward Mark Mitchell was recognized Monday with a second-team selection to the All-Southeastern Conference teams.

Mitchell has led the Tigers all season long and tops the team in scoring (17.9 points per game), rebounding (5.2) and assists (3.6). He would be the just the second player in program to lead all the categories in one season, joining Albert White from the 1998-99 season.

Mitchell is also on pace to become the first player in program history to average at least 17 points, five rebounds and three assists since Anthony Peeler in 1992, the year he took home the Big 8 Conference Player of the Year award.

Mitchell was the only Missouri player to be recognized in SEC postseason awards.

Advertisement

Five players were named to each of the three All-SEC teams.

Darius Acuff Jr. (Arkansas), Ja’Kobi Gillespie (Tennessee), Thomas Haugh (Florida), Labaron Philon Jr. (Alabama) and Tyler Tanner (Vanderbilt) made the first team.

Acuff was named the conference’s player of the year and freshman of the year.

Joining Mitchell on the second team were Nate Ament (Tennessee), Rueben Chinyelu (Florida), Otega Oweh (Kentucky) and Dailyn Swain (Texas), while Rashaun Agee (Texas A&M), Alex Condon (Florida), Keyshawn Hall (Auburn), Aden Holloway (Alabama) and Josh Hubbard (Mississippi State) were named to the third team.

The All-SEC defensive team consisted of Chinyelu, Somto Cyril (Georgia), Felix Okpara (Tennessee), Billy Richmond III (Arkansas) and Tanner. Chinyelu was selected as the defensive player of the year.

Advertisement

Appearing on the all-freshman team were Acuff, Amari Allen (Alabama), Ament, Malachi Moreno (Kentucky) and Meleek Thomas (Arkansas).

Swain was selected as the newcomer of the year, while Urban Klavzar of Florida was named the sixth man of the year.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Missouri

Missouri (MSHSAA) High School Girls Basketball State Playoff Brackets, Matchup, Schedule – March 9, 2026

Published

on

Missouri (MSHSAA) High School Girls Basketball State Playoff Brackets, Matchup, Schedule – March 9, 2026


The 2026 Missouri high school basketball state championship brackets continue on Monday, March 9, with eight games in the sectional and quarterfinal round of the higher classifications.

High School On SI has brackets for every classification in the Missouri high school basketball playoffs. The championship games will begin on March 19.


Missouri High School Girls Basketball 2026 Playoff Brackets, Schedule (MSHSAA) – March 9, 2026

Advertisement

Sectionals

Doniphan vs. Potosi – 03/09, 6:00 PM CT

Advertisement

St. James vs. St. Francis Borgia – 03/09, 6:00 PM CT

Notre Dame de Sion vs. Oak Grove – 03/09, 6:00 PM CT

Smithville vs. Benton – 03/09, 6:00 PM CT

Cardinal Ritter College Prep vs. Clayton – 03/09, 6:00 PM CT

Advertisement

Orchard Farm vs. Kirksville – 03/09, 6:00 PM CT

Advertisement

Boonville vs. Strafford – 03/09, 6:00 PM CT

Reeds Spring vs. Nevada – 03/09, 6:00 PM CT

Advertisement

Quarterfinals

Festus vs. Lift for Life Academy – 03/13, 6:00 PM CT

Grandview vs. Kearney – 03/13, 6:00 PM CT

MICDS vs. St. Dominic – 03/13, 6:00 PM CT

Advertisement

Helias vs. Marshfield – 03/13, 6:00 PM CT


Advertisement

Quarterfinals

Jackson vs. Marquette – 03/13, 6:00 PM CT

Advertisement

Rock Bridge vs. Staley – 03/13, 6:00 PM CT

Incarnate Word Academy vs. Troy-Buchanan – 03/13, 6:00 PM CT

Kickapoo vs. Lee’s Summit West – 03/13, 6:00 PM CT


Advertisement

More Coverage from High School On SI



Source link

Continue Reading

Missouri

Missouri lawmakers advance ‘A’ through ‘F’ school grading bill

Published

on

Missouri lawmakers advance ‘A’ through ‘F’ school grading bill


Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe’s request to grade public schools on an “A” through “F” scale is pushing House lawmakers to approve legislation some think isn’t quite ready.

With approval and dissent on both sides of the aisle, the House voted a bill to create a new school accountability system through to the Senate 96-53 Thursday despite concerns the letter grades could be a “scarlet letter” for underperforming schools.

“Will this labeling system actually improve schools or will it mostly brand communities, destabilize staffing and incentivize gaming rather than learning?” asked state Rep. Kem Smith, a Democrat from Florissant, during House debate Tuesday morning, March 3.

Advertisement

She said the key metrics that determine the grade, performance and growth, are volatile.

“The label itself can become a self-fulfilling prophecy,” she said. “The bill doubles down on high stakes metrics that are known to be unstable.”

The bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Dane Diehl, a Republican from Butler, told lawmakers that a performance-based school report card with “A” through “F” grades is inevitable. The details, though, are negotiable.

“The governor’s executive order, it is going to happen either way,” he said. “I think we tried to make that process a little better for school districts.”

Advertisement

Kehoe’s order directs the state’s education department to draw up a plan for the report cards and present it to the State Board of Education. The board could reject the idea, but with a board with primarily new members appointed by Kehoe, lawmakers have accepted the system as fate.

State Rep. Ed Lewis, a Republican from Moberly and chair of the House’s education committee, told the committee in January that he prioritized the bill as a way to give lawmakers influence over the final outcome. He is happy with the edits the committee made, which gives the education department more leeway to determine grade thresholds and removes a provision that would raise expectations once 65% of schools achieve “A” or “B” grades.

The House also approved an amendment March 3 that would grade schools’ environment. This would be based on the rates of student suspension, seclusion and restraint incident rates and satisfaction surveys given to students, parents and teachers.

The Senate’s version, which passed out of its education committee last week, does not include those changes.

“I think (the House bill) is the best product we have in the Capitol right now,” Lewis said. “I am not saying it’s complete, but it is the best we have right now.”

Advertisement

The changes have softened some skeptics of the legislation, like state Rep. Brad Pollitt.

Pollitt, a Sedalia Republican, said he didn’t support the legislation “for a number of years.” But with the edits, he sees potential for the legislation to usher in changes to the way the state accredits public schools.

The current process, he said, “nobody seems to like,” pointing to widespread concerns with the state’s standardized test.

Some of these changes are already happening quietly. The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education received a grant from the federal government to develop a state assessment based on through-year testing, which would measure student growth throughout the school year, instead of a single summative assessment.

The department is poised to pilot the new test in 14 classrooms this spring, hoping to eventually offer it statewide within a few years. But the estimated startup cost of $2 million is one of many department requests cut from the governor’s proposed budget as the state grapples with declining revenue.

Advertisement

Creating the “A” through “F” report cards is estimated to cost a similar amount, if not more, according to the state’s fiscal note. The expense is largely frontloaded, going to the programming and technology support required to create the grade cards’ interface.

When The Independent asked Kehoe’s office about the fiscal note, the governor’s communications director Gabby Picard said he would work with “associated agencies” to determine appropriate funding “while remaining mindful of the current budget constraints and maintaining fiscal responsibility.”

The House’s version of the legislation includes an incentive program for high-performing schools, giving bonuses to go toward teacher recruitment and retention, if the legislature appropriates funding for the program.

The bill originally proposed incentives of $50-100 per student to subsidize teacher pay. This had large fiscal implications, and Lewis surmised that it would violate a section of the State Constitution prohibiting bonuses for public employees.

Advertisement

Making the funding optional and directing it to the school’s teacher recruitment and retention fund remedied those concerns. The Senate Education Committee removed the incentive program in its version of the legislation.

The House’s approval Thursday does not stop discussion and possible amendments. Next, the bill will go to the Senate for consideration, and if any changes are made, it will return to the House for more discussion.

This story was first published at missouriindependent.com.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending