Connect with us

Politics

Rep. Carlos Giménez urges DHS to reconsider allowing Border Patrols chiefs to testify before Congress

Published

on

Rep. Carlos Giménez urges DHS to reconsider allowing Border Patrols chiefs to testify before Congress

EXCLUSIVE: Rep. Carlos Giménez, R-Fla., is urging Division of Homeland Safety Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to rethink permitting 4 senior border officers to testify earlier than Congress in regards to the migrant disaster. 

In a letter obtained first by Fox Information Digital, Giménez argues that People have witnessed the biggest migratory and border disaster in current reminiscence. 

“This disaster is totally unsustainable and is a direct results of the failed open-border insurance policies [the Biden Administration] has pursued,” Giménez says within the letter, despatched to Mayorkas following an in-person assembly held in Miami with the DHS chief together with Reps. Maria Salazar and Mario Diaz-Balart. 

Fox Information is instructed that is the primary time Mayorkas has held a gathering of this kind with GOP members of Congress within the subject.

Carlos Gimenez, former mayor of Miami-Dade, Florida.
(Reuters)

Advertisement

Giménez in his letter tells Mayorkas the American folks have been “horrified” that he denied Chief Patrol Brokers Jason Owens, Gregory Bovino, Gloria Chavez, and Patricia McGurk-Daniel “the precise to testify at a Congressional listening to about how U.S. Border Patrol brokers are managing the disaster and the impression of the disaster on their mission to safe the border.” 

TEXAS BILL WOULD REQUIRE TITLE 42 EXPULSIONS OF MIGRANTS UNTIL COVID-19 MANDATES, EMERGENCY LIFTED

He continues: “I urge you to rethink this choice and permit your Chief Patrol Brokers and honorable regulation enforcement officers the precise to share their experiences with the American folks.” 

Giménez says it was vital for the American folks to listen to instantly from these officers “on the protocols in place, processes, and the precise day-to-day enforcement priorities from these on the bottom, defending our nation.” 

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

Division of Homeland Safety Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.
(Drew Angerer/Getty Photos)

Fox Information Digital has reached out to the Division of Homeland Safety for remark. 

Advertisement

Giménez’s letter to Mayorkas comes after the DHS secretary known as a gathering Sunday with a South Florida Congressional delegation to debate the division’s parole course of for migrants with the tip of Title 42, a public well being order that permits for the fast expulsion of migrants to cease the unfold of COVID-19. 

Fox Information Digital was instructed that in the course of the assembly Mayorkas was not in a position to reply fundamental questions posed by the GOP members in attendance, together with the variety of unlawful migrants residing within the U.S. presently.

The Biden administration sought to finish Title 42 final 12 months, however was blocked by a federal decide in response to a GOP lawsuit. It has since confronted a distinct lawsuit calling for the expulsions to cease, saying the order is illegal. That lawsuit is earlier than the Supreme Court docket and can probably be dominated on later this 12 months. 

The administration has introduced a brand new parole program for some migrants, which has sparked a lawsuit from about 20 states. 

Advertisement
The Biden administration has called for the end of Title 42.

The Biden administration has known as for the tip of Title 42.

The Biden administration introduced that program for Venezuelans in October, which allowed a restricted quantity to fly instantly into the U.S. so long as that they had not entered illegally, had a sponsor within the U.S. already and handed sure checks. 

Earlier this month, President Joe Biden introduced that this system could be increasing to incorporate Haitians, Nicaraguans and Cubans and that this system would enable as much as 30,000 a month into the U.S. It permits for migrants to obtain work permits and a two-year authorization to reside within the U.S. and was introduced alongside an growth of Title 42 expulsions to incorporate these nationalities.

Fox Information’ Adam Shaw contributed to this report. 

Politics

Less than 1 in 4 Americans have favorable opinion of federal government: poll

Published

on

Less than 1 in 4 Americans have favorable opinion of federal government: poll

Less than a quarter of the United States population has a positive opinion about the federal government, according to a new poll.

The Pew Research Center released a report Thursday derived from their American Trends Panel survey, noting shifts in public perception of government at the local, state, and federal level.

The survey found that only 22% of U.S. adults hold a favorable view of the federal government.

GEN Z HAPPINESS IS MOST DRIVEN BY ONE SURPRISING THING, GALLUP POLL FINDS

US President Joe Biden, center, speaks during a State of the Union address at the US Capitol in Washington, D.C. (Nathan Howard/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Advertisement

This rating, recorded at the end of 2023, marks a 10% drop from the previous data from the end of 2022.

Approximately 32% of Democrats and “Democratic-leaning independents” view the federal government favorably, according to Pew Research. This marks a 17-point drop in approval since May 2022.

Only 11% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents hold a positive view of the federal government. This is on par with 2022 responses, but a marked drop from 41% approval documented in 2019 under the Trump administration.

NEW POLL REVEALS CRUCIAL BATTLEGROUND STATE PREFERS TRUMP OVER BIDEN IN HEATED 2024 REMATCH

Early voting in NYC

Voters casting their ballots at a polling station during early voting in Brooklyn, New York City, New York. (Lokman Vural Elibol/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)

U.S. adults responding to the survey had less overwhelmingly negative feelings towards state-level governance, according to Pew Research.

Advertisement

50% of respondents reported a favorable opinion of their state government, compared to 49% who reported an unfavorable view.

The poll found that approximately 61% of respondents reported a favorable view of their local government. Pew reported that political party affiliation had much less influence on local approval compared to state or federal.

The United States Capitol building is seen in Washington, District of Columbia. ((AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite))

The American Trends Panel survey was conducted from Nov. 27 to Dec. 3, 2023. 

It surveyed 5,203 U.S. adults on a variety of political, cultural, and social issues. It has a margin of error of +/- 1.8%.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Politics

Builders may fight 'impact fees' that fund municipal projects in California, Supreme Court rules

Published

on

Builders may fight 'impact fees' that fund municipal projects in California, Supreme Court rules

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that developers and home builders in California may challenge the fees commonly imposed by cities and counties to pay for new roads, schools, sewers and other public improvements.

The justices said these “impact fees” may be unconstitutional if builders and developers are forced to pay an unfair share of the cost of public projects.

Developers have contended that limiting California’s high fees would lead to the construction of more affordable new housing.

California state courts had blocked claims arising from “a development impact fee imposed pursuant to a legislatively authorized fee program” for new development in a city or county.

Advertisement

But the 9-0 Supreme Court decision opened the door for such challenges. The justices revived a constitutional claim brought by an El Dorado County man who put a manufactured home on a small lot and was told he would have to pay a “traffic mitigation fee” of $23,420.

The decision could have wide impact in California, since local governments have increasingly relied on impact fees rather than property taxes to pay for new projects.

But the justices did not spell out when such fees become unfair and unconstitutional.

Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson said they joined the majority opinion in Sheetz vs. El Dorado County because it merely allows such challenges.

In a separate opinion, conservative Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said he saw merit to the “common government practice of imposing permit conditions, such as impact fees, on new development through reasonable formulas or schedules that assess the impact of classes of development rather than the impact of specific parcels of property.”

Advertisement

State and county attorneys had made just that argument. They said it was fairer to impose a development fee on all the lots in an area.

But the justices nonetheless ruled that homeowners and developers may sue to challenge these fees as an unconstitutional taking of their private property. The case will now go back to the California courts.

The Pacific Legal Foundation in Sacramento hailed the ruling as a significant victory for property rights.

“Holding building permits hostage in exchange for excessive development fees is obviously extortion,” said attorney Paul Beard, who represented the El Dorado County homeowner. “We are thrilled that the court agreed and put a stop to a blatant attempt to skirt the 5th Amendment’s prohibition against taking private property without just compensation.”

Beard said El Dorado County “failed to show — and cannot show — that the fee is sufficiently related and proportionate to the traffic impacts” of his client’s “modest home.”

Advertisement

The debate over development fees is especially relevant in California, where local governments have increasingly relied on the charges to finance parks, streets, schools and other infrastructure and services since the 1978 passage of Proposition 13 limited property tax revenues.

The fees have come under scrutiny in other cases as developers and others have blamed them for driving up the cost of housing and for a wide disparity in cities’ fees.

A 2018 study by UC Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation found that, depending on the city, fees for new single-family homes could range from $21,000 to $157,000, and could account for 6% to 18% of the median home price.

For decades, the Supreme Court has cast a skeptical eye at California’s regulation of private property. In a pair of decisions, it limited the power of government officials to demand concessions from a property owner in exchange for a building permit.

In 1987, justices ruled for the owner of a beach bungalow in Ventura who was told he could not obtain a permit to expand his home unless he agreed to allow the public access to the beachfront. The conservative majority at the time described this demand as akin to “extortion” and said it violated the 5th Amendment’s clause that forbids the taking of “private property … for public use without just compensation.”

Advertisement

In a follow-up decision involving a store owner who was forced to allow a bike path on her property, the court said the government may not impose such special conditions on property owners unless it can show an owner’s new development would cause direct harm to the community.

But since then, it has been unclear whether this property right applies to development fees or in situations where fees are set by legislation rather than imposed on a single owner seeking a permit.

Writing for the court in Friday’s ruling, conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett said that “there is no basis for affording property rights less protection in the hands of legislators than administrators. The Takings Clause applies equally to both — which means that it prohibits legislatures and agencies alike from imposing unconstitutional conditions on land-use permits.”

The case arose when property owner George Sheetz sought a permit to put a manufactured home on a lot he owned in Placerville, outside Sacramento. El Dorado County required him to pay a “traffic impact mitigation” fee to obtain the permit. Some of the money was to go toward upgrades to Highway 50, which runs through the area, but most was to go toward new or expanded roads in the county.

Sheetz paid the fee and obtained his permit, then sued to challenge the fee as unconstitutional. He argued that the taxpayers of the county, not the new owner of a small home, should be required to pay for road building.

Advertisement

The justices agreed to hear his appeal after he lost in the California courts.

State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who has supported legislation to rein in developer fees, said he didn’t expect Friday’s decision by itself to have a significant effect on the debate in Sacramento because it only called out one extreme situation.

“Ultimately, the solution is the same today as it was yesterday,” Wiener said. “The California Legislature needs to put in place an actual structure for impact fees. Right now, it’s all over the map.”

Wiener said he sympathizes with local governments that turn to the fees because it’s easier than raising revenue through broad-based taxes — but he said some cities use sky-high fees to block housing development.

“There is something a little odd about effectively taxing new housing to pay for societal needs that should be paid generally by taxpayers — by the entire community,” he said.

Advertisement

Graham Knaus, executive director of the California State Assn. of Counties, said in a statement Friday that the organization was still reviewing the ruling to understand its implications.

But he said that “limiting the ability to legislatively enact fees will negatively impact the ability of our 58 counties to protect the health and welfare of their communities and drastically limit the building of vital local infrastructure.”

“In many cases,” Knaus said, “these fees are the only tool available to pay for new infrastructure around certain development projects.”

Times staff writer Liam Dillon in Los Angeles contributed to this report.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Video: Pro-Palestinian Protesters Complicate Democrats’ Ability to Campaign

Published

on

Video: Pro-Palestinian Protesters Complicate Democrats’ Ability to Campaign

Lisa Lerer, a political correspondent for The New York Times, explains how protests over the Biden administration’s handling of the Israel-Hamas war are disrupting the activities of Democratic officials from city halls to Congress to the White House.

Continue Reading

Trending