Media Search:



LEE HAMILTON: Why even popular legislation gets hung up in … – Crow River Media

Its not hard to imagine that as Congress edged closer and closer to shutting down the U.S. government at the end of September, most Americans watched with a sense of both disbelief and bemusement. Disbelief, because on Congress list of key responsibilities, keeping the federal government running surely ranks near the top. And some degree of confusion because, given overwhelming bipartisan support for passing spending bills, how could things have gotten so dire?

Before we get to that, though, its worth remembering that to some extent this is just Congress being Congress. At the best of times, the congressional process is slow, messy, complex and often contentious regardless of where popular sentiment lies. Not only is it not designed for quick action, its actually structured to slow things down so that matters of national importance can get a careful look.

In general, bills have to go through the committee system, which in an ideal world adds both expertise and additional scrutiny to the process but also adds time. Theyre subject to debate both in committee and on the floor of each chamber and, in the Senate, always at risk of being filibustered. At every step of the process, interest groups and lobbyists are weighing in often behind the scenes in a full-court press to shape or block a bill. Procedural rules offer plenty of opportunities for individual members to block progress even in the face of widespread condemnation from colleagues, as Alabama GOP Sen. Tommy Tuberville has been facing for holding up military promotions and appointments. Sometimes, getting to a majority in both houses on the same piece of legislation can feel like a minor miracle, requiring negotiation, compromise and lots of patience.

Our history offers plenty of examples. It took well over a year for the Affordable Care Act to win passage in 2010, despite strong public support for health care reform. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 faced concerted opposition from southern senators in particular, though it enjoyed the support of a majority of Americans. Immigration reform has been a perennial top-of-mind issue on Capitol Hill, with members of Congress and the public at large agreeing that it needs to happen and many on both sides of the aisle believing that undocumented immigrants need a pathway to citizenship, yet disagreements over how to achieve reform have stymied legislation for decades.

To be sure, Congress can act very quickly when it needs to, especially in the face of a national emergency after 9/11, during the 2008 financial crisis, when confronted with the COVID pandemic. And in the past, even when the appropriations process to fund the federal government has hit snags, Congress has been able to move quickly to pass a continuing resolution or an omnibus spending bill to avert a shutdown.

But when both Congress and the nation are polarized and Congress itself is closely divided along partisan lines, everything becomes more difficult. This is especially so in the House these days, where, as weve seen, just a tiny handful of members can gum things up and the GOP speaker faces the constant prospect of losing his post if even a single member of his caucus decides to give it a shot. In other words, the potential for messiness, gridlock and obstruction has reached new heights this year.

Yet despite all this, theres one other key thing to remember: When it comes to its most important business, like passing appropriations bills and funding the government, Congress always comes through. Debate might be contentious and every so often we face a shutdown with all the disruption and political fallout that entails but eventually every department will get its funds. Given all the forces arrayed against making progress, thats no small feat.

Lee Hamilton is a senior advisor for the Indiana University Center on Representative Government; a distinguished scholar at the IU Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies.

Read more here:
LEE HAMILTON: Why even popular legislation gets hung up in ... - Crow River Media

Reps. Glenn ‘GT’ Thompson and Dan Meuser voted to keep … – Lock Haven Express

Two federal lawmakers representing Greater Williamsport expressed reasons why they recently voted to retain House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who was ousted from that role in a vote by Congress.

U.S. Reps. Glenn GT Thompson, R-Howard, and Dan Meuser, R-Dallas, each replied in written statements and on televised interviews about why they voted how they did on the motion to vacate.

McCarthy lost the speakership after enough Democrats and eight Republicans led by U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida made the historic vote.

Gaetz filed a motion to vacate under a change to House rules. After criticizing McCarthy for helping to pass a bill to avert a government shutdown, Gaetz, and seven other Republicans voted in favor of McCarthys removal.

Eight members of the Republican party sided with Democrats to remove Kevin McCarthy from the Office of the Speaker, Thompson said.

This was nothing but a distraction from a handful of shameless self-promoters, Thompson said.

He continued, Their form of demagoguery doesnt work without a foil. Now, theyll have no one to blame but themselves. Americans deserve better.

In televised interviews before the vote, Meuser accused Gaetz and other Republicans in favor of McCarthys removal of playing destructive politics. Meuser said he considered it a missed opportunity to do historic things if they were to not be totally political.

He named such items as securing the border and comprehensive illegal immigration reform.

Weve got Gaetz and a couple of sycophants that are destructive critics that have done nothing since theyve been here, Meuser said.

A process of electing the next House speaker has begun as several Congressmen have expressed interest.

As of this week, two longtime party stalwarts and hard-liners, Majority Leader Steve Scalise of Louisiana and House Judiciary Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, have emerged as contenders to replace former House Speaker McCarthy, but along with them is a third Rep. Kevin Hern, R-Oklahoma, according to the Associated Press.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

Read more:
Reps. Glenn 'GT' Thompson and Dan Meuser voted to keep ... - Lock Haven Express

Bermuda’s position as financial hub won’t be unduly impaired by tax … – Reinsurance News

In a recent report, credit rating agency KBRA (Kroll Bond Rating Agency) has affirmed Bermudas long-term issuer ratings and short-term issuer ratings of the sovereign.

The agencys stable outlook for Bermuda underscores its confidence in the islands ability to weather global corporate tax reform efforts without significant disruption to its status as a financial hub.

Key factors contributing to Bermudas continued strength as a financial center include its high wealth level, robust institutions, and a top-quality regulatory environment.

These factors underpin Bermudas reputation as a hub for international finance. Additionally, the islands innovative approach has positioned it as a leader in emerging financial industries, including fintech and digital assets.

While Bermuda does face challenges, such as a large government gross debt and financing costs relative to revenues, these concerns are offset by substantial external assets held in the governments Public Service Superannuation Flan (PSSF) and the Contributory Pension Fund (CPF).

Fiscal restraint remains a key policy objective, with the government targeting a $50 million surplus in the medium term.

Bermudas resilience in the face of global tax and regulatory reforms is notable. The report suggests that the anticipated implementation of a corporate tax in line with G20 global reform is unlikely to unduly affect the islands vibrancy as a financial hub.

Despite anemic pre-Covid GDP growth, Bermuda is poised for recovery, with improvements in hospitality, residential investment, immigration reform, and sandbox initiatives.

While tourism employment has been impacted, the strong international financial services sector and the gradual return of employment levels indicate positive signs of growth.

Bermudas external vulnerability has been reduced thanks to large current account surpluses, international investment surpluses, and substantial net external assets, particularly in the financial sector.

However, it remains vulnerable due to its lack of independent monetary policy and reliance on external funding.

Read more here:
Bermuda's position as financial hub won't be unduly impaired by tax ... - Reinsurance News

NYT: Trump, DeSantis Have ‘Unrealistic Immigration Proposals’ – Immigration Blog

On Sunday, the New York Times ran an analysis of the dueling and yet fairly similar immigration proposals advanced by the two leading candidates for the Republican presidential nomination, former President Donald Trump and current Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. The headline read With Unrealistic Immigration Proposals, DeSantis and Trump Try to Outdo Each Other, but none of the proposals advanced by either candidate appears to be anything other than what the law demands. Of course, it would help if the Gray Lady didnt wildly underestimate Bidens border releases.

Republicans Pounce. Although it references Trump, the piece is actually an attempted takedown of DeSantis, and you can get a sense of where its headed right from the jump:

As a presidential candidate, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida has said he would authorize the use of deadly force against people crossing the border, seek to end the practice of birthright citizenship and send the military to strike against drug cartels inside Mexico, a key ally of the United States, even without the permission of its government.

Those positions put him on the hard right among the Republicans running for president, many of whom are tapping into deep anger among G.O.P. primary voters over immigration.

Now, Mr. DeSantis, who often tries to stoke outrage with his border policies, has unveiled another extreme position: deporting all undocumented immigrants who crossed the border during the Biden administration. [Emphasis added.]

My colleague Mark Krikorian often alludes to the Republicans pounce trope, best defined by whats not commonly thought of as a hotbed of right-wing thought, Urban Dictionary, as follows:

A headline in a newspaper or other article that describes Republicans (or other right-leaning individuals) attacking a Democrat (or other left-leaning individual) when that Democrat commits a misdeed. Always written by a reporter with left-wing political views, it will attempt to frame the Republicans as overzealous, and will either downplay, ignore, or excuse the Democrat's misdeed. Commonly done by the New York Times or Washington Post, it is often viewed as a sign of the bias within the media.

Thats a decidedly accurate take in this instance, beginning with the use of the descriptor hard right. How often have you heard reference to the hard left? Rarely, I am guessing; the preferred term in the media is progressive wing. The same goes for stoke outrage, the likely cognate for which is stir up the base or promote liberal values, and deep anger, the opposite of which is strongly held beliefs.

Extreme Position. Of course, those are basically procedural arguments, and every procedural argument is self-serving. The idea that a would-be president is promoting an extreme position by proposing to deport all undocumented immigrants who crossed the border during the Biden administration, on the other hand, is hardly extreme at all.

In fact, its the expressed policy of the Biden administration.

In September 2021, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas issued a memo captioned Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law, which directs how ICE officers and attorneys must take certain enforcement actions, including investigating, questioning, arresting, detaining, prosecuting, and removing illegal aliens (undocumented immigrants) in the United States.

Those guidelines identify just three classes of aliens as priorities for such immigration enforcement actions: (1) terrorists and spies (threats to national security); (2) aliens who engaged in serious criminal conduct (threats to public safety); and (3) a group denominated as threats to border security, that is aliens:

(a) apprehended at the border or port of entry while attempting to unlawfully enter the United States; or (b) apprehended in the United States after unlawfully entering after November 1, 2020.

Not only are aliens apprehended in the United States after unlawfully entering after November 1, 2020 the same as undocumented immigrants who crossed the border during the Biden administration, but the former class is more expansive, stretching back to days before the 2020 election.

Its curious the Times never mentions this fact in its article, instead focusing exclusively on the logistical difficulties inherent in actually removing such a large group of aliens from the United States:

Conducting so many deportations would require Mr. DeSantis to hire more Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, authorize widespread raids into immigrant communities, significantly expand immigration detention space to meet national standards and substantially grow the fleet of airplanes used for deportations. Billions more dollars would need to be spent on bolstering immigration courts to adjudicate cases within months instead of years. Currently, some migrants who have recently arrived in the United States have been given court dates a decade from now because the immigration court backlog is so large.

Part of that is accurate, but most isnt.

ICE Officers. Plainly, DeSantis proposal would require the hiring of more ICE officers, but the agencys Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) branch the component responsible for most removals has been underfunded for years and is strained to the point of breaking in dealing the millions of new cases Bidens border surge has added to its backlog.

And yet, for some reason (assuming the administrations latest budget request is correct), ICE ERO lost 547 positions between FY 2022 (8,258) and FY 2023 (7,711), while the White House is only asking for 518 new positions in its FY 2024 budget 29 fewer than it had in FY 2022.

Authorize Widespread Raids. Its unclear to me how, exactly, the Times believes ICE conducts its business, but the widespread raid part is a head-scratcher.

Plainly, if the agency has reason to believe that a large number of removable aliens are at a given address or a specific worksite, theyd likely send more than a couple of officers to check it out. Yet, the papers depiction smacks of tens to hundreds of ERO officers all converging on neighborhoods across the Republic with guns drawn and sirens blaring.

Thats not how it works, because of course ICE would have no reason to believe that all the residents in a given area are aliens who entered illegally under the Biden administration. And, given the fact that the administration has given those migrants free rein to roam far and wide across the country, they likely would not be concentrated in one place.

Any such proposal would require those officers to locate specific aliens in specific places and go and pick them up, or, even better, to respond to local authorities who have encountered them. Thats not much help in so-called sanctuary cities that eschew local cooperation with immigration authorities, but in states like Texas and DeSantis own Florida, where the governments are more simpatico with ICE enforcement, it wont be that difficult.

That said, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) itself provides some helpful options the Times never even considers.

Section 262 of the INA requires all aliens in the United States to register their presence here within 30 days of arrival (backed up by a fine and/or prison sentence), while section 265 of the INA mandates that such aliens provide DHS with a change of address within 10 days of moving (with a lesser fine and/or a shorter prison sentence for non-compliance).

As an added authority, section 263(b) of the INA permits DHS to prescribe special forms and regulations for the registration of any class of aliens not lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence like aliens released under the Biden administration at the Southwest border.

Once a significant number are required to register, more than a few will decide theyve made enough money here and simply go home. That might sound crazy, but as my colleague, Jessica Vaughan explained in 2006:

Voluntary compliance works faster and is cheaper than a borders-only approach to immigration law enforcement. For example, under the controversial [National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS)] program launched after 9/11, DHS removed roughly 1,500 illegally-resident Pakistanis; over the same time period, in response to the registration requirements, about 15,000 illegal Pakistani immigrants left the country on their own.

Why was NSEERS controversial? Because it applied only to specific nationals of certain Middle East countries with Muslim majorities. A similar program that applied only to illegal entrants released under the Biden administration at the Southwest border would suffer no similar criticism because: (1) most of those aliens are nationals of Western Hemisphere countries; (2) none of those countries have Muslim majorities; and (3) it would have a demonstrably legitimate purpose.

And I havent even mentioned the most powerful tool DeSantis or Trump could bring to bear: a mandatory E-Verify program. As DHS explains:

E-Verify, authorized by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), is a web-based system through which employers electronically confirm the employment eligibility of their employees.

In the E-Verify process, employers create cases based on information taken from an employees Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification. E-Verify then electronically compares that information to records available to [DHS] and the Social Security Administration (SSA). The employer usually receives a response within a few seconds either confirming the employees employment eligibility or indicating that the employee needs to take further action to complete the case.

The I-9 employment-eligibility verification process all employers must comply with is already required by section 274A of the INA and has been since 1986. The problem is there was no internet in 1986 (compliance has been paper-based ever since), but the president could potentially mandate compliance with E-Verify by regulation or even executive order.

Would mandatory E-Verify encourage Bidens border migrants to leave? They almost definitely would.

In a March 2016 study, Do State Work Eligibility Verification Laws Reduce Unauthorized Immigration, researchers Pia M. Orrenius and Madeline Zavodny determined that having an E-Verify law reduces the number of less-educated prime-age immigrants from Mexico and Central America immigrants who are likely to be unauthorized living in a state. Thats the majority of Bidens migrants.

The duo examined the effect of the adoption of E-Verify laws on the illegal alien population, and focused their study on Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Utah all states that had adopted E-Verify policies.

Of course, workers who couldnt find employment in a given state could always move to one that didnt mandate E-Verify, but if that process were required in every state, where would they go? Assuming, as is evident from most media interviews conducted with Bidens border migrants, that the majority have come here to work, if they could not work, theyd leave.

Significantly Expand Immigration Detention Space. Plainly, to the degree that any Trump or DeSantis plan relied on ICE ERO officers arresting migrants who entered illegally under Biden, more detention space would be required. The good news is theres plenty of detention beds to go around.

I was an immigration judge at the York Immigration Court in York, Pa., which itself is not a hot destination for most migrants released at the Southwest border. The York County Prison, however, had lots of extra beds, which it rented out to ICE for aliens it had detained. That was a win-win for both ICE (it didnt have to build new facilities) and the county (it received recompense and a pretty good premium for room and board).

Some of those aliens would remain for extended periods of time, but only the ones who werent clearly removable or who had legitimate claims for relief (like asylum). The rest cleared out pretty quickly, and at present the median completion time for a detained case in immigration court is just 41 days.

Even thats on the high-side by historical standards, because as recently as FY 2012 (during the Obama-Biden administration), the median completion time for detained cases was just over two weeks. Why the difference? Because in FY 2012, ICE actually detained illegal entrants, few of whom had or have any right to be here, which is not the norm today.

So yes, more detention space would be required if a President DeSantis decided to actually enforce the policies the Biden administration currently has in place. But not as much as the Times suggests.

Substantially Grow the Fleet of Airplanes Used for Deportations. As for the Times contention that DeSantis proposed scheme would require DHS to substantially grow the fleet of airplanes used for deportations, my first response is, Why bother?

The department may prefer to use its own planes to conduct removals, but theres no need for it to do so. In fact, when I was an associate general counsel at the then-INS enforcement law division, nearly every alien (some of whom were seriously bad people) was just placed on a commercial airliner and sent home.

Even today, the ICE website states that the agency conducts removals through chartered flights, commercial airlines and ground transportation, for both escorted and unescorted removals. For countries not bordering the U.S., removals require ICE air charter or commercial flights (emphasis added). I dont even see the words DHS Air in that excerpt.

Even if ICE were to skip bookings on any one of the hundreds of commercial flights that depart for foreign destinations every day, the charter option is pretty economical, according to the agency:

A daily scheduled charter flight average cost is $8,577 per flight hour. A special high-risk charter flight average cost is between $6,929 to $26,795 per flight hour, depending on aircraft requirements. These rates cover the cost of not only the aircraft and fuel, but also the flight crew, security personnel, an onboard medical professional and all associated aviation handling and overflight fees.

Thats per flight, not per alien. The aircraft featured therein, registration number N279AD, is a Boeing 737-4, which can carry between 146 and 189 passengers. That works out to $183 per flight hour on the high side to just $45 per flight hour on the low a bargain compared to the $12 billion New York City expects to pay for its 100,000 migrants ($120,000 per alien).

How Many Alien Releases? At least 2,390,584. Given that the Times deliberately attempts to make the challenges of removing the migrants who have entered the United States under Biden seem daunting, its strange that it also understates the number of aliens who have come illegally on the current administrations watch: at least 1.6 million released since January 2021 plus about 1.5 million others have entered the country illegally without being detained, that is, got-aways.

In reality, as I recently explained, the Biden administration has released at least 2,390,584 illegal aliens at the Southwest border into the United States, though the actual number is much higher, given that Bidens DHS not only refuses to release the official total, but is actually hiding its port release figures and the number of aliens transferred by CBP at the border to ICE who were released by the latter agency.

Since February 2021 Bidens first full month in office CBP has encountered more than 3.57 million aliens at the Southwest border who were processed under the INA in lieu of being expelled under Title 42. I have been told anecdotally but by people who would know that all of them have been released into the country. If thats not true, the administration is free to correct me by releasing the actual total.

You can add to that figure nearly 1.6 million known got-aways since Biden took office, though then-Border Patrol Chief Raul Ortiz told Congress back in March that the actual number of got aways could be 10 to 20 percent higher, which adds anywhere between 160,000 to 320,000 to the total.

That gets you, at the high end, to 5.47 million new arrivals since Biden became president, and when you lump in the 263,000 inadmissible aliens waived in through the Southwest border ports who used the CBP One app to preschedule their illegal entries and the 211,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans who flew into U.S. airports using Bidens illegal CHNV parole processes, youre pretty close to the six or seven million figure DeSantis referenced during a recent speech that the Times contended was greatly overestimated.

Again, the burden should be on the administration to disclose how many aliens have entered illegally on its watch, not on the governor of Florida, who is essentially a private citizen for purposes of this analysis. Nothing in the Times article suggests the writers asked DHS for the official figure, however.

If Removing Aliens Is So Hard, Why Does Biden Keep Letting Migrants In? The elephant in the room or more specifically the donkey in that article is why, if removing aliens is so hard, the Biden administration keeps allowing tens of thousands of them per month in.

That question applies not only to the 100,000-plus aliens Border Patrol released after apprehension in August at the Southwest border, but also to the 45,400 illegal entrants who were processed using Bidens CBP One port app interview scheme in August and about 30,000 others who came in on CHNV parole.

Note that Texas is challenging those CHNV parole processes in Texas v. DHS, in part, because Biden has no plan whatsoever to remove them. That actually makes the Times point, but the paper never even mentions either that fact or the states litigation.

None of this is to second-guess the Times. It wanted a piece attacking DeSantis and Trumps plans to remove the millions of illegal aliens Joe Biden has allowed into the United States at the border and got it. Respectfully, however, theres a lot more news thats fit to print about Bidens border policies, and it would have informed the public discourse had the Times simply included it.

Visit link:
NYT: Trump, DeSantis Have 'Unrealistic Immigration Proposals' - Immigration Blog

Atlas 5 launches Amazon Kuiper satellites for tests of space-based … – Spaceflight Now

An Atlas 5 lifts off from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station on Oct. 6, 2023 carrying the first two prototype satellites for Amazons Project Kuiper internet service. Image: Adam Bernstein/Spaceflight Now.

A United Launch Alliance Atlas 5 rocket blasted off Friday and boosted a pair of prototype internet satellites into orbit for Amazons Kuiper program, the latest entry in the increasingly competitive space-based broadband market currently dominated by SpaceX.

Weve done extensive testing here in our lab and have a high degree of confidence in our satellite design, but theres no substitute for on-orbit testing, Rajeev Badyal, Project Kuipers vice president of technology, said in a statement. This is Amazons first time putting satellites into space, and were going to learn an incredible amount.

The Atlas 5s Russian-built RD-180 first-stage engine roared to life at 2:06 p.m. EDT, throttled up and smoothly powered the 196-foot-tall rocket away from pad 41 at the Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, arcing away to the east over the Atlantic Ocean.

The rockets first stage fell away as planned after propelling the vehicle out of the dense lower atmosphere, and the flight continued with the Centaur upper stage. In a departure from normal practice for commercial, unclassified flights, ULA ended its realtime coverage shortly after stage separation, at the request of Amazon.

The rocket company did, however, confirm the successful deployment of the Kuipersat 1 and 2 prototypes.

In any case, Amazon Kuiper engineers planned to monitor deployment of the satellites solar panels and confirm on-board systems were performing normally. They also planned to test the programs networking technology, relaying data to and from the satellites and ground gateway stations connected to the internet.

The launching came two days after arch-rival SpaceX, the clear leader in the space-based internet market, launched its 113th Starlink mission, boosting the total number of satellites launched to date to 5,222. Of that total, more than 4,800 are believed to be operating.

SpaceX now offers commercial service in countries around the world and plans to launch thousands more Starlinks in the years ahead to increase its global coverage.

Amazon plans to launch 3,236 Kuiper satellite, with internet service beginning after the first 578 data relay stations are in orbit. The company has signed contracts totaling $10 billion for 38 launches using ULAs new Vulcan rocket, 18 flights of the European Ariane 6 booster and at least 12 using New Glenn rockets built by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos Blue Origin.

All of those rockets are in development and none have yet flown.

Our FCC (Federal Communications Commission) license requires that we deploy and operate at least half of our satellite constellation by July 2026, the company says on its web page. We expect to provide service to the earliest Project Kuiper customers by the end of 2024.

The Kuiper satellites, SpaceXs Starlinks and OneWebs higher-altitude relay stations, along with other systems now in the planning stages, are designed to provide broadband access anywhere in the world using large numbers of small satellites in low-Earth orbit.

As the satellites race by overhead, they receive input from customers, relay the data satellite-to-satellite and then down to gateway ground stations tied into high-speed internet circuits. Responses are then relayed back to the customer, providing uninterrupted, relatively high-speed service.

The Kuiper program has released few details about its satellites other than to say they will be launched into three orbital shells at altitudes between 370 and 390 miles and that the first 578, making up phase 1, will populate orbital planes tilted 51.9 degrees to the equator.

Were designing the system to balance performance and affordability, and we plan to provide choice and flexibility by offering a range of options for customers, the company says.

Our ultra-compact (terminal) provides speeds of up to 100 megabits per second, our standard model delivers up to 400 Mbps and our largest model, which is intended for enterprise, government and telecommunications applications, delivers up to 1 gigabit per second.

Amazon has not yet announced how much it will charge for Kuiper service, but affordability is a key principle, the company says.

Amazon has a longstanding commitment to low prices, and lots of experience building popular, low-cost devices. Were applying a similar approach with Project Kuiper.

Read this article:
Atlas 5 launches Amazon Kuiper satellites for tests of space-based ... - Spaceflight Now