Democrats Smuggle In Striker Granting In-State Tuition to Illegal Aliens

Democrats Smuggle In Striker Granting In-State Tuition to Illegal Aliens

By Corinne Murdock |

A bill originally disguised as a nature-loving resolution passed by the Senate was rewritten completely through an amendment to qualify illegal aliens for in-state tuition. The same wouldn’t apply to nonimmigrant aliens.

“Notwithstanding any other law, a student, other than a nonimmigrant alien as described in 8 United States Code Section 1101(a)(15) […] is eligible for in-state tuition at any university […],” reads the amendment. “Persons without lawful immigration status are eligible for in-state tuition […]”

State Representative Daniel Hernandez, Jr. (D-Tucson) introduced the amendment. The proposed change comes into play as the border crisis continues to surge. Rural communities at Arizona’s border are pleading with federal authorities for help, as the number of migrants have more than doubled since Biden took office.

Yuma Border Patrol Special Operations Supervisor Vincent Dulesky reported one week ago that they are seeing surges of up to 100 illegal aliens at a time crossing the border.

“We’ve gone from months where we were seeing twenty [illegal aliens] a day, and now we’re seeing upwards to 450 a day,” said Dulesky. “We’re seeing groups of ten, twenty, thirty, all the way up to 100 [illegal aliens] coming through at a time.”

Their border patrol also noted that the border crossings aren’t occurring in the areas where previous President Donald Trump built miles of 30-foot-tall steel walls. The main flood of crossings have occurred where the Normandy fencing exists. The X-shaped barricades only serve to stop vehicles, not so much the foot traffic.

The amendment to S.C.R. 1046 would also loosen residency restrictions for American citizens. Other non-resident students could also qualify for in-state intuition, as long as they have attended any public or private high school option or homeschool equivalent in the state for at least two years, or graduated from any of those schooling options while physically in the state.

However, the amendment was clear in drawing the distinction between non-Arizona resident students and illegal alien students. Illegal aliens wouldn’t be held to those standards.

The amendment was scheduled to be considered on Tuesday by the House committee on education.

Corinne Murdock is a contributing reporter for AZ Free News. In her free time, she works on her books and podcasts. Follow her on Twitter, @CorinneMurdock or email tips to corinnejournalist@gmail.com.

Migrant Shelters Are Hiring In Tucson And Phoenix

Migrant Shelters Are Hiring In Tucson And Phoenix

Nearly every spring, shelters begin hiring additional personnel to care for unaccompanied migrant children who begin crossing the U.S. Mexico border due to friendly weather. This year, the annual trek of migrant children turned into a tsunami as a result of the Biden administration’s decision to end the Trump administration’s “Remain-in-Mexico” policy.

REMAIN-IN-MEXICO (MPP)

On January 25, 2019, the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced the implementation of the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), also known as the “Remain in Mexico” program. The policy allows U.S. Border Patrol to return non-Mexican asylum seekers to Mexico as their claims are adjudicated in US immigration courts.

Although Governor Doug Ducey and others have called the mass migration a crisis, for those who operate the shelters, it is cash flow.

For Arizona’s still-displaced service industry employees, the shelters are offering much needed well-paying jobs.

For example, Southwest Key is hiring for multiple positions including Teacher, Teacher’s Assistant, Youth Care Worker, Assistant Case Manager, Case Manager, Medical Coordinator, Case Aide, and Shift Leader.

Currently, Southwest Key operates a total of eight facilities for Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) in Youngtown, Glendale, Phoenix, Mesa, and Tucson.

Since 2015, Southwest Key has “unified more than 100,000 immigrant children with sponsors or families,” according to the company’s website. This year, the shelters are expected to house a record number of UACs.

Southwest Key is not the only shelter or other UAC service provider hiring. MVM Inc., which provides “secure transportation for vulnerable populations” is hiring in the Phoenix area. The International Rescue Committee and other traditional refugee service providers are hiring as well.

Southwest Key’s UAC shelters are part of a federal shelter system that was created as a result of the 1997 Flores Settlement Agreement. The agreement mandates the release of UACs from Border Patrol custody within 72 hours. The UACs are then transferred into the custody of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement, which contracts with organizations like Southwest Key.

The high number of UACs arriving at this time has made it nearly impossible for the overwhelmed officers to meet the 72-hour transfer deadline.

Ad Attacks Kelly For Rejecting Student’s Right To A Classroom Education

Ad Attacks Kelly For Rejecting Student’s Right To A Classroom Education

By B. Hernandez |

A scathing ad campaign was launched on Sunday by the Club For Growth targeting Sen. Mark Kelly for his decision to vote against a student’s right to an education. Specifically, Kelly voted against Senator Ted Cruz’s Amendment #969, which would have helped students find open classrooms.

The amendment, which would have expanded parental choice in education, narrowly failed, with 49 Republicans voting in favor and all 50 Democrats voting against.

The Club for Growth announced the launch of the issue ads to be aired in Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, and New Hampshire, as part of its effort to support parental educational choice.

The Club noted in a press release that it hopes to “hold Senators Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), and Raphael Warnock (D-GA) accountable for siding with education bureaucrats and voting against Senator Ted Cruz’s Amendment #969.”

The amendment, according to the Club, “would have allowed our taxpayer dollars to follow students and parents, not education bureaucrats and would have provided children with an option for in-classroom education instruction if the child’s local public school does not commit to reopening.”

The Covid pandemic initially forced many K-12 schools closed. Across the country, many public school classrooms still remain closed due to pressure from the teachers unions.

Civil Forfeiture Bill Provokes Pushback From Those Who Benefit

Civil Forfeiture Bill Provokes Pushback From Those Who Benefit

By Terri Jo Neff |

Citing the imperative to disrupt criminal organizations, the law enforcement officials who benefit most from Arizona’s civil forfeiture statute are pushing back on a bill introduced by Rep. Travis Grantham (R-LD12) which seeks to make it harder for the government to seize assets from people never charged with a crime.

Currently an owner of a seized property has the burden to prove the asset was not used in connection to an illegal activity, instead of that burden being on the entity seeking forfeiture. Any misstep in complying with a complicated challenge process can permanently void someone’s right to the property without ever having a hearing.

HB2810 would shift some of that burden onto the government entity seeking forfeiture and give owners more time to fight a forfeiture action. The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission has taken a neutral position on Grantham’s bill, as has Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich.

However, supporters -which include American Friends Service Committee, Arizona Chapter of the Institute for Justice, Arizona Free Enterprise Club, Barry Goldwater Institute for Public Policy, and Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice- have put forth data showing that a large number of people named in civil forfeiture efforts were never arrested.

In some instances, the owner of the property was never even suspected of a committing a crime, such as a parent whose adult child bought or sold drugs while driving the parent’s vehicle.

Grantham’s bill cleared the House on a 57 to 2 vote and unanimously passed the Senate Committee on Judiciary on March 11. It is slated to be considered by the Senate Rules Committee on Monday, but it is opposed by the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, several municipalities, and the presidents of the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police and the Arizona Fraternal Order of Police.

Many arguments against HB2810 cite concerns that making it harder for law enforcement agencies to pursue civil forfeiture will stymie efforts to disrupt criminal operations such as the cartel. Others argue it would be more difficult to seize assets from someone believed to be profiting from criminal activity, even if the person is not directly engaged in that activity.

But Grantham argues that a “conviction first” process needs to be added to the civil forfeiture law to protect all Arizonans’ property and due process rights.

“In our country, if we’re going to do something that hurts one innocent person just because it gets ten bad ones, we’re doing it wrong, because we’re innocent until proven guilty in this country,” he said.

Other statistics in support of HB2810 show half of all cash forfeitures in Arizona had value of $1,000 or less, making it impractical to hire an attorney to get the asset returned. That leaves law enforcement agencies and prosecutors as the primary benefactor of civil forfeiture, and many of those routinely include a budget line item for expected revenues.

One person who would likely find Grantham’s bill of interest is U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who has spoken out against the growing use of civil forfeiture in America.

“This system—where police can seize property with limited judicial oversight and retain it for their own use—has led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses,” Thomas wrote in 2017. “These forfeiture operations frequently target the poor and other groups least able to defend their interests in forfeiture proceedings.”

This is not the first time Arizona legislators have tackled the issue of civil forfeitures. In 2017, Gov. Doug Ducey signed bi-partisan legislation which was seen as long overdue reforms including a requirement that agencies keep better records of what is seized, when it is seized, and disposition of the seized property.

The law also raised the standard of proof for civil forfeiture proceedings from a preponderance of the evidence -which was simply showing something was more likely to be than not- to the higher standard level of clear and convincing proof.

“And because the law-enforcement entity responsible for seizing the property often keeps it, these entities have strong incentives to pursue forfeiture.” – U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, 2017.

How Arizona Can Leverage Antitrust Laws to Reel in Big Tech

How Arizona Can Leverage Antitrust Laws to Reel in Big Tech

By Free Enterprise Club |

How much longer will the government allow Facebook, Twitter, Google, Amazon, and Apple to run amok? Is their penchant to play speech police enough? Google-owned YouTube has a history of deplatforming and demonetizing conservative organizations. And by now, you probably know that Twitter didn’t hesitate to ban President Trump while he was still the President of the United States.

Or what about their influence on this past November’s election? Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg alone gave hundreds of millions of dollars to election offices to influence local elections. And as you can probably assume, it wasn’t to ensure the process remained fair and nonpartisan.

Or could it be Big Tech’s uncanny ability to collude with each other to serve their own interests? Just ask Parler how it went when Apple, Google, and Amazon conspired to remove the new social media company from the internet—an objective that Apple still appears to be committed to.

>> READ MORE >>