The flood of illegal immigrants hasn’t slowed down in President Joe Biden’s border crisis, and it looks like it won’t anytime soon. According to Customs and Border Patrol’s (CBP) latest report, over 173,600 illegal immigrants were apprehended at the border in November — up nearly 5.5 percent from the previous month. The Office of Field Operations (OFO) accounted for much of that jump, reporting a 40 percent surge.
The majority of the fiscal year 2021 surge comes from single adults: nearly 64 percent. Less than 28 percent are family unit apprehensions (FMUA), and less than 8.5 percent are unaccompanied children (UC).
On Thursday, Border Patrol (BP) Tucson Sector Chief Patrol Agent John Modlin showcased one of their latest catches: three illegal immigrants stuffed in the trunk of a sedan.
Smugglers continue to endanger lives by confining individuals in spaces not meant for humans. Douglas #USBP agents and the Cochise County Sheriff's Office foiled a dangerous human smuggling attempt on Hwy 191, discovering three migrants inside the trunk of a sedan. #Vigilancepic.twitter.com/oJGzbEdJYi
As AZ Free News reported, Modlin has consistently documented the reality of border apprehensions.
Representative Paul Gosar (R-AZ-04) criticized the Biden Administration for their continued lack of resolve over the border crisis. Gosar pointed out that more illegal immigrants crossed the border in the last three months than in all of former President Donald Trump’s final year in office.
“Mr. Biden’s open border policies are an open invitation to criminals and drug cartels to cross into our country unchecked,” said Gosar. “The crisis has reached a new level and Yuma, Arizona in my district is ground zero, as hundreds of illegal aliens cross into Yuma daily and even more are staging along the border waiting to simply walk across. Yuma is under siege because Mr. Biden and Border Czar Kamala Harris are nowhere to be found. The first priority of the President of the United States is to protect the people of America. Sadly, Joe Biden puts Americans last and he has lost the trust of its citizens.”
Amid the ongoing crisis, Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough rejected efforts to grant amnesty to up to 7 million illegal immigrants through the $2 trillion budget reconciliation bill. Based on Senate rules and nearly two centuries of precedent, MacDonough determined that the amnesty effort wouldn’t be permissible; reconciliation concerns spending and revenue, though Democrats have attempted to argue that immigration relates to those two subjects. That was the third proposal on illegal immigrant amnesty brought before MacDonough, which would have allowed those here illegally since at least 2010 to apply for up to two five-year work permits.
White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki called the ruling “deeply disappointing.” Psaki stated that their administration would continue working to secure amnesty.
“The decision by the parliamentarian is deeply disappointing and relegates millions to an uncertain and frightening future,” said Psaki. “Ultimately, it’s time for Congress to stop kicking the can down the road and finally provide certainty and stability to these groups, and make other badly needed reforms to our outdated immigration system.”
Conversely, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) applauded MacDonough’s opinion. FAIR President Dan Stein criticized Democrats’ attempts to abuse the reconciliation process.
“For the third time, Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough rejected attempts by Senate Democrats to use the budget reconciliation process to enact a sweeping amnesty for as many as 7 million illegal aliens. FAIR applauds Ms. MacDonough for her integrity and ensuring that longstanding rules of the Senate were not subverted to achieve partisan political ends,” stated Stein. “Sadly, Senate Democrats, who hold the majority in that body solely because Vice President Kamala Harris can cast the tie-breaking vote, have made repeated attempts to use budget reconciliation to make an end run around normal legislative procedures. We hope that this, her third rejection of these tactics, will finally put an end to their efforts to abuse the process in order to reward illegal aliens.”
PRESS RELEASE: FAIR Applauds Senate Parliamentarian for Rejecting Massive Illegal Alien Amnesty as Part of Budget Reconciliation Bill https://t.co/y8hNIIdlAc
Governor Doug Ducey has been working with Border Patrol to strengthen enforcement. Earlier this month, he announced the Arizona National Guard would provide 24 personnel, six vehicles, four ATVs, and one helicopter to support the Department of Public Safety, as well as additional tactical assistance in hotspots.
Federally regulated banks across the United States have about 100 days to get familiar with a new rule that requires the reporting of cyberattacks and other computer security incidents to regulators within 36 hours and “as soon as possible” to customers if the incident might materially affect operations for at least four hours.
The rule announced by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors (Fed), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) last month takes effect April 1. It applies to banking organizations such as national banks, federal savings associations, state member banks, U.S. operations of foreign banking organizations, federal branches and agencies of foreign banks, and U.S. bank holding companies and savings and loan holding companies.
Under the new rule, reportable cyber incidents are those causing “actual harm” with respect to the availability, confidentiality, or integrity of a banking organization’s information system or the information that the system processes, stores or transmits. As a result, notification will not be required if an incident only threatens to cause a harm.
A banking organization’s service providers are also subject to the rule, which will now require notification by a service provider to the banking organization of incidents which has caused “or is reasonably likely to cause” a service interruption of four or more hours.
Federal banking officials concede the new reporting requirement won’t stop cyberattacks on the nation’s banks. It won’t even serve as a speed bump in such criminal activity.
What it will do, according to industry newsletter Banking Exchange, is give regulators and federal law enforcement officials a better chance of tracking attacks, identifying patterns, and ensuring local bank executives are doing their part to protect customer data and assets.
Some types of computer incidents involve new account or wire fraud, account penetration or takeovers, and malicious attacks such as ransomware. The disruption or degradation of a banking organization’s operations which would pose a threat to the country’s financial stability will also trigger the new reporting regulation.
OneSpan, a cybersecurity company specializing in banking, recently released its Global Financial Regulations Report which notes the main challenges for banking organization are reducing or preventing cyberattacks, safeguarding sensitive internal and customer data, and keeping up with changes in consumer privacy laws and industry rules.
The new banking regulation emphasizes material disruptions such as denial-of-service (DOS) attacks or data hacking incursions which limit or shutdown a banking organization’s operations regardless of whether customer information is compromised. However, some cyberattacks may also be subject to supplementary reporting under other federal or state laws.
Instructions will be sent to all regulated banks in early 2022 on when and how to process a notification.
COVID-19 exhaustion is not a medical term, although what it represents can be as emotionally fatiguing as the virus can be physically draining. It describes the sense of frustration and weariness that comes from reacting 24/7 to a pandemic for the last 20 months.
AZ Free News looks at some of the events which occurred last week in federal courthouses, corporate offices, and the Arizona statehouse which illustrate the confusing regulations, legal rulings, and political posturing commonly found with COVID-19 exhaustion.
Private vs. Public Employees
On Dec. 15, Gov. Doug Ducey issued yet another executive order concerning COVID-19. Among the nine-page order are 19 words which seemingly ensure municipal, county, and state officials cannot impose any COVID-19 vaccination on citizens, businesses, or public employees:
“No person shall be required by this state, or any city, town or county to obtain a COVID-19 vaccine…”
Yet just two days later, Tucson Mayor Regina Romero issued a dismissive response to Ducey’s order as she doubled down on enforcing a city ordinance passed in November that allows for termination of any city employee who did not provide prove of vaccination or had not gone through an exemption process.
Meanwhile, the illnesses and deaths of several public safety workers across Arizona who contracted COVID-19 are being classified as work-related, which allows for various financial benefits for the employee or family. At the same time, a growing number of private companies have discontinued assistance for unvaccinated frontline employees who contact COVID-19.
The latest employer to do so is Kroger Co., which owns 2,700 supermarkets and multi-department stores across the country under several names. In Arizona, Kroger operates the Fry’s Food Stores.
According to Kroger’s announcement, any of the company’s 465,000 employees who are not vaccinated will no longer be eligible for two weeks of paid emergency leave if they fall ill. In addition, a $50 monthly health insurance surcharge will soon be imposed onunvaccinated nonunion employees.
A similar COVID-19 health plan surcharge was implemented by Pima County against several hundred of its employees who have not been vaccinated. The county’s action, which is expected to cost employees $100 a month, is the subject of a federal lawsuit filed last week by the Arizona Conference of Police and Sheriffs (AZCOPS).
Another problem that has developed as a result of various vaccination mandates is the uneven -and potentially discriminatory- decisions by companies and government entities in response to applications for religious and medical exemptions. There are also concerns over employee privacy.
The City of Phoenix issued its own COVID-19 vaccination mandate back in November, citing the city’s status as a federal contractor. The city’s 14,000 or so employees were given a Jan. 18 deadline, along with the option of applying for a medical or religious exemption.
Many employees balked at the exemption process after learning they would have to reveal deeply personal medical and religious information to fellow city employees with the Human Resources, Equal Opportunity, and Law departments.
The Phoenix mandate is on hold while the federal court address challenges to the Biden Administration’s federal contractor vaccination mandate. If reactivated, the city’s mandate allows for termination.
Federal Court Decisions
While a legal challenge or two have been threatened against Ducey’s latest executive order, Arizonans who work for the federal government have not had success challenging President Joe Biden’s executive order that requires federal employees to get the shot.
But for workers of private companies with 100 or more employees, for those who work for a federal contractor, or whose employer receives Medicare & Medicaid funds, things get a whole lot murkier.
A federal appeals court recently put on hold the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services rules which require staff at any facility which participates in the Medicare and Medicaid programs to get the COVID-19 vaccination, regardless of whether that staff member has patient contact.
But even if that rule never goes into effect, healthcare workers in Arizona may not have recourse to challenge any employer mandated vaccination policy, thanks to Ducey’s Dec. 15 executive order. The governor specifically allows “a health care institution licensed pursuant to A.R.S. Title 36, Chapter 4” to require its employees to be vaccinated, although a medical and religious exemption must be offered.
There is also a Biden executive order which requires federal contractors and subcontractors to implement a mandatory employee vaccination policy. A federal court order put that mandate on hold earlier this month, but the U.S. Department of Justice continues to argue the President has authority to impose such a requirement on America’s private businesses.
The Biden Administration mandate with the biggest reach is one issued by OSHA that affects more than 80 million workers. An emergency OSHA rule requires companies with 100 or more employees to implement COVID-19 vaccination protocols or face financial penalties. The OSHA rule also requires unvaccinated workers to undergo frequent testing, and only provides for a medical exemption.
A federal court had put the OSHA rule on hold due to legal challenges from multiple states and employers. However, last Friday a federal appellate court allowed the mandate to go into effect pending any possible action by the U.S. Supreme Court which was asked on Saturday by several parties to get involved sooner than later.
It did not take long for OSHA to react to last week’s lifting of the hold. The agency issued a statement Saturday warning those companies with more than 100 employees to comply by Jan. 10 or face citations and penalties.
The Trauma Surgeon
Mental COVID-19 exhaustion can also be caused by the frustration brought on by inane vaccination mandate protocols. A glaring head-scratcher of such a mandate comes from Phoenix-based Banner Health, Arizona’s largest private employer.
Until recently, Dr. Devin L. Gray held medical privileges at several Banner hospitals, just as he does at many other Maricopa County hospitals. But Gray, a surgeon with 30 years of experience, is no longer allowed to use his specialty skills as a life-saving trauma surgeon at Banner’s facilities.
The reason? A Banner Health administrator did not find Gray’s request for a religious exemption to the company’s vaccination mandate to be sincere. The other hospitals -Arizona General Hospitals, Chandler Regional Medical Center, Mercy Gilbert Medical Center, and Mountain View Medical Center- did.
Gray has asked the Arizona Attorney General’s Office to look into the exemption inconsistencies, as well as the amount of deeply personal information some companies are demanding from employees who apply for a medical or religious exemption.
In the meantime, Gray has been told by a Banner Health executive that he can be treated as a patient at their facilities. He is also free to visit patients at a Banner facility. But he can’t treat those patients’ medical emergencies.
Not all attendees were masked up at the Arizona School Boards Association’s (ASBA) Annual Conference last week, despite having a mask mandate in place. ASBA fought for local school districts to be able to establish mask mandates; they joined a lawsuit that prevailed against Governor Doug Ducey’s mask mandate ban.
Pima County Superintendent of Schools Dustin Williams was one leader spotted maskless during the Superintendents Division Business Meeting. In addition to ASBA’s conference mandate, most of Williams’ school districts have mask mandates in place for their students: Ajo Unified, Amphitheater Unified, Catalina Foothills Unified, Flowing Wells Unified, Sunnyside Unified School District, Tanque Verde Unified, and Tucson Unified.
A number of school officials were also maskless as they recorded testimonies for ASBA. One of them was Red Mesa Unified School District Interim Superintendent Dr. Amy Fuller, former interim superintendent for Scottsdale Unified School District. Fuller’s district currently requires face masks at all times indoors.
Unlike the county superintendent, Tanque Verde Unified Governing Board Member Anne Velosa wore a mask for her testimony.
Thank you Anne Velosa of Tanque Verde USD for attending the Annual Conference! We hope you will gain valuable tools that you can take back to your district. #ASBAAC2021pic.twitter.com/kyxqqssbxV
AZ Free Newsreported in September that a number of attendees at an ASBA conference also didn’t mask up. ASBA spokespersons explained that they had a loosely enforced mask mandate in place, and that the individuals were from various districts with different beliefs on masking.
Parents have voiced concerns about their children’s social development, or the quality of education for those with special needs or disabilities. Current experts on the controversial social-emotional learning (SEL) admit that they don’t have complete studies on the impact of masking on children’s development. However, they speculated that educators could adjust somehow to work around the masks. Feasible solutions haven’t been presented for students who rely on seeing mouths to learn, such as deaf or hearing-impaired students — though some suggest clear masks, those present their own issues like fogging up.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Tuesday, the Pima County Attorney’s Office announced it would no longer charge individuals for simple drug possession, paraphernalia, or related personal-use incidents. The policy won’t apply to those arrested for simple possession and a felony offense.
Pima County Attorney Laura Conover said in a memo to law enforcement that low vaccination rates forced her hand in deciding to decline prosecution of more minimal drug charges.
“A sizable percentage of [society] has expressed disinterest in the vaccine, depriving us of the herd immunity that would have put this virus behind us,” said Conover. “COVID is now spreading inside the jail, putting people there at risk. The health and safety of our community are paramount.”
Conover’s policy mirrored that established by her predecessor, Barbara LaWall, in March 2020. Conover explained she lifted LaWall’s policy after the vaccine became widely available and the county established the nation’s first pre-charge drug court, STEPs. Conover urged law enforcement to deflect offenders to drug treatment, like CODAC.
One of Conover’s biggest goals has been to stop prosecuting the “poor, sick, and addicted.” Part of that includes getting rid of cash bail. When she assumed office in January, Conover instructed her prosecutors to not ask for cash bail, and limited certain deportations.
In August, Conover told KOLD that she wanted to abolish cash bail entirely. That’s something she also claimed had a negative impact on the COVID-19 pandemic.
“You can’t have so many people packed into a space because it’s a huge public health problem for people who are brought into the jail for corrections officers and other professionals,” said Conover.
That same month, the Tucson City Court released without bond a man arrested for shooting at an officer. Previous Tucson Police Chief Chris Magnus criticized the decision in a now-deleted Twitter account; Conover wouldn’t comment on the specifics of the case, but said that the man should’ve received bond because he posed a threat to the community.
Earlier this month, Magnus was appointed as the new head of Customs and Border Protection. Officer Chad Kasmer was appointed as Tucson’s new police chief.
Conover’s progressive perspective on criminal justice reform earned the support of a number of noteworthy left-wing activists, like Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona and John Legend.
Similar or identical progressive reforms were first championed by Milwaukee District Attorney John Chisholm. His reforms led to the release of Darrell Brooks, the man behind the Waukesha Christmas parade massacre. According to the MacIver Institute, of over 900 individuals given deferred prosecution agreements under Chisholm’s tenure, 30 percent went on to commit more crimes, fail to appear in court, or fail to follow court-ordered requirements.
Since assuming office, Conover’s office has experienced massive staff turnover rates.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
