The Biden administration announced on Monday that it would begin to factor “statelessness” in illegal immigration cases, effectively opening up another pathway to citizenship. The use of statelessness as a legal tool traces back to efforts by the United Nations (UN) to globally unify and effectively legalize all migration.
“We are updating filing instructions for all deferred action requests, including those from noncitizens who believe they are stateless, and for parole-in-place applications,” stated the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
USCIS will begin a new process on Oct. 30 to consider statelessness for immigration purposes. We are updating filing instructions for all deferred action requests, including those from noncitizens who believe they are stateless, and for parole-in-place applications. (1/2) ⬇️
The taxpayer-funded UN has made it apparent through both their words and actions that they intend to nullify any distinction between illegal and legal immigration, or “global migration governance.” The UN holds that the denial of certain citizenship rights to noncitizens constitutes wrongful discrimination.
For example, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) advocates for noncitizens to enjoy citizenship rights and benefits such as voting, employment, public education, banking access, housing purchases, and marriage. The UN Conventions on Statelessness aims to establish rights to education, employment, and housing for noncitizens.
Last year, UNHCR was discovered to be facilitating illegal immigration by handing out funds, such as cash debit cards, to illegal immigrants headed to the U.S. The UN dubbed its aiding and abetting system of waystations throughout Mexico the “cash-based interventions,” or CBI.
At the tail end of its press release, USCIS included two links from the UN outlining its goal of ending statelessness.
The USCIS policy guidance was issued on Aug. 1, with Monday serving as the date the policy went into effect. According to the policy, claims of statelessness may be used as a means for justifying illegal immigration.
USCIS included an open-ended list of valid reasons for establishing statelessness. It defined statelessness as having no nationality with any country; the cited federal law defined “national” as meaning a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.
The agency also echoed the UN’s global migration governance advocacy, noting that illegal immigrants — characterized as “stateless individuals” — can’t vote and may not be able to obtain education, employment, health care, property, or registration of life events like births, marriages, and deaths.
Listed examples of justification for establishing statelessness included: a lack of birth registration and birth certificates; birth to illegal immigrant parents; the political change and transfer of territory that may (or may not) alter the nationality status of citizens of the former state or states; administrative oversights, procedural problems, conflict of law between two countries, or destruction of official records; alteration of nationality during marriage or the dissolution of marriage between couples from different countries; targeted discrimination against minorities; laws restricting acquisition of citizenship; laws restricting the rights of women to pass on their nationality to their children; laws relating to children born out of wedlock or during transit; or loss, revocation, or relinquishment of nationality without first acquiring another.
In its Monday press release, USCIS offered instructions for those illegal immigrants considered “stateless” to obtain various types of permissions to remain in the country: deferred action, employment authorization after a grant of deferred action, parole in place, asylum, U or T nonimmigrant status, temporary protected status, or employment authorization with TPS.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) first announced the factoring in of “statelessness” for illegal immigrants back in December 2021. As part of this novel approach, DHS committed to coordinating with the Department of State to mitigate the barriers to relief and benefits resulting from statelessness. It also committed to establishing a process to improve data collection efforts as well as securing work and travel opportunities for stateless illegal immigrants.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Gov. Katie Hobbs is now taking credit for the family tax rebate she opposed initially — and had a state agency break the law in doing so, according to legislative leaders.
Hobbs championed the tax rebate on Tuesday with several surprise links crediting herself for the Arizona Families Tax Rebate Program, including an Arizona Department of Revenue (ADOR) application page for the program displaying her headshot. In a video and press release, Hobbs indicated that she played a major role in passing and had always fully supported the initiative.
“I made a promise that when I took office, I would take every opportunity I had to make it easier for Arizonans to provide for their families,” said Hobbs. “I’m so pleased to be able to deliver this relief.”
I promised to make it easier for Arizonans to provide for their families and manage rising costs. This week, I’m pleased to make good on that promise by announcing qualifying Arizonans can apply for our one-time Arizona Families Tax Rebate.
However, the webpage and promotional material in concert with Hobbs’ announcement runs afoul of the law on the rebate.
“[N]o letter relating to the Arizona families tax rebate issued under this section shall be sent from the governor’s office, be sent on the governor’s letterhead, or reference the governor’s office,” read SB 1734.
Sen. President Warren Petersen (R-LD14) and House Speaker Ben Toma (R-LD27) issued a cease and desist letter to ADOR over Hobbs’ announcement. The letter declared that the application page that Hobbs directed Arizonans to use was an impermissible detour and an illegal expenditure of public funds.
“While any violation of a controlling statute is troubling in its own right, the Department’s letter compounds an institutional insult with injury to Arizona taxpayers by unlawfully expending significant sums of public money to disseminate what is, in part, a political message,” stated the letter.
The budget did include a somewhat prophetic provision concerning Hobbs: a worry that the governor would subvert policy for political gain.
“Animating this provision was the Legislature’s concern that Governor Katie Hobbs would subvert a commonsense policy measure into a self-serving political stunt on the taxpayers’ dime,” stated the cease and desist letter. “[T]he Department impermissibly misdirected rebate recipients on a detour through the Governor’s curated, self-promotional online platform. This is clear violation of Arizona law.”
State Sen. Jake Hoffman (R-LD15), chairman of the Arizona Freedom Caucus, lamented that ADOR would be on the hook for Hobbs’ public relations display.
“The sad reality exposed by this situation is that Katie Hobbs doesn’t care about anyone other than herself. She tried to play fast and loose with the law, as she so often does, and forced Director Woods to violate it,” said Hoffman. “Thanks to Hobbs, he is now personally liable for $2M+ in illegally spent funds, a 20 percent penalty, court costs, and attorneys’ fees. And with a statute of limitations of 5 years, Katie has given Director Woods the gift of many sleepless nights for years to come.”
Yesterday the legislature sent @KatieHobbs’ Director of the Dept. of Revenue a Cease & Desist Letter due to ADOR illegally spending millions at the direction of Hobbs.
Under state law, the Director of ADOR is personally liable for the illegally spent public funds, estimated to… pic.twitter.com/lenpnMauv4
Hoffman advised other government agencies to take heed of ADOR’s alleged mistake by resisting pressure from the governor to act and by keeping receipts for everything the governor and her office may request.
Concerning Hobbs taking credit for the program, State Sen. President Pro Tempore T.J. Shope (R-LD16) indicated in a response post that she wanted “no part” of it. Shope said credit was due to the Arizona Freedom Caucus.
“I know the Governor wanted no part of this tax rebate but thankfully, the @AZSenateGOP & @AZHouseGOP caucuses, led by the @AZFreedomCaucus, stood strong and demanded it be part of the State Budget,” said Shope.
I know the Governor wanted no part of this tax rebate but thankfully, the @AZSenateGOP & @AZHouseGOP caucuses, led by the @AZFreedomCaucus, stood strong and demanded it be part of the State Budget. When we stick together, we can provide positive things for Arizona’s families.… https://t.co/JP2VndTeKU
Hobbs’ spokesman, Christian Slater, told Capitol Media Services that the governor had supported the tax rebate by signing the budget, despite her initial opposition to the program.
The Sen. Republican Caucus similarly criticized Hobbs for failing to ascribe credit to those who came up with and fought for the rebate.
“You’re a little late to the party,” said the caucus. “Glad you love Republican policies as much as we do. They really do make our state a better place to live, work, and play.”
You’re a little late to the party. Glad you love Republican policies as much as we do. They really do make our state a better place to live, work, and play! More to come from the Majority next session. Stay tuned! @AZSenateGOP@AZHouseGOP@AZFreedomCaucushttps://t.co/5zxdMfUUnX
The Arizona Families Tax Rebate Program entitles Arizona taxpayers with dependent children a single payment of up to $750. Approximately 750,000 Arizona families may be eligible.
The rebate metes out to $250 per dependent under the age of 17 and $100 per dependent over the age of 17 as claimed on 2021 returns. A taxpayer can’t claim more than three dependents, regardless of age.
Eligible taxpayers are those who: filed a full-year resident personal income tax return for the 2021 tax year; claimed at least one dependent tax credit for the 2021 tax return; filed the 2021 tax year Arizona personal income tax return as the only taxpayer on a single, married filing separate, or Head of Household return, or as the primary or first-listed taxpayer if filed jointly; and had at least $1 in Arizona personal income tax liability in tax year 2021, 2020, or 2019.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Attorney General Kris Mayes says she will push for a new “red flag” law to not only take away guns from those viewed as posing a threat to others, but those with whom the individual resides.
“Red flag” laws enable a judge to issue a gun confiscation order if an individual’s behavior indicates they may harm themselves or others. Mayes told AZ Family that her proposed law would also extend to guns owned by others within the same household, not just the individual exhibiting problematic behaviors, should the red flag apply to those under the age of 18.
“We could essentially go after that gun,” said Mayes. “A teacher, or anybody who has lived with that person or lives with that person could apply for a protective order and could get that order against that juvenile.”
At a minimum we must be able to keep guns out of the hands of individuals who threaten our schools and universities. Next session, I plan to propose legislation for Education Protection Orders that would do just that. https://t.co/KrsiuaIcx6
Mayes promised that the gun confiscation order would be temporary and focused on ensuring the safety of K-12 and higher education institutions. Those whose guns would be confiscated must defend their right to their guns in court in order to get them back.
“This is probably not going to happen all that often. But for the people who don’t die as a result of us having these protective orders in place, this is probably going to be important and this could make a difference,” Mayes said.
In an interview with the “Mike Broomhead Show” last Thursday, Mayes said the litmus test for obtaining court-ordered gun confiscation would hinge on whether an individual presents a clear and present danger.
“That red flag law would allow a court to remove firearms from a person based on clear and convincing evidence that a person will pose an immediate and present danger of personal injury or death to any person at a K-12 institution or our universities,” said Mayes.
The attorney general’s plans for the next legislative session follow greater pushes from Democratic leaders to establish greater forms of gun control: universal background checks, sweeping bans on “assault” weapons and high-capacity magazines, banning ghost guns, and eliminating gun manufacturers’ liability immunity.
In March, Mayes withdrew the state from a multistate lawsuit challenging the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) regulation on ghost guns. Those are unregulated, unserialized firearms made by buyers from a kit.
Then in May, Mayes filed an amicus brief urging a federal court to support the federal prohibition on firearms sales to individuals under the age of 21.
The state’s Democratic leaders have also pushed back against lawmakers’ efforts to expand the influence of lawful gun ownership on K-12 and university campuses.
Over this last legislative session, Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed SB 1331, allowing parents to conceal carry firearms on campus; HB 2332, requiring students to undergo firearm training; and HB 2667, barring universities and colleges from prohibiting students from carrying guns on campus.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
A federal court ruled that abortionists can challenge the state’s ban on discriminatory abortions.
The Ninth Circuit Court ruled on Monday in Isaacson v. Mayes that abortionists may petition for an injunction against state law prohibiting abortions based on fetal genetic abnormality, dubbed the “Reason Regulations.” Judges Ronald Gould, Andrew Hurwitz, and Roopali Desai agreed in their ruling with the abortionists’ claim that they endured economic harm. The abortionists blamed the abortion ban’s vagueness for moving them to conduct less abortions out of caution.
Specifically, the abortionists claimed that the discriminatory abortion ban violated the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments: the threat of prison jeopardized their liberty interest, and the threats of license revocation, monetary damages, and revenue loss jeopardized their property interest. The circuit court dismissed the state’s claim of interest in regulating medical practice.
“That their services include abortion does not alter the fact that Plaintiffs make money providing these services and have lost money because the Reason Regulations restrict what services they can provide,” stated the ruling.
During the trial, the abortionists revealed that patients with likely or confirmed fetal abnormalities made up a significant part of their business.
The “Reason Regulations” made it a felony to either knowingly solicit or accept money to finance an abortion, or to perform an abortion, based on a fetal genetic abnormality.
The abortionists claimed that their overcompliance with the statute was due to the vagueness of the term “genetic abnormality,” and the statute’s lack of details on determining how much that factor had to play into a patient’s decision to get an abortion as well as the level of knowledge an abortionist would have to have in order to be guilty of violating the ban.
Monday’s ruling reversed an Arizona District Court order issued in February allowing the ban to go into effect. The district court rejected the abortionists’ request for a preliminary injunction, since the Supreme Court had just ruled that no constitutional right to abortion existed in its Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health ruling last year overturning Roe v. Wade.
The federal court remanded the case back to the district court for it to decide, once more, whether the state ban on discriminatory abortion may go into effect.
A similar ongoing case may nullify the results of Isaacson v. Mayes. In Planned Parenthood Arizona v. Mayes, the Arizona Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in December to determine whether the state’s preemptive, pre-statehood, total abortion ban remains enforceable due to the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
The state’s total abortion ban was suspended following the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade that created a constitutional right to abortion. Last year — prior to Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health — the state passed its 15-week abortion ban.
Planned Parenthood Arizona v. Mayes would decide which of the two laws has authority in the state.
The state never repealed its total abortion ban. The 15-week ban didn’t preclude the enforcement of any other preceding abortion laws.
Last week, Planned Parenthood Arizona (PPAZ) filed a motion to recuse Arizona Supreme Court Judge William Montgomery for his personal beliefs opposing PPAZ.
"[We] believe that all litigants in Arizona are entitled to have their cases heard by judges who are not biased against them, and that includes [us]…" Read more: https://t.co/e0nu7RxSst
— Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. (@PPArizona) October 26, 2023
Earlier this month, Gov. Katie Hobbs filed an amicus brief to oppose the total abortion ban.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The city of Tucson unveiled plans for a new $140 million public transit system, with the first proposed route along an existing one covered by Sun Tran, the fare-free transit system in place.
In a press release on Monday, the city called for residents’ feedback on the new Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system. The BRT would cover an existing route by Sun Tran: the 19 – Stone South Route. Both cover the area from the Tohono T’adai Transit Center/Tucson Mall to the downtown Ronstadt Transit Center.
The two public transits have few differences. BRT fare may or may not be free, depending on the continued existence of the no-fare policy applying to Sun Tran. Additionally, the BRT would carry triple the amount of passengers at a quicker pace: anywhere from 100 to 150 persons with a run time of every 10 minutes. Comparatively, Sun Tran buses carry up to 40 passengers with a run time of every 15 to 30 minutes.
On a website dedicated to the new system, the city said that current transit systems are subject to delays and congestion because they operate in local traffic. BRT would have dedicated travel lanes and transit signal priority.
The new BRT system, spanning five miles, is part of a greater 15-mile transit corridor project: the Tucson Rapid Transit. That corridor would consist of a northern segment spanning from the Tohono T’adai Transit Center/Tucson Mall to the Ronstadt Transit Center/downtown Tucson, and then a southern segment spanning from the downtown stop to the Tucson International Airport.
The southern segment would come at another projected cost of $140 million. In total, the Tucson Rapid Transit would cost around $280 million. The city is hoping the federal government will slash that cost in half.
The Federal Transit Administration has approved the city’s proposed northern segment for its Small Starts Capital Investment Grant program, but has yet to award funds. The city applied for coverage of 50 percent of project costs. The remainder of the projected costs would ultimately be taxpayers’ burden, obtained through RTA Next.
The Sun Tran remains free to all riders through the end of this year, and for the foreseeable future.
Last year, city officials decided to continue to waive transit fees from its initial, pandemic-prompted suspension as part of a “new normal” for transit. The total cost of the bus system was estimated at a little over $100 million at the time, with about $53 million coming from the city. Advertising revenue brought in just shy of $2 million annually, with intergovernmental agreements and federal grants accounting for about another $40 million.
The remaining $11 million posed a problem for the city, one that remained unsolved when the council again extended free fare in May.
Ridership has increased in diversity since the pandemic and change in presidents. The border crisis resulted in a consistent flood of noncitizens who have made use of the city’s free transit system. The city allocated about $550,000 from April 1 to Dec. 31 to bus illegal immigrants from between shelter sites and the Tucson International Airport.
The city has also received significant federal investments in its Sun Tran system.
Earlier this year, the city received $21.5 million from the Department of Transportation’s Federal Transit Administration to decarbonize the Sun Tran system by replacing the remaining diesel bus fleet with 39 compressed natural gas buses.
The city is scheduled to hold three meetings on the first proposed BRT: two in-person meetings on Nov. 14 and 16, and a virtual meeting on Nov. 15.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
