by AZ Free News | Mar 22, 2021 | News
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.
by B Hernandez | Mar 21, 2021 | Education, News
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.
by Terri Jo Neff | Mar 21, 2021 | News
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.
by Corinne Murdock | Mar 19, 2021 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
Arizona’s sentiments on Big Tech’s influence are largely negative, according to a recent study of bipartisan voters across the state. What’s more, a majority of respondents want regulations placed on Big Tech immediately.
Data Orbital, a data analysis and political consulting firm, launched a study last week to get the pulse on Arizona’s perspective on Big Tech and current legislation to regulate it. Researchers surveyed 550 voters and found an abundance of concern over Big Tech’s influence. Over 80 percent of respondents agreed that Big Tech’s power over citizens’ lives is too great. Over 77 percent of individuals further characterized tech companies as self-interested monopolies opposed to small businesses and individuals.
Out of all respondents, nearly 64 percent believed that Arizona should regulate Big Tech’s influence. A few more of those respondents believed that Arizona’s legislature should take action as soon as possible -not wait for D.C. lawmakers to step in.
Specifically, respondents voiced support for HB 2005, a bill to break up Big Tech’s app payment monopoly. Many app platforms require developers to use their payment systems and pay a service fee ranging anywhere from 15 to 30 percent. The legislation would only target platforms that have over 1 million downloads a year, and extend to Arizona-based developers or users. As it stands, Apple and Google are the companies that would be affected by this bill.
Data Orbital published these findings as HB 2005 awaits consideration in the Senate. It passed in the House on March 3.
Big Tech was quick to respond to the threat posed by HB 2005. Lobbyists swarmed the Capitol as soon as they caught wind of State Representative Regina Cobb’s (R-Kingman) intent to introduce the bill. They have argued that the bill was unfair – it would make Apple and Google provide its services to developers and users for free.
Other Big Tech companies concurred with those lobbyist arguments. Twitter Head of Consumer Product Kayvon Beykpour asserted that the commission fees are necessary to run a smooth and ordered system.
“This isn’t just a highway tax,” stated Beykpour. “There’s a lot of cost and effort involved in building these ecosystems that allow you to accept payments, and there’s a lot of fraud or risk involved in the whole customer service flow around refunds. A lot of that is taken off [the consumer’s] plate.”
During the House floor’s final vote on the bill, Cobb’s rebuttal against these arguments was that the “big guys” aren’t having to bear the burden of these commission fees. She pointed out that Big Tech has a monopoly on the market, and noted that there weren’t any legislators in the room without an Apple or Android phone.
“If you have a space, you charge for the space. Well, the big guys are not getting charged for that space,” stated Cobb. “They get charged zero. These 16 percent get charged 30 [percent]. Anything with a million or less that [has] revenues gets charged 15 percent. But if you’re between that million – which is the very small guy – and now up there to that very top guy, that’s that 30 percent. So the equity is not there.”
Other proponents of the bill, such as the Coalition for App Fairness (CAF), add that the bill would allow businesses to innovate. They claim that Big Tech stifles healthy competition and growth.
“Through HB 2005, Arizona is building bipartisan momentum to provide more consumer freedom, lower costs, and increase developer’s ability to thrive and innovate,” stated CAF Executive Director Meghan DiMuzio.
Although HB 2005 has been assigned to committee in the Senate, no action has been taken yet.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.
by AZ Free News | Mar 19, 2021 | News
An amendment offered by State Rep. Shawnna LM Bolick that would delay the state income tax return filing deadline will be considered by the House Ways and Means Committee on Wednesday, March 24.
Bolick says her amendment to SB 1297 will provide uniformity with federal tax filing deadlines.
The Internal Revenue Service announced this week it has postponed this year’s April 15 deadline for filing federal income tax returns to May 17, citing the COVID-19 pandemic and recent changes in tax law. Arizona’s current state tax deadline is April 15.
“Arizonans should not be rushed to files their state taxes while they still have time to file their federal taxes,” said Bolick in a press release. “Arizona income tax filings are often dependent on the federal adjusted gross income – a figure only determined once you file your federal taxes. So, having the state deadline fall prior to the federal deadline doesn’t make a whole lot of sense and would only be cumbersome for state filers. Which is why I introduced language to postpone Arizona’s filing deadline for this year to mirror what the federal
deadline.”
by Terri Jo Neff | Mar 18, 2021 | News
By Terri Jo Neff |
A Maricopa County judge is expected to rule soon on one of two lawsuits involving the authority of the director of the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS) to refuse to sign a fingerprint clearance card for a Chandler man with a history of questionable conduct with children.
The lawsuits involve an effort by Brett James Smith to obtain the clearance card, which is required for many paid and volunteer positions in which adults work with children. Arizona currently lists 52 circumstances under which a fingerprint clearance card is necessary as a condition of licensure, certification, employment, or volunteer activity.
In 2019, DPS denied Smith’s application for a card due to his criminal history in multiple states. Smith, who had changed his name from Brett James Zagorac, then appealed to the Arizona Board of Fingerprinting. The board can approve two types of exceptions, including a good-cause exception for individuals whose fingerprint clearance card was denied or suspended by DPS.
The fingerprint board members represent the Department of Child Safety, the Department of Economic Security, Department of Health Services, Department of Juvenile Corrections, Arizona State Board of Education, and the Administrative Office of the Courts. They approved Smith’s good cause exception in January 2020 after a recommendation from a state administrative law judge (ALJ).
But in April 2020, Smith sued DPS Colonel Heston Silbert when the director refused to sign the card despite the board’s exception. That case is on hold while a special action lawsuit filed by Silbert in June is being heard by Judge Pamela Gates.
“He’d been arrested no less than, that we know of, 10 times, for crimes involving inappropriate touching and interactions with children, up to and including child molestation, and had actually done some jail time over it,” Silbert said after filing the lawsuit. “I have a responsibility to the citizens of Arizona, and certainly to the children of Arizona, to do my very best to ensure they’re safe.”
Smith’s testimony to the ALJ purportedly included comments that his previous conduct -and contact- with children was not of a sexual nature nor done for a sexual motivation. A statement later released by an attorney for Smith accused DPS of “smearing Mr. Smith’s name in the media.”
Silbert’s lawsuit contends the board exceeded its authority in granting Smith’s exception. But in a twist, the board is now arguing that Smith’s application should be reconsidered due to new concerns that he presented false or misleading information and even lied to the ALJ during testimony.
Gates is awaiting final written arguments from the parties so she can rule next month on two pending motions which could lead to the dismissal of Smith’s initial lawsuit. Silbert is represented by attorney Lawrence Wulkan of Stinson LLP, an arrangement necessitated by the fact the Arizona Attorney General’s Office usually provides legal advice for the fingerprinting board.
After Silbert’s lawsuit was announced in June, the Chandler Police Department received six complaints concerning Smith. It has also been reported that the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office has opened its own investigation.
One of the Chandler complaints involves a parent who hired Smith last spring to work as a tutor with her young son. Smith was no longer working with the boy in June when the mother heard about Silbert’s lawsuit.
The mother provided investigations with “nanny cam” video of all the times Smith was in the family’s home. At least one video revealed an incident in which Smith made physical contact with the boy, the mother reported.
The second exception the fingerprinting board can approve involves the Central Registry, a set of databases maintained by the Arizona Department of Child Safety of individuals who have had “substantiated allegations of child abuse or neglect.” An applicant disqualified for a clearance card based on a Central Registry report may apply to show the board that the applicant is rehabilitated and not a recidivist.
