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.
The Biden administration has set its sights on the largest private Christian university in the nation: Arizona’s Grand Canyon University (GCU).
For over half a decade the Department of Education (ED) has denied GCU’s IRS-granted nonprofit status. After GCU pushed back with legal action, the Biden administration responded with the full force of bureaucracy: a multi-agency attack to discredit and impose hefty fines on the university.
GCU President Brian Mueller told AZ Free News that ED’s rejection of a university’s IRS designation was new and unprecedented. Mueller maintained that ED offered “inapplicable criteria” for the denial.
The president couldn’t say with certainty whether the true cause of the ED targeting had to do with religious or political differences, but didn’t rule out the possibility.
“It’s obviously something other than the facts at hand,” said Mueller. “Is it because we have 30,000 graduates on an annual basis, where they’re studying from a Christian worldview?”
Although GCU is open about its Christian foundation and teachings, it doesn’t require its students to sign a statement of faith. Mueller estimated that 30 percent of incoming students don’t identify as Christians.
“We’re not a church, we’re a university,” said Mueller. “There’s free speech here. That’s one of the attractive things about us.”
GCU’s ethical positions do put it at odds with the federal government: GCU believes that God created the world and that truth comes from Him; that full personhood begins at the moment of conception and ceases at natural death; and that only the union between a man and a woman qualifies as a marriage.
“Resistance to the state is only appropriate when the state requires disobedience to the commands of God,” states GCU’s position on religious liberty. “Christian faith is a personal matter but the implications of faith in Christ should not and cannot remain private. Anyone who follows Christ in truth should strive to live in the way that Christ lived both in private and in public.”
In a public statement, GCU speculated that the targeting was due to ideological differences between their institution and the federal bureaucracy. GCU offers an education from a Christian worldview to its 30,000-odd graduates annually, though students aren’t required to sign a statement of faith. This year, the university brought in another 26,000 on-campus students and 92,000 online students.
“[W]e believe these agenda-driven actions are unprecedented against a regionally accredited 501(c)(3) designated nonprofit university and GCU categorically denies the claims being brought forth, which lack merit and illustrate extreme government overreach in what we believe is an attempt to harm a university to which individuals in these agencies are ideologically opposed,” said GCU.
ED has rejected GCU’s nonprofit status by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for over five years now. The IRS granted GCU its nonprofit status in July 2018; it took ED until November 2019 to deny the IRS classification, despite 26 other governmental, accrediting, and official entities accepting the nonprofit status including: the Arizona Corporation Commission, Arizona Private Postsecondary Board, Higher Learning Commission (HLC), and the NCAA.
ED maintains that since GCU’s majority revenues go to its former owner — Grand Canyon Education (GCE), a for-profit entity — that it doesn’t qualify as a nonprofit. GCU said that the revenues given to GCE were for education services at fair market value, as reported in investigations by two independent accounting and finance firms shared with the Biden administration.
After GCU spent over a year attempting to resolve the ED denial, it sued the agency in February 2021. The timeline indicates that the lawsuit spurred a coordinated effort between ED, Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to target GCU. Several months later, ED launched a multi-year, off-site review of GCU.
Then, in October 2021, the FTC named GCU as one of 70 for-profit institutions on which it would exercise a decades-dormant punitive power: the Penalty Offense Authority (POA). The FTC alleged GCU, among others, to be a “bad actor” engaging in “unfair or deceptive” practices regarding “false promises” of graduate job and earning prospects. Each violation incurs civil penalties of up to about $50,000 (about $43,800 in 2021).
In that October 2021 announcement, the FTC declared their action was a “resurrection” of the POA, in which they would coordinate with ED and VA; the last time the FTC exercised the POA was in 1978.
Under the POA, the FTC may seek civil penalties if it can prove that its target was aware that certain conduct was unfair or deceptive, and that the FTC had previously issued a written decision on the conduct in question.
The three agencies began their investigations into GCU in 2022: the FTC in May, ED in June (regarding doctoral degrees), and VA in October.
One of FTC’s main accusations was that GCU had a disproportionate number of students who defaulted on federal student loans; GCU responded that its students have a lower loan default rate than the national average at nonprofit universities. FTC also accused Grand Canyon Education, GCU’s education services provider, with making inappropriate cold calls to prospective students. GCU maintained that GCE only reaches out to students who contacted them with interest first, never cold calls.
ED alleged that GCU conveyed substantial misrepresentation regarding its doctoral degree cost. In response, GCU cited the recent federal district and appellate rulings in Young v. GCU, which denied similar claims, and their last Higher Learning Commission (HLC) report declaring robust and transparent financial information practices.
“Their recruitment and marketing materials are clear and transparent, and financial information presented to students throughout the student lifecycle is robust,” said HLC. “The information and resources provided are robust and thorough, providing prospective students a clear picture of their academic and financial path toward a degree at GCU.”
GCU also cited its public calculator for the estimated costs for a 60-credit doctoral program and any potential continuation courses needed to complete a doctoral dissertation. ED requires universities to provide cost of attendance estimates for first year in college to first-year, first-time students, and only for undergraduate programs. GCU also reported that it goes beyond that, providing direct cost estimates for each year of the program of the study and for all its degree programs.
ED also disputed that an online student’s posting of a bio on the first day of class didn’t qualify as “academic-related activity.” GCU countered that ED’s Office of General Counsel told GCU in a 2012 written statement that such postings met that requirement, and that no accrediting bodies, nor ED, have questioned that practice previously, including ED’s last program review in 2014, which made no mention of the practice as problematic.
ED claimed that a 2011 rule change preempted the general counsel’s 2012 email to the university. It required GCU to review all student files from July 2014 to June 2021.
Under VA authority, the Arizona Veterans Services State Approving Agency (AZ SAA) told GCU that its advertising on cybersecurity demand was “erroneous, deceptive, or misleading.” Specifically, the AZ SAA took issue with describing cybersecurity experts as being “in high demand” and that all companies “need cybersecurity.”
GCU said that once it refuted the claim, AZ SAA accepted their refutations as true. GCU claimed that the AZ SAA was pressured by the VA to carry out a different type of audit in order to find fault with GCU’s advertising language regarding cybersecurity.
“It is our belief the SAA was unduly influenced by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, in conjunction with other federal agencies, to conduct and carry out a risk-based audit in this manner rather than the audits it has performed in the past in which the University has received stellar reviews,” said GCU.
GCU says it has spent thousands of man hours and millions of dollars in legal fees to fulfill the Biden administration’s requests. It noted that these ongoing costs and potential fines threaten to upend its 15-year freeze on tuition — a major factor for its growth and, as a result, exposure of a Christian worldview-based education to more Americans.
“[B]ecause GCU, like almost all private universities, is dependent on tuition as a primary revenue stream and does not receive state funding like state universities, the university may be forced to raise tuition if the legal fees or fines associated with these actions continue to escalate,” stated the university. “We are, in essence, trying to protect our students from this government overreach.”
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
An environmental watchdog organization is suing the Biden Administration to increase regulatory oversight of Arizona and other states.
Earlier this month, the Sierra Club filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Michael S. Regan, “has failed to perform his nondiscretionary duty under the Clean Air Act to issue a finding of failure by thirteen states…to submit complete revised nonattainment area state implementation plans and publish notice of that action in the Federal Register no later than six months after the January 1, 2023 deadline by which each of these states was required to submit a nonattainment SIP for the 2015 primary ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS).”
The states targeted in the complaint by the Sierra Club were Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin.”
Sari Amiel, an Associate Attorney for the Sierra Club, released the following statement in conjunction with the legal filing: “More than 100 million people reside in counties receiving failing grades for smog pollution, with Black, Hispanic, and Asian Americans disproportionately exposed to all forms of air pollution. States’ refusal to comply with common-sense air pollution standards is already harmful, but EPA’s failure to hold them accountable adds insult to injury. EPA must fulfill its obligations under the Clean Air Act and take swift action to protect communities from the harmful effects of smog pollution.”
Scot Mussi, the President of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, also weighed in on the challenge, telling AZ Free News, “This lawsuit is an attempt by the Sierra Club to force Arizona to adopt their radical environmental agenda. They know that ozone levels in Maricopa County are lower today than twenty years ago and that most of the ozone in the region is either naturally occurring or coming from China. But since they couldn’t convince us to ban gas cars and gas stoves, they hope the EPA or a friendly liberal judge will do it for them.”
The 2015 rule has been the focus of many lawsuits since it was initiated under the Obama-Biden Administration. In October 2015, then-Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich led a small coalition of states (Arkansas, the Environmental Department on behalf of New Mexico, North Dakota, and Oklahoma) in filing a lawsuit to challenge the Final Rule. At the time, Brnovich said, “We all want clean air, however, reducing the ozone standards to 70 parts per billion will be nearly impossible for Arizona to attain. The new Rule completely ignores Congress’ intent that the EPA set ozone levels for the states that are actually attainable. The financial stakes for this state are enormous if we are unable to comply and I am going to do everything within my power as attorney general to protect Arizona.”
During the Trump Administration, the EPA was not empowered to raise the standards set under the Obama-Biden Administration. After the decision in 2020, then-EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler explained the reasoning, saying, “The EPA under the Trump Administration has continued America’s leadership in clean air, lowering our particulate matter levels to well below those of many of our global competitors. Maintaining these important standards will ensure Americans can continue to breathe some of the cleanest air on the planet.”
A change in administrations, however, had drastic consequences for this policy. President Joe Biden signed an executive order in 2021, ordering the environmental agency to review a number of actions initiated under the previous administration, including the NAAQS Decision in 2020. Not long after the executive order was signed, the EPA announced its intent to “reconsider the December 2020 decision because available scientific evidence and technical information indicate that the current standards may not be adequate to protect public health and welfare, as required by the Clean Air Act.” At the beginning of this year, the EPA released its proposed revision to the NAAQS, which increased standards from the Obama-Biden administration, prompting various reactions from a number of states around the country.
In March of this year, a group of Democrat attorneys general, led by the State of California, submitted a comment letter to the EPA, urging the Biden Administration to “adopt stringent standards under the Clean Air Act that protect public health against particulate matter pollution.” Attorney General Bonta stated, “High particulate matter pollution levels are a serious threat to public health, particularly for underserved and vulnerable populations. Today’s comment letter urges the EPA to set adequate standards to ensure that all Californians can breathe clean air. The adoption of stronger standards will aid all of California’s communities, but especially communities experiencing environmental injustices, that are disproportionately affected by air pollution. At the California Department of Justice, we will continue advocating for stronger pollution control measures for the wellbeing of all Californians.”
California was joined by the States of Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia and the City of New York, in the letter.
On the other side of the political aisle, Republican attorneys general have pushed back this year against the EPA’s attempt to cement and expand the NAAQS. In March, Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron spearheaded a 19-state coalition with a letter to the EPA to oppose its updated rule. Cameron said, “As Americans face record-high inflation, the Biden Administration is pushing extreme policies that would harm the economies of energy states like Kentucky. The United States has some of the cleanest air in the industrialized world, and this regulation prioritizes President Biden’s radical climate agenda ahead of the livelihoods of hard-working Americans.”
Joining Kentucky on this letter to the EPA were the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
The current state of the American economy continues to trouble small business owners.
This week, the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) released its latest Small Business Optimism Index, showing a drop of a half point during the month of September. The index now stands at 90.8, and it has not risen above the average mark of 98 for 21 consecutive months.
OUT TODAY: @NFIBResearch Released its September #SmallBusiness Economic Trends survey. The Optimism Index fell to 90.8, which marks the September reading as the 21st consecutive month below the 49-year average of 98.
NFIB Arizona State Director Chad Heinrich commented on the latest issuance of the index, saying, “It’s clear that small business owners remain deeply concerned about the economy. The pressure of inflation and the labor shortage are continuing to take a toll on our job creators, with little relief in sight.”
Bill Dunkelberg, NFIB’s Chief Economist, also weighed in on the recent numbers from his organization, writing, “Owners remain pessimistic about future business conditions, which has contributed to the low optimism they have regarding the economy. Sales growth among small businesses have slowed and the bottom line is being squeezed, leaving owners few options beyond raising selling prices for financial relief.”
The announcement from the Arizona arm of the influential business group stated that “twenty-three percent of owners reported that inflation was their single most important problem in operating their business, unchanged from last month and tied with labor quality as the top concern.”
NFIB highlighted some of the areas of emphasis from their index, including:
Small business owners expecting better business conditions over the next six months deteriorated six points from August to a net negative 43% seasonally adjusted, however, 18 percentage points better than last June’s reading of net negative 61% and definitely at recession levels.
Forty-three percent (seasonally adjusted) of owners reported job openings that were hard to fill, up three points from August and remaining historically high as owners can’t hire enough workers due to few qualified applicants.
Seasonally adjusted, a net 23% plan to raise compensation in the next three months, down three points from August.
The net percent of owners raising average selling prices increased two points to a net 29% seasonally adjusted, still a very inflationary level.
The net percent of owners who expect real sales to be higher increased one point from August to a net negative 13% (seasonally adjusted), still a very dismal posture.
Just last week, the Biden Administration boasted of a “record-breaking economy,” noting the increase of jobs, an unemployment rate below 4%, a low unemployment rate for women, and low unemployment for African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Americans with disabilities.
Others see the economy in an entirely different light. Alfredo Ortiz, the president and CEO of Job Creators Network, recently said, “This accelerating inflation, which is nearly twice the Federal Reserve’s target rate, is another Bidenomics blow to ordinary Americans and small businesses dealing with rapidly rising prices that are lowering their real wages and living standards for two and a half years.”
"The Biden administration’s ongoing pattern of 'reckless spending and anti-energy policy' represents, in Alfredo Ortiz’s view, 'another Bidenomics blow to ordinary Americans and small businesses' grappling with persistently soaring prices." @Gingrich360https://t.co/wxFa9kUj19
The immigration crisis is crushing New York City. According to ABC7 news, last week alone 2,900 new “asylum seekers” entered one of the city’s 200 new emergency shelters.
Mayor Eric Adams says the city spends $383 per day per family on food, shelter, and other expenses, which are deemed the migrants’ right to receive for no charge or obligation because well…just because.
The formerly elegant Roosevelt Hotel has been designated the nerve center for services to accommodate the 120,000 illegal immigrants now in the city. Mayor Adams estimates the city will incur a $12 billion deficit as a result of the influx, meaning that “every service in the city is going to be impacted.” Fifteen percent across-the-board budget cuts are seriously looming.
Yet the expenditures are not adequate to address the surge. Immigrants are occupying the sidewalks in front of the Roosevelt, locals are fuming over the takeover of schools, parks, and other public facilities while reports of subway crime are beginning to pop up. Maybe the sanctuary status the Mayor pressed for, when the costs were borne elsewhere, isn’t such a great idea after all.
Mayor Adams correctly points out that since border law is a federal matter, the feds should help alleviate the distress they are causing. What we’re getting instead is outrageous gaslighting. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre insists that President Biden has actually done a great job of protecting the border “and you have seen him do that.”
We have? This is the president who unilaterally eliminated policies like Remain in Mexico and Title 42, which effectively reduced the number of illegal border crossings. The result has been a surge of approximately 2.7 million people on Biden’s watch, 260,00 this August alone. That doesn’t include the “gotaways”, who are uncountable, but estimated to number at least 1.5 million during the Biden administration.
It’s no wonder Americas are starting to feel the strains in social services, healthcare, schools, and prisons. Their advocates claim illegal immigrants are an economic boon, but if that were, why do leftist enclaves complain bitterly about receiving them instead of requesting more?
Truth check: immigrants cost taxpayers $150 billion annually and growing. Even worse is the humanitarian crisis caused by cartels victimizing women and children vulnerable to “human trafficking.”
Illegal immigrants are often erroneously referred to in the popular press as “asylum seekers.” That’s a lie. Imaginary asylum seeking is the (very successful) strategy used to circumvent lawful border enforcement. Immigrants not otherwise eligible for entry are coached to say “I feel unsafe” to border agents. That automatically entitles them to an asylum hearing, which, because of the crowding at the border, is scheduled years in the future.
It’s a farce. They pretend to be seeking asylum, and we pretend to believe them. Fewer than 10 percent are eligible for legitimate asylum. Most never show up for their hearing.
Democrats also like to pretend there is nothing they can do about the ongoing border invasion because Republicans once voted against a bill that included additional border funding. But if Republicans were willing to discuss comprehensive immigration reform, maybe we could talk…
That gives away their game. “Comprehensive” reform is a euphemism for citizenship. The Biden administration willingly pays a high price politically for their devastating border policies. The hardships caused by unlimited immigration are causing widespread resentment. An election looms.
Yet they soldier on, refusing to consider even the most reasonable measures to reduce the ongoing surge. There’s only one possible explanation: they are playing the long game, taking hits now to achieve future political domination.
They see the 20 million or so foreign nationals now living here as future Democrats, who they will relentlessly portray as victims if not eventually granted citizenship. The gambit will work again. The American political landscape will be changed forever.
There is a way out. It’s not more money. It’s not more laws. It’s not even a wall. We must simply follow the example of decent, self-respecting nations throughout history and employ the lawful force of government to maintain our sovereign borders.
Follow the Law. It’s doable, it’s moral, and it’s necessary to protect legal immigrants, American citizens, and America’s future.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
