Democratic Congressional Candidate Admits Existence Of Border Crisis

Democratic Congressional Candidate Admits Existence Of Border Crisis

By Staff Reporter |

With the election drawing near, Democratic congressional candidate Kirsten Engel is admitting more often that the situation at the border constitutes a crisis.

Engel initially denied the existence of any crisis at the border for several years after leaving the State Senate to launch her first congressional run in 2021. In a NOTUS article published on Monday, reporters took away from their interview with Engel that she maintained that same perspective until her campaign asked for a correction. 

“She has refrained from calling the situation on the border a ‘crisis,’” read the initial reporting. “Engel told NOTUS she didn’t feel her own campaign was shifting much from her last run.”

The correction simply deleted that first statement and quoted to readers the opening line of an opinion piece she wrote for the Arizona Republic in February. However, the Engel campaign also maintained that she wasn’t shifting policy positions much from her first run. 

“Arizona Democrat Kirsten Engel has referred to the situation at the border as a ‘crisis’ during her 2024 campaign,” read the correction. “This run, she’s emphasized how important issues at the border are repeatedly, penning an op-ed that said ‘for far too long, southern Arizona has shouldered the brunt of our nation’s border crisis.’”

As part of her last run, Engel signaled support for bringing an end to Title 42, which expelled illegal immigrants back to the country from which they entered the United States. These expulsions lasted from March 2020 and ended in May 2023 according to the Customs and Border Protection. 

Engel said in 2022 that the massive uptick of illegal immigrants didn’t constitute a crisis.

Engel’s platform this go around mentions increasing manpower, technology, and security measures at the border. This part of her platform doesn’t mention building the last of the wall along the border, a security measure she criticized as outdated during her last campaign.

The bulk of that opinion piece criticized her opponent, incumbent Republican Juan Ciscomani, for refusing to back the $118 billion foreign aid bill which, in part, provided funding for the border ($20 billion). The main purpose of the bill was to provide additional funding for Ukraine — $60 billion — with the remainder allocated to other humanitarian aid and conflicts overseas. 

Leading authorities on the border, such as the National Border Patrol Council, gave reluctant support for the foreign aid bill. That authority’s president, Brandon Judd, said that the Biden administration’s border policy had forced them to accept anything in the way of promising border security. 

The $118 billion foreign aid bill was styled as a bipartisan bill because of its formation by independent Senator Kirsten Sinema, along with Republican Senators James Lankford of Oklahoma and Chris Murphy of Connecticut.

Ciscomani has made use of Engel’s repeated past denials of the border crisis in campaign material. The border is a top issue of concern for voters. A poll released last week by Noble Predictive Insights found that over half of voters (63 percent) supported increased border security measures, namely Proposition 314 — the “Immigration and Border Law Enforcement Measure” that would allow state and local law enforcement to arrest those who violate migration laws as well as allow state judges to issue deportation orders.

Unlike Engel, Ciscomani’s policy platform does advocate for building the remainder of the border wall. Ciscomani also supports ending the catch and release practice of illegal immigrants, ending the exploitation of parole authority, reinstating former President Donald Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” program, and expanding expedited removal authority.

AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.

Schwiebert’s Record Reflects Leftist Leanings On Border Crisis And Economy

Schwiebert’s Record Reflects Leftist Leanings On Border Crisis And Economy

By Staff Reporter |

Another one of Arizona’s middle-of-the-road legislative districts may be represented by a liberal after November’s General Election if enough Democrats and left-leaning independents have their say.

Judy Schwiebert, a Democrat, is running for the Arizona State Senate in Legislative District 2. Schwiebert currently serves as a State Representative for the district. She announced for the seat in June 2023, saying that “we need people who will work together to focus on the toughest challenges facing Arizonans including our teacher, affordable housing, and water shortage crises.”

Schwiebert posted more than 1,600 signatures at the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office earlier this spring to qualify for the ballot.

The Democrat legislator has been endorsed by several left-leaning organizations, including National Organization for Women Arizona PAC, Arizona Education Association, Moms Demand Action, Save Our Schools Arizona, Arizona List, Jane Fonda Climate PAC, the Grand Canyon Chapter of the Sierra Club, Emily’s List, Moms Fed Up, and Human Rights Campaign PAC.

Schwiebert has been a vote for her party’s efforts to stand against border security measures. In 2021, she voted against HCR 2029, which commended the courage of the United States Border Patrol and recognized the role they play in safeguarding Arizona and the U.S. She also co-sponsored HB 2604 in 2023, which would permit the Arizona Department of Transportation to issue a driver’s license or nonoperating ID to a person without legal status in the United States.

This year, she voted against SCR 1042, which proclaimed the legislature’s support for the people and government of Texas in its effort to secure our nation’s southern border.” More recently, Schwiebert refused to support a legislative effort to refer a border security measure to the ballot in this November’s General Election – HCR 2060, voting against the bill when it was considered by her chamber. The proposal, if passed by voters in the fall, would empower local law enforcement to better secure their communities from the increasing calamities from the border crisis.

It’s not just border issues where Schwiebert is showing her true, liberal colors; it’s also the economy where she is demonstrating an inability to moderate to her district’s desires. In 2021, Schwiebert voted no on HB 2113, which would have increased the 25% of allowed charitable deductions in accordance with the average annual change in the metropolitan Phoenix CPI. In 2022, she voted against HCM 2004, which urged Congress to oppose the reporting requirements included in the Biden administration tax increase proposal.

Also in 2022, Schwiebert opposed HB 2389 as one of nine members to vote against changing the time period from one year to six months for an agency that the legislature has granted a one-time rulemaking exemption to review a rule adopted by an agency to determine whether the rule should be amended or repealed. That same year, she voted against creating a TPT exemption for the sale of all machinery and equipment, including off-highway vehicles, utilized for commercial agricultural purposes.

This year, Schwiebert opposed SB 1370, which was coined “the lemonade stand bill.” This legislation exempted a minor or a person who has not graduated from high school from the requirement to obtain a TPT license and pay TPT, use tax, and local excise taxes, if the person’s business gross proceeds of sales or gross income is less than $10,000 per calendar year.

Schwiebert’s leftist leanings didn’t stop with the border and economy. She has a number of votes and bill sponsorships that show her being in lockstep with the Democrats on some of their most radical ideas. In 2023, she co-sponsored HB 2653, which would have established that “restaurants and other food service establishments in the state may only serve water and disposable straws to customers on request.” She also co-sponsored HB 2068, which would have repealed the designation of school sports by biological sex.

Additionally in 2023, Schwiebert voted no on SB 1028, which would have prohibited a person or business from engaging in an adult cabaret performance on public property or in a location where the performance could be viewed by a minor. In this most-recent legislative session (2024), she voted against HB 2591, which would have prohibited a public power entity or public service corporation from entering into contract with a person or company that uses forced labor or oppressive child labor.

Arizona Legislative District 2 is one of the most competitive in the state, with a 3.8% vote spread in the past nine statewide elections. It is very winnable for Republicans, however, as the party has emerged victorious in six out of those nine elections. The district covers a large portion of northcentral Phoenix.

Schwiebert ran unopposed in the July primary election for Democrats. She is facing off against the winner of the district’s Republican primary contest for state senator, incumbent Shawnna Bolick.

AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.

Rep. Austin’s First Term Features Radical Socialism And No Mercy For Families Struggling With Economy

Rep. Austin’s First Term Features Radical Socialism And No Mercy For Families Struggling With Economy

By Staff Reporter |

A radical Democrat state representative is attempting to return to her middle-of-the-road legislative district for a new term in office.

State Representative Lorena Austin is running for reelection in Arizona Legislative District 9, which covers the city of Mesa. According to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, the district is likely one of the most competitive in the state, with a 2.6% vote spread in the Commission’s nine focus elections. Democrats are slightly favored in the district, having won in five of those nine focus elections.

Despite her district being more moderate in its political makeup, Austin has demonstrated a propensity to become one of the most extreme leftist members of the Arizona Legislature on almost every issue.

In a struggling state and national economy, where many families are struggling to get by in life, keep their jobs, and save for their children’s futures, Austin showed no mercy with her votes. This year, she was one of a handful of members to vote against HCR 2002, which stated that the legislature recognizes, encourages, and continues to support Arizona’s beef producing farmers, ranchers, and families. Last year (2023), she voted no on SB 1131, which would have prohibited a county, city, or town from levying a tax on rental property.

Austin is also opposed to individual property rights, as her votes have indicated. In 2023, she was one of 14 members to vote against final passage of a bill prohibiting protestors from targeting people in their own homes by protesting on their residential property (SB 1023).

This latest legislative session (2024), Austin voted no on SB 1129, which would have allowed a property owner or the owners’ agent to request from law enforcement the immediate removal of a person who is unlawfully occupying a residential dwelling. She also opposed SB 1073, which would have established a new form of the existing offense of obstructing a highway or other public thoroughfare and classified this new form of the offense as a class 6 felony (which was introduced in response to protestors blocking traffic).

Austin’s legislative record extends, too, into bouts of radical socialism. In 2023, she co-sponsored HB 2610, which would have created a state-owned bank. Additionally, she co-sponsored HB 2653, which would have established that “restaurants and other food service establishments in this state may only serve water and disposable straws to customers on request.” Earlier this year, Austin voted no on HB 2629, which would have established November 7 of each year as Victims of Communism Day and required the State Board of Education to create a list of recommended resources for mandatory instruction on the topic in certain public school courses.

The Democrat lawmaker has refused to support solutions to help her state end the border crisis affecting almost every community in Arizona – not to mention elsewhere in the nation. In 2023, Austin co-sponsored HB 2604, which would have permitted the Arizona Department of Transportation to issue a driver’s license or nonoperating ID to a person without legal status in the United States. And in this most recent legislative session, she voted no on HB 2621, which would have deemed that the trafficking of fentanyl across Arizona’s border is a public health crisis and directed the Arizona Department of Health Services to do everything within its power to address the crisis. She also opposed SCR 1042, which proclaimed the legislature’s support for the people and government of the state of Texas in its efforts to secure our nation’s southern border.

Austin has an awful record in office on crimes against children. In 2023, she voted against SB 1028, which would have prohibited a person or business from engaging in an adult cabaret performance on public property or in a location where the performance could be viewed by a minor. She also voted no on SB 1583, which would have mandated that a level one sex offender who commits specified sexual offenses is required to register on the internet sex offender website if the offender was sentenced for a dangerous crime against children.

This most recent legislative session (2024), Austin continued her spree of opposing legislation that would have protected more Arizona children from horrific crimes committed against them. She voted no on SB 1236, which would have specified that any offender who was convicted of or adjudicated guilty except insane for sexual crimes against children, whether completed or preparatory, and was 18 years of age or older at the time of the offense, must be included on the internet sex offender website. She also opposed HB 2835, which would have established knowingly observing a nude minor for the purpose of engaging in sexual conduct for a person’s sexual gratification as a form of criminal sexual exploitation of a minor. And Austin voted no on a ballot referral (SCR 1021), which would statutorily require an adult who is convicted of a class 2 felony for any child sex trafficking offense to be sentenced to natural life imprisonment.

As with many of her fellow Democrats running for the state legislature, Austin promotes endorsements from left-leaning organizations for her campaign for the Arizona House of Representatives, including Moms Demand Action, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona, Save Our Schools Arizona, Progressive Turnout Project, HRC in Arizona, AEA Fund for Public Education, NARAL Pro-Choice Arizona, Stonewall Democrats of Arizona, Arizona Education Association, Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Emily’s List, and Human Rights Campaign PAC.

There is one endorsement for Austin that appears to be absent from her website, from the Jane Fonda Climate PAC. Austin’s support from this PAC may be one of the most concerning for voters researching her record and determining which direction they want to see for their district. This PAC asserts that “major solutions are stopped cold: the Green New Deal, Build Back Better, clean energy investments, ending billions in tax subsidies to the fossil fuel industry – all because of politicians backed by Big Oil.”

The Green New Deal pushed by the Jane Fonda Climate PAC is the same championed by New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is one of the most progressive lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The district is currently represented by two Democrats in the state House of Representatives. Austin and her fellow Democrat incumbent, Seth Blattman, ran unopposed in the recent primary election. Austin received 10,353 votes, and Blattman obtained 8,741 votes. They will face off against Republicans Mary Ann Mendoza and Kylie Barber, who also ran unopposed in the primary election. Mendoza garnered 10,429 votes, and Barber received 10,136 votes.

November’s General Election will be the second time that Mendoza has been pitted against Austin and Blattman. In 2022, Austin and Blattman defeated Mendoza and her running mate, Kathy Pearce, to assume their offices for the 2023 Arizona legislative session.

Correction: A previous version of this article listed the incorrect vote totals for the candidates. The totals have now been updated with the latest results from the Arizona Secretary of State website.

AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.

Ad About Congressional Candidate Engel Features Border Crisis Denial, Police Defunding

Ad About Congressional Candidate Engel Features Border Crisis Denial, Police Defunding

By Staff Reporter |

A new ad from incumbent Congressman Juan Ciscomani against Democratic opponent Kirsten Engel features clips of her denying the ongoing border crisis and issuing support for police defunding.

The ad featured several flashbacks from Engel on her positions ranging from her time as a state lawmaker through her first run for Congress against Ciscomani in 2022. 

The former state lawmaker and University of Arizona law professor denied that Arizona had an immigration crisis during that first run for Congress. Engel said that physical barriers like walls weren’t a solution for her, and that the greater focus should be on providing greater aid to those arriving at our border rather than detainment. 

“We do not need help at our border. We do need to secure the border. We have issues of drug trafficking and human smuggling that need to be addressed, but certainly not walls,” said Engel. “What we need from Washington is having an orderly asylum process. That’s national law, that’s international law. We need comprehensive immigration reform. We have to help our Dreamers.”

As a remedy to the border, Engel has advocated for border policy approaches favoring those who arrive in the nation outside the legal avenues for entry: an end to Title 42, legal pathways to citizenship, and deprioritizing illegal migration outside legal ports of entry. 

Engel maintains these positions as defining her vision for securing the southern border. She has also criticized Ciscomani for not supporting a proposed bill to provide $20 billion for the border out of $118 billion in expenditures. That bill was mainly designed to ensure an additional provision of aid to Ukraine, $60 billion, and the remainder of the $38 billion given in aid to other foreign countries. 

While Engel has been outspoken in recent years about border policy, she has distanced herself from conversations on policing since the BLM fallout after George Floyd’s death in 2020 and the conviction of responding officer Derek Chauvin less than a year later. 

Engel advocated for police defunding during the 2020 Black Lives Matter riots, arguing that there needed to be less police available for responding to emergency calls and more alternatives.

“What we need to do is shift where the money [for police] is going,” said Engel. “Not every 911 call requires a police officer to show up at your door.”

In that same interview, Engel affirmed when she was asked whether she supported a reduction in police budgets.

“Yeah, the way you’ve asked that question, I agree with it,” said Engel. 

Instead, Engel proposed that social workers should take over for police officers.

It was also during the peak point of BLM upheaval in the summer of 2020 that Engel publicly backed a claim by Tucson Councilwoman Lane Santa Cruz that Tucson police officers were to blame for the death of a man in their custody in April of that year. 

Santa Cruz’s public accusations of wrongdoing prompted the officers to resign out of fear for their families’ safety. 

The man, Carlos Ingram-Lopez, died from cardiac arrest due to acute levels of cocaine in his system and an enlarged heart.

AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.

The Border Crisis Is A Huge Expense For American Taxpayers, Despite What CBO Says

The Border Crisis Is A Huge Expense For American Taxpayers, Despite What CBO Says

By Matt Eagan |

recent report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) suggests that the ongoing illegal immigration surge at the southern border will reduce the federal deficit by a staggering $897 billion over the next decade.

At first glance, this figure might seem like a silver lining to this national crisis. However, a closer examination reveals a more complex and concerning picture and reveals this report to be another example of the government trying to conceal the truth from American citizens.

While the CBO projects an increase in revenues of $1.175 trillion and an increase in mandatory spending and spending on net interest of $278 billion over the next 10 years, these numbers fail to capture the full scope of the situation. The report’s limitations and glaring omissions paint an incomplete picture that may lead to misguided policy decisions if Congress does not understand the actual fiscal impacts of the border crisis. By publishing such an incomplete report, CBO is playing a role in covering up the Biden-Harris border crisis and not giving Congress the information it needs to fix the problem.

One glaring omission is the exclusion of discretionary spending impacts. The CBO acknowledges that the immigration surge will likely put pressure on many programs funded through discretionary appropriations. In fact, CBO estimates that increased discretionary funding as a result of the border surge could total around $200 billion over the 2024-2034 period. This substantial sum is mentioned but not factored into the deficit reduction calculation because, as CBO says, “no clear basis exists for projecting how the immigration surge will affect [congressional] funding decisions.”

Moreover, the report “does not include estimates of the surge’s effects on state and local budgets.” The CBO itself admits that “[r]esearch has generally found that increases in immigration raise state and local governments’ costs more than their revenues, and CBO expects that finding to hold in the case of the current immigration surge.” New York City alone spent $4.3 billion from July 2022 to March 2024 to accommodate immigrants and comply with existing housing policies. Extrapolating this to other cities over a decade paints a sobering picture of the financial burden on local communities.

The state of Texas was forced to take action on its own. First with Operation Lone Star (OLS), a response to the border crisis triggered by the Biden-Harris administration’s failure to enforce federal laws along the border. OLS has cost Texans about $11 billion and that’s just to secure the border. That does not include costs to the state’s health care, education, and criminal justice systems — which increase with the addition of aliens who have been let in by the Biden-Harris administration. The CBO report does not adequately assess or include these costs and they can be found in every state.

The revenue calculations assume lower tax compliance rates among the population who entered the nation via the border crisis. This raises questions about the accuracy of the projected $1.2 trillion in additional revenue.

Beyond the fiscal impacts, the report hints at broader economic consequences. The illegal immigration surge is expected to lead to lower productivity, reduce average wage growth (particularly for non-college educated workers), higher interest rates, and increased medical and food prices. These factors could have far-reaching effects on the American economy and the well-being of citizens.

Perhaps most concerning is the CBO’s own admission that its “estimates of the budgetary effects of the immigration surge are highly uncertain.” The report lists numerous “[m]ajor sources of uncertainty,” including the number of aliens who have entered the country, the duration of the border crisis itself, the changing immigration status of individuals, and their impact on productivity. Essentially, many metrics crucial to the estimate are shrouded in uncertainty and the authors of the report knew it and still published these estimates that claim mass illegal immigration is good for the deficit.

Making policy decisions based on such questionable projections, where the political left has clearly put its thumb on the scale, could have disastrous consequences and exacerbate existing problems. We must demand a more comprehensive analysis that accounts for all costs — both seen and unseen. Not a report that is politically appealing to the left’s narrative on illegal immigration.

The border crisis is not just about numbers on a balance sheet. As we debate immigration policy, we must consider not just the potential fiscal benefits but also the hidden costs and societal impacts. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated there were 74,702 fentanyl overdose deaths in the United States last year — a drug we know flows in through our open southern border.

Human trafficking and smuggling into the United States is a booming multi-billion dollar business for Mexican cartels. We must end this crisis now. When comparing the fiscal impacts to the human toll, money seems secondary and that is true, but understanding the monetary effects is important to solving the larger problem.

The CBO report should be seen as deficient and, overall, as a liability since it does not give Congress the information it needs to take action. The future of our nation depends on getting this right.

With an honest and complete assessment, we can get good legislation like the Secure the Border Act signed into law, force strong executive actions from future presidents, and keep Americans safe. These policies will ensure our nation knows who is coming in, and what the impacts of that are to U.S. citizens. But we need the CBO and Washington to stop playing politics with vital information.

Daily Caller News Foundation logo

Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Matt Eagan is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation and Director of Federal Affairs at the Texas Public Policy Foundation.