TiLTNews Network: Earth Watch -
Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference,
not by safety. It is easy to clamor for government security when terrible things happen; but liberty is given true meaning when we support it without exception, and we will be safer for it ~ Dr. Ron Paul
Berkeley's Border Wall Blacklists 'Illegal': Berkeley Law Professor
By Hillary Vaughn Published March 22, 2017 Politics
The city of Berkeley, California is blacklisting companies and contractors that want to help build President Trump’s border wall.
Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin tells FOX Business the city has a list of companies that want in on the billion-dollar construction project and plan to use it to ban those who want to bid on new city contracts. “There’s a list that’s already available. We’re going to use that list in our public works competitive bidding process,” he said. Companies that have existing contracts with the city are also in danger of getting cut off. “We need to do the research to fully understand how many companies we are talking about and develop a plan for how to deal with that,” Arreguin added.
Contractor James Flanagan is just one name on the blacklist, telling FOX Business, in a free market, companies shouldn’t fear punishment if they participate in a federal project. “I think that's ridiculous. I think that's a perfect example of tyranny. And we need to stand up and fight for that,” said Flanagan, while noting that tax dollars shouldn’t be spent to boycott local companies in an economy where people are trying to get back to work.
Despite the tough talk, Berkeley may be breaking the law. “The city of Berkeley should not be discriminating based on political views…I think then you’re going to start getting the courts involved and it’s going to look very skeptically at what this city is doing,” advised John Yoo, a professor at UC Berkeley School of Law. Berkeley can’t block or retaliate against companies when it comes to city contracts, according to Yoo. Political disagreements are “not a valid reason to break a contract,” which, warns Yoo, may violate the Dormant Commerce Clause, which prevents cities from discriminating against outside companies, and there’s no legal exception for political disagreements.
“Not only should the companies sue Berkeley, Berkeley should lose. Berkeley should just pay them,” he adds.
Berkeley’s mayor, however, disagrees: “I think it’s within the city’s authority as a charter city. We’re supposed to go with the lowest responsible bidder. That gives us authority to decide what is a responsible bidder.” Arreguin says his definition of responsible doesn’t include companies that help the federal government build a wall on the southern border.
As the fight rages on, Flanagan hopes business owners of all political beliefs stick together. “We should stand up together as business owners in the Bay Area and fight this because it doesn't make any sense and it's not legal,” he said.
The horror!
Source: TRIGGER WARNING: Company has EPIC policy to weed out snowflake employees – Allen B. West – AllenBWest.com
By Michael Lee4:28pm March 15, 2017
If there’s one thing the 2016 election made clear, it’s that many young Americans have an astonishing sense of entitlement. The popularity of Bernie Sanders, combined with the hysteria over Donald Trump winning the election, served to highlight just how bad the problem has become.
Of course, the signs were always there. College campuses across the country have become enclaves of political correctness. Instead of a place where students have their ideas challenged, higher education consists of safe spaces and trigger warnings. On college campuses, feelings have become more valuable than facts.
Many have rightfully pointed out this college environment leaves students ill-equipped for the real world. Away from the safe spaces, the real world doesn’t care much about your feelings. Sadly, the warnings have fallen on deaf ears. Instead, American colleges are churning out young people unprepared for actual careers.
The trend hasn’t gone unnoticed by American companies. In fact, one company was so sick of the snowflakes, they created a test designed to weed them out of the application process.
From Bizpac Review:
Job applicants for a Connecticut-based marketing company have a unique “snowflake” test to pass before being hired.
The Silent Partner Marketing firm is taking on liberal “snowflakes” in an effort to weed out the hundreds of applications they have received. The company has developed a survey to vet potential employees by asking key questions about themselves.The test it sure to make many snowflakes melt:
“What does America mean to you?”
“Someone who’s not proud to be an American” would be disqualified from a job at the company, Reyes noted, adding that applicants should also be pro-Second Amendment as many in the company carry firearms and represent clients who do as well.
Questions on the test also ask job-seekers what “privilege” means to them and “when was the last time you cried and why?”
Not only do candidates have to be proud Americans, they also have to be supportive of law enforcement:
One of the test questions asks applicants how they feel about the police.
The marketing company has pledged to donate up to $500,000 worth of services to police and first responders, Reyes shared.
“We work very, very closely with a lot of police departments and so you need to be comfortable and willing to support the men and women who serve and protect,” he explained.
Reyes explained the reasoning behind the unique test:
Reyes elaborated on his search for employees who do not have a sense of entitlement, as many snowflakes do, and are not expecting things to be handed to them. Emotional people are not a problem, Reyes said, as long as he does not have to provide them with a safe space at the office.
Newly graduated college students leaving their safe spaces for the first time are sure to be triggered by the test. Of course, that will also leave them without a job.
[Note: This post was written by Michael Lee. Follow him on Twitter @UAMichaelLee]
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump deserves credit for forcing all 17 Republican candidates to talk about the social costs of illegal immigration, but it is not “Trump’s issue.” We will be making a fatal mistake if we let the media discuss it that way.
As Ann Coulter has pointed out, this is the most critical issue of the 2016 race because this is the issue that will define whether or not there will even be an American nation recognizable as the “home of the free and land of the brave.”
But illegal immigration is not “Ann Coulter’s issue” any more than it is “Tom Tancredo’s issue.” It is America’s issue — not only because it will define America in the 21st Century but because it also defines American elections and who will be voting in elections in 2020 and beyond. It also illuminates the power of the mainstream media to keep issues off the national stage.
Think of illegal immigration this way: If the liberal media can keep illegal alien crime out of the “kitchen table debate,” they can keep any issue out of the debate. And they will if they can get away with it. For those reasons, illegal immigration is much more than an issue of public policy; it is the poster child for media malpractice.
The media’s attempt to suppress public awareness over illegal alien crime and the effects of illegal immigration on American workers’ jobs and wages is nothing less than censorship on a massive scale. We need to start talking about it in those terms and hold the media accountable for the lack of ethical standards.
The mainstream media – including, sadly, major segments of the presumably conservative media, like the Wall Street Journal — are working overtime to keep the American public and the American voters in the dark on the scope of illegal alien crime. The murder of Kate Steinle in San Francisco exposed only the tip of a massive iceberg, and the media establishment is desperate to avoid dealing with the iceberg underneath.
Let’s look at a few numbers. You haven’t seen them in the New York Times, Atlanta Constitution, or the Miami Herald, nor have they been featured on NBC Nightly news or CNN. So, the average American is blissfully unaware of them.
Between 2008 and 2014, 40% of all murder convictions in Florida were criminal aliens. In New York it was 34% and Arizona 17.8%.
During those years, criminal aliens accounted for 38% of all murder convictions in the five states of California, Texas, Arizona, Florida and New York, while illegal aliens constitute only 5.6% of the total population in those states.
That 38% represents 7,085 murders out of the total of 18,643.
That 5.6% figure for the average illegal alien population in those five states comes from US Census estimates. We know the real number is double that official estimate. Yet, even if it is 11%, it is still shameful that the percentage of murders by criminal aliens is more than triple the illegal population in those states.
Those astounding numbers were compiled by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) using official Department of Justice data on criminal aliens in the nation’s correctional system. The numbers were the basis for a presentation at a recent New Hampshire conference sponsored by the highly respected Center for Security Policy. You can view the full presentation here:
The federal Bureau of Prisons category “criminal aliens” includes legal immigrants who have been convicted of serious crimes, but over 90% of incarcerated criminal aliens are illegal aliens, so it is reasonable to use these numbers as a close approximation of the extent of illegal alien crime.
Similar data is available at the state level if state officials have the desire to look for it. The Texas Department of Public Safety reports that between 2008 and 2014, 35% of the all murder convictions were illegal aliens—averaging 472 murders each year from 2004 to 2008.
Do you know the numbers for your state? Does your congressman, Senator, or Governor know those numbers? Of course not. If you are afraid of the answer, don’t ask the question.
There is widespread public ignorance of illegal alien crime in every state because the mainstream media does investigate such matters. Why? Because they do not want the public to think about such things. The media, from the Associated Press down to the Main Street News, does not even allow the phrase “illegal immigrant” to appear in print.
So, the numbers are out there in the criminal justice system and correctional institutions, waiting to be compiled and published. State attorneys general and state legislators could access the data if they were interested, and so could the media, but they don’t. In fact, in Colorado in 2006, the state legislature passed a law ordering the state Attorney General to compile accurate data on the costs of incarcerating illegal aliens and send a bill for reimbursement to the federal government. The state AG sent the feds a bill for only half the real costs — the cost of inmates in the state prison system and not the costs imposed on taxpayers by an equal number of inmates in county jails across the state.
The US Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Programs publishes an annual report on the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, a report that includes data on the number of criminal aliens incarcerated each state prison system and each county jail. It takes some prodigious digging to find the data, but it is there.
But our mainstream media, our self-described guardians of the First Amendment, consciously avoids the effort and declines to put a public spotlight on the problem or demand public scrutiny and public accountability. Why?
The answer is that public debate on the problem of illegal alien crime does not serve the progressive political agenda. The issue is swept under the rug and anyone who raises it is called a racist.
This is media malpractice of historic proportions, and publishers and editors are the unindicted coconspirators in those 7,085 murders.
The new budget of Guv Brown includes a 42% increase in gas taxes and a $65 dollar increase in the vehicle registration fee. Democrats love taxes—lot of them. The so-called “moderate” State Senator Bob Hertzberg has a bill to increase gas taxes 12 cents a gallon, a $38 increase for in vehicle registration fees for regular cars and a $100 vehicle registration increase for cars with zero emissions.
The goal is not to fix our roads, they have plenty of money for that. No, if they stopped using gas taxes for bike lanes, walking and horse trails, trains and buses, we would be able to fix our roads and streets. Instead the Brown and Hertzberg taxes are meant to penalize the poor and middle class—making car ownership too expensive—forcing folks onto money and time losing trains and other government transportation—to control how and where we live, work and play.
SB-1 is one of the long line of Democrat tax increases—thought you should know it exists.
Introduced by Senator Beall (Coauthors: Senators Dodd, Hertzberg, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza, Monning, Wieckowski, and Wiener)
December 05, 2016
An act to amend Sections 13975, 14500, 14526.5, and 16965 of, to add Sections 14033, 14110, 14526.7, and 16321 to, to add Part 5.1 (commencing with Section 14460) to Division 3 of Title 2 of, and to repeal Section 14534.1 of, the Government Code, to amend Section 39719 of the Health and Safety Code, to amend Section 21080.37 of, and to add and repeal Division 13.6 (commencing with Section 21200) to, of, the Public Resources Code, to amend Section 99312.1 of the Public Utilities Code, to amend Sections 6051.8, 6201.8, 7360, 8352.4, 8352.5, 8352.6, and 60050 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, to amend Sections 183.1, 2192, and 2192.2 of, to add Sections 820.1, 2103.1, and 2192.4 to, and to add Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 2030) to Division 3 of, the Streets and Highways Code, and to add Sections 9250.3, 9250.6, and 9400.5 to the Vehicle Code, relating to transportation, making an appropriation therefor, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST
SB 1, as amended, Beall. Transportation funding.
(1) Existing law provides various sources of funding for transportation purposes, including funding for the state highway system and the local street and road system. These funding sources include, among others, fuel excise taxes, commercial vehicle weight fees, local transactions and use taxes, and federal funds. Existing law imposes certain registration fees on vehicles, with revenues from these fees deposited in the Motor Vehicle Account and used to fund the Department of Motor Vehicles and the Department of the California Highway Patrol. Existing law provides for the monthly transfer of excess balances in the Motor Vehicle Account to the State Highway Account.
This bill would create the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program to address deferred maintenance on the state highway system and the local street and road system. The bill would require the California Transportation Commission to adopt performance criteria, consistent with a specified asset management plan, to ensure efficient use of certain funds available for the program. The bill would provide for the deposit of various funds for the program in the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account, which the bill would create in the State Transportation Fund, including revenues attributable to a $0.12 per gallon increase, phased in over 3 years, in the motor vehicle fuel (gasoline) tax imposed by the bill with an inflation adjustment, as provided, an increase of $38 in the annual vehicle registration fee with an inflation adjustment, as provided, a new $100 annual vehicle registration fee with an inflation adjustment, as provided, applicable to zero-emission motor vehicles, as defined, and certain miscellaneous revenues described in (7) below that are not restricted as to expenditure by Article XIX of the California Constitution.
This bill would annually set aside $200,000,000 of the funds available for the program to fund road maintenance and rehabilitation purposes in counties that have sought and received voter approval of taxes or that have imposed fees, including uniform developer fees, as defined, which taxes or fees are dedicated solely to transportation improvements. These funds would be continuously appropriated for allocation pursuant to guidelines to be developed by the California Transportation Commission in consultation with local agencies. The bill would require $80,000,000 of the funds available for the program to be annually transferred to the State Highway Account for expenditure on the Active Transportation Program. The bill would require $30,000,000 of the funds available for the program in each of 4 fiscal years beginning in 2017–18 to be transferred to the Advance Mitigation Fund created by the bill pursuant to (12) below. The bill would continuously appropriate $2,000,000 annually of the funds available for the program to the California State University for the purpose of conducting transportation research and transportation-related workforce education, training, and development. The bill would require the remaining funds available for the program to be allocated 50% for maintenance of the state highway system or to the state highway operation and protection program and 50% to cities and counties pursuant to a specified formula. The bill would impose various requirements on the department and agencies receiving these funds. The bill would authorize a city or county to spend its apportionment of funds under the program on transportation priorities other than those allowable pursuant to the program if the city’s or county’s average Pavement Condition Index meets or exceeds 80.
The bill would also require the department to annually identify savings achieved through efficiencies implemented at the department and to propose, from the identified savings, an appropriation to be included in the annual Budget Act of up to $70,000,000 from the State Highway Account for expenditure on the Active Transportation Program.
(2) Existing law establishes in state government the Transportation Agency, which includes various departments and state entities, including the California Transportation Commission. Existing law vests the California Transportation Commission with specified powers, duties, and functions relative to transportation matters. Existing law requires the commission to retain independent authority to perform the duties and functions prescribed to it under any provision of law.
This bill would exclude the California Transportation Commission from the Transportation Agency, establish it as an entity in state government, and require it to act in an independent oversight role. The bill would also make conforming changes.
(3) Existing law creates various state agencies, including the Department of Transportation, the High-Speed Rail Authority, the Department of the California Highway Patrol, the Department of Motor Vehicles, and the State Air Resources Board, with specified powers and duties. Existing law provides for the allocation of state transportation funds to various transportation purposes.
This bill would create the Office of the Transportation Inspector General in state government, as an independent office that would not be a subdivision of any other government entity, to ensure that all of the above-referenced state agencies and all other state agencies expending state transportation funds are operating efficiently, effectively, and in compliance with federal and state laws. The bill would provide for the Governor to appoint the Transportation Inspector General for a 6-year term, subject to confirmation by the Senate, and would provide that the Transportation Inspector General may not be removed from office during the term except for good cause. The bill would specify the duties and responsibilities of the Transportation Inspector General and would require an annual report to the Legislature and Governor.
This bill would require the department to update the Highway Design Manual to incorporate the “complete streets” design concept by January 1, 2018. The bill would require the department to develop a plan by January 1, 2020, to increase by 100% the dollar value of contracts awarded to small businesses, disadvantaged business enterprises, and disabled veteran business enterprises.
(4) Existing law provides for loans of revenues from various transportation funds and accounts to the General Fund, with various repayment dates specified.
This bill would require the Department of Finance, on or before March 1, 2017, to compute the amount of outstanding loans made from specified transportation funds. The bill would require the Department of Transportation to prepare a loan repayment schedule and would require the outstanding loans to be repaid pursuant to that schedule, as prescribed. The bill would appropriate funds for that purpose from the Budget Stabilization Account. The bill would require the repaid funds to be transferred, pursuant to a specified formula, to cities and counties and to the department for maintenance of the state highway system and for purposes of the state highway operation and protection program.
(5) The Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition 1B) created the Trade Corridors Improvement Fund and provided for allocation by the California Transportation Commission of $2 billion in bond funds for infrastructure improvements on highway and rail corridors that have a high volume of freight movement and for specified categories of projects eligible to receive these funds. Existing law continues the Trade Corridors Improvement Fund in existence in order to receive revenues from sources other than the bond act for these purposes.
This bill would deposit the revenues attributable to a $0.20 per gallon increase in the diesel fuel excise tax imposed by the bill into the Trade Corridors Improvement Fund. The bill would require revenues apportioned to the state from the national highway freight program established by the federal Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act to be allocated for trade corridor improvement projects approved pursuant to these provisions.
Existing law requires the commission, in determining projects eligible for funding, to consult various state freight and regional infrastructure and goods movement plans and the statewide port master plan.
This bill would revise the list of plans to be consulted by the commission in prioritizing projects for funding. The bill would also expand eligible projects to include, among others, rail landside access improvements, landside freight access improvements to airports, and certain capital and operational improvements. The bill would identify specific amounts to be allocated from available federal funds to certain categories of projects.
(6) Existing law requires all moneys, except for fines and penalties, collected by the State Air Resources Board from the auction or sale of allowances as part of a market-based compliance mechanism relative to reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to be deposited in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. Existing law continuously appropriates 10% of the annual proceeds of the fund to the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program and 5% of the annual proceeds of the fund to the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program.
This bill would, beginning in the 2017-18 2017–18 fiscal year, instead continuously appropriate 20% of those annual proceeds to the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program and 10% of those annual proceeds to the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program, thereby making an appropriation.
(7) Article XIX of the California Constitution restricts the expenditure of revenues from taxes imposed by the state on fuels used in motor vehicles upon public streets and highways to street and highway and certain mass transit purposes. Existing law requires certain miscellaneous revenues deposited in the State Highway Account that are not restricted as to expenditure by Article XIX of the California Constitution to be transferred to the Transportation Debt Service Fund in the State Transportation Fund, as specified, and requires the Controller to transfer from the fund to the General Fund an amount of those revenues necessary to offset the current year debt service made from the General Fund on general obligation transportation bonds issued pursuant to Proposition 116 of 1990.
This bill would delete the transfer of these miscellaneous revenues to the Transportation Debt Service Fund, thereby eliminating the offsetting transfer to the General Fund for debt service on general obligation transportation bonds issued pursuant to Proposition 116 of 1990. The bill, subject to a specified exception, would instead require the miscellaneous revenues to be retained in the State Highway Account and to be deposited in the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account.
(8) Article XIX of the California Constitution requires gasoline excise tax revenues from motor vehicles traveling upon public streets and highways to be deposited in the Highway Users Tax Account, for allocation to city, county, and state transportation purposes. Existing law generally provides for statutory allocation of gasoline excise tax revenues attributable to other modes of transportation, including aviation, boats, agricultural vehicles, and off-highway vehicles, to particular accounts and funds for expenditure on purposes associated with those other modes, except that a specified portion of these gasoline excise tax revenues is deposited in the General Fund. Expenditure of the gasoline excise tax revenues attributable to those other modes is not restricted by Article XIX of the California Constitution.
This bill, commencing July 1, 2017, would instead transfer to the Highway Users Tax Account for allocation to state and local transportation purposes under a specified formula the portion of gasoline excise tax revenues currently being deposited in the General Fund that are attributable to boats, agricultural vehicles, and off-highway vehicles. Because that account is continuously appropriated, the bill would make an appropriation. The bill, commencing July 1, 2017, would transfer, to the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account, the portion of gasoline excise tax revenues attributable to these uses that would be derived from increases in the gasoline excise tax rate described in (1) above.
(9) Existing law, as of July 1, 2011, increases the sales and use tax on diesel and decreases the excise tax, as provided. Existing law requires the State Board of Equalization to annually modify both the gasoline and diesel excise tax rates on a going-forward basis so that the various changes in the taxes imposed on gasoline and diesel are revenue neutral.
This bill would eliminate the annual rate adjustment to maintain revenue neutrality for the gasoline and diesel excise tax rates and would reimpose the higher gasoline excise tax rate that was in effect on July 1, 2010, in addition to the increase in the rate described in (1) above.
Existing law, beyond the sales and use tax rate generally applicable, imposes an additional sales and use tax on diesel fuel at the rate of 1.75%, subject to certain exemptions, and provides for the net revenues collected from the additional tax to be transferred to the Public Transportation Account. Existing law continuously appropriates these and other revenues in the account to the Controller for allocation by formula to transportation agencies for public transit purposes under the State Transit Assistance Program. Existing law provides for appropriation of other revenues in the account to the Department of Transportation for various other transportation purposes, including intercity rail purposes.
This bill would increase the additional sales and use tax rate on diesel fuel by an additional 4%. The bill would restrict expenditures of revenues attributable to the 3.5% rate increase to transit capital purposes and certain transit services and would require a recipient transit agency to comply with certain requirements, including submitting a list of proposed projects to the Department of Transportation, as a condition of receiving a portion of these funds under the State Transit Assistance Program. The bill would require an existing required audit of transit operator finances to verify that these new revenues have been expended in conformance with these specific restrictions and all other generally applicable requirements. By increasing the amount of revenues in the Public Transportation Account that are continuously appropriated, the bill would thereby make an appropriation. The bill would require the revenues attributable to the remaining 0.5% rate increase to be allocated, upon appropriation, to the department for intercity rail and commuter rail purposes.
This bill would, beginning July 1, 2020, and every 3rd year thereafter, require the State Board of Equalization to recompute the gasoline and diesel excise tax rates and the additional sales and use tax rate on diesel fuel based upon the percentage change in the California Consumer Price Index transmitted to the board by the Department of Finance, as prescribed.
(10) Existing law requires the Department of Transportation to prepare a state highway operation and protection program every other year for the expenditure of transportation capital improvement funds for projects that are necessary to preserve and protect the state highway system, excluding projects that add new traffic lanes. The program is required to be based on an asset management plan, as specified. Existing law requires the department to specify, for each project in the program the capital and support budget and projected delivery date for various components of the project. Existing law provides for the California Transportation Commission to review and adopt the program, and authorizes the commission to decline and adopt the program if it determines that the program is not sufficiently consistent with the asset management plan.
This bill would require the commission, as part of its review of the program, to hold at least one hearing in northern California and one hearing in southern California regarding the proposed program. The bill would require the department to submit any change to a programmed project as an amendment to the commission for its approval.
This bill, on and after August 1, 2017, would also require the commission to make an allocation of all capital and support costs for each project in the program, and would require the department to submit a supplemental project allocation request to the commission for each project that experiences cost increases above the amounts in its allocation. The bill would require the commission to establish guidelines to provide exceptions to the requirement for a supplemental project allocation requirement that the commission determines are necessary to ensure that projects are not unnecessarily delayed.
(11) Existing law imposes weight fees on the registration of commercial motor vehicles and provides for the deposit of net weight fee revenues into the State Highway Account. Existing law provides for the transfer of certain weight fee revenues from the State Highway Account to the Transportation Debt Service Fund to reimburse the General Fund for payment of debt service on general obligation bonds issued for transportation purposes. Existing law also provides for the transfer of certain weight fee revenues to the Transportation Bond Direct Payment Account for direct payment of debt service on designated bonds, which are defined to be certain transportation general obligation bonds issued pursuant to Proposition 1B of 2006. Existing law also provides for loans of weight fee revenues to the General Fund to the extent the revenues are not needed for bond debt service purposes, with the loans to be repaid when the revenues are later needed for those purposes, as specified.
This bill, notwithstanding these provisions or any other law, would only authorize specified percentages of weight fee revenues to be transferred from the State Highway Account to the Transportation Debt Service Fund, the Transportation Bond Direct Payment Account, or any other fund or account for the purpose of payment of the debt service on transportation general obligation bonds in accordance with a prescribed schedule, with no more than 50% of weight fee revenues to be used for debt service purposes beginning with the 2021–22 fiscal year. The bill would require the California Transportation Commission, by January 1, 2018, to recommend a course of action to the Legislature and Governor that would retain the remaining 50% share of weight fee revenues in the State Highway Account or provide for the transfer of those revenues to the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account. The bill would also prohibit loans of weight fee revenues to the General Fund.
(12) The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment.
CEQA, until January 1, 2020, exempts a project or an activity to repair, maintain, or make minor alterations to an existing roadway, as defined, other than a state roadway, if the project or activity is carried out by a city or county with a population of less than 100,000 persons to improve public safety and meets other specified requirements.
This bill would extend the above-referenced exemption indefinitely to January 1, 2023, and delete the population limitation of the city or county for the exemption to projects or activities in cities and counties with a population of less than 100,000 persons. The bill would also expand the exemption to include state roadways. exemption.
This bill would also establish establish, until January 1, 2023, the Advance Mitigation Program in the Department of Transportation. The bill would authorize the department to undertake specified mitigation measures in advance of construction of planned transportation improvements. The bill would require the department to establish a steering committee to advise the department on advance mitigation measures and related matters. The bill would create the Advance Mitigation Fund as a continuously appropriated revolving fund, to be funded initially from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program pursuant to (1) above. The bill would provide for reimbursement of the revolving fund at the time a planned transportation improvement benefiting from advance mitigation is constructed. The bill would require the department to submit to the Legislature annual reports and a final report on the operation of the program.
(13) Existing federal law requires the United States Secretary of Transportation to carry out a surface transportation project delivery program, under which the participating states assume certain responsibilities for environmental review and clearance of transportation projects that would otherwise be the responsibility of the federal government. Existing law, until January 1, 2017, when these provisions are repealed, provides that the State of California consents to the jurisdiction of the federal courts with regard to the compliance, discharge, or enforcement of the responsibilities the Department of Transportation assumed as a participant in this program.
This bill would reenact these provisions.
(14) This bill would provide that the fuel tax increases imposed by the bill would be effective on July 1, 2017. The bill would provide that the vehicle fee increases imposed by the bill would be effective on October 1, 2017.
(15) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Digest Key
Vote: 2/3 Appropriation: YES Fiscal Committee: YES Local Program: NO
VISIT SENATOR RICARDO LARA'S DISTRICT OFFICE 3/6/17 CITIZEN LOBBY DROP-IN VISIT - SENATOR RICARDO LARA'S DISTRICT OFFICE
Senator Ricardo Lara, who is the Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, will preside over the hearings this Monday, 3/6/17,for the 2 pro illegal bills: SB 6 Due Process For All, which would provide legal services to those facing deportation in California, and SB 54 the California Values Act, which has been nicknamed the "California Sanctuary State" law.
On that same day, Citizen Lobbyists will visit Senator Ricardo Lara's district office.
Since citizens will not be testifying in opposition to the 2 pro illegal bills at the Sacramento hearing before the Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Ricardo Lara,they will drop by his Long Beach office to express their opposition to his staff members.
JOIN with Citizen Lobbyists at a drop-in visit to Senator Lara's district office in Long Beach on the day of the hearing, this Monday, 3/6/17 AT 11am.
RESIGN RICARDO!
A CONSTITUENT WILL ALSO BE CALLING FOR RICARDO LARA TO RESIGN after he had Republican Senator Janet Nguyen dragged out of the chambers on 2/23/17! THIS CONSTITUENT WILL SUBMIT A LETTER TO RICARDO LARA DURING THE DROP-IN VISIT, CALLING FOR RICARDO LARA TO IMMEDIATELY RESIGN BECAUSE OF HIS ACTIONS OF HAVING SENATOR NGUYEN FORCIBLY REMOVED FROM THE SENATE FLOOR!
SENATOR RICARDO ON 2/23/17 PRESIDED OVER THE SENATE FLOOR.
THE CA STATE SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE IS KEEPING A TALLY OF SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION FOR SB 6 & SB 54 - WHICH WILL BE ENTERED INTO THE OFFICIAL RECORD. SO PLEASE CALL TO VOICE YOUR OPPOSITION. (916) 651-4101
SB 6 Due Process For All and SB 54 California Values Act, BOTH Hearings in the CA State Senate Appropriations Committee on 3/6/17 JURISDICTION: Bills that are subject to Joint Rule 10.5 and are not referred to the Budget and Fiscal Review Committee. Bills that constitute a state-mandated local program.
1. SB 6 Due Process For All, which would provide legal services to those facing deportation in California.
2. SB 54 California Values Act, which has been nicknamed the "California Sanctuary State" law.
Both of these bills will have a committee hearing on the same day in the CA State Senate Appropriations Committee on 3/6/17. http://sapro.senate.ca.gov/agenda
Introduced by Senator Hueso
(Principal coauthor: Senator De León)
(Coauthor: Assembly Member Rendon)
December 05, 2016
An act to amend the heading of Chapter 5.6 (commencing with Section 13300) of Part 3 of Division 9 of, and to add Sections 13307, 13308, and 13309 to, the Welfare and Institutions Code, relating to immigrants, making an appropriation therefor, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 6, as amended, Hueso. Immigrants: removal proceedings: legal services.
Existing law requires the State Department of Social Services, subject to the availability of funding, to contract with qualified nonprofit legal services organizations to provide legal services to unaccompanied, undocumented minors, as defined, who are transferred to the care and custody of the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement and who are present in this state. Existing law requires that the contracts awarded meet certain conditions.
This bill would require the department to either contract with qualified nonprofit legal services organizations, or contract with a nonprofit agency to administer funding to nonprofit legal services organization subcontractors, to provide legal services to detained individuals in removal proceedings who are not otherwise entitled to legal representation under an existing local, state, or federal program. The bill would also authorize the department to award contracts to provide legal services for nondetained individual in removal proceedings if sufficient funds are appropriated for that purpose. authorize the department to prioritize the award of contracts to provide legal services to detained individuals in removal proceedings and would also authorize the department to prioritize the award of contracts to qualified nonprofit legal services organizations that also receive county or city funding to provide legal services to individuals in removal proceedings. The bill would require the contracts awarded pursuant to this act to meet certain conditions. The bill would also authorize the department to contract with organizations to provide legal training and technical assistance to qualified nonprofit legal services organizations, to provide postconviction relief services to immigrants, and to provide case coordination and placement services to ensure that all individuals in removal proceedings receive representation in a timely fashion. The bill would establish the California Universal Representation Trust Fund to accept donations from private foundations and other philanthropic entities for the purpose of expanding the number of individuals that may be provided legal services pursuant to these provisions. The bill would appropriate an unspecified sum from the General Fund to the department, and would require the department to adopt emergency regulations, for the purpose of implementing these provisions.
This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
DIGEST KEY
Vote: 2/3 Appropriation: yes Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program: no
BILL TEXT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
This act shall be known and may be cited as the Due Process for All Act.
SEC. 2.
The heading of Chapter 5.6 (commencing with Section 13300) of Part 3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:
CHAPTER 5.6. Services for Immigrants
SEC. 3.
Section 13307 is added to the Welfare and Institutions Code, immediately following Section 13306, to read:
13307.
(a) (1) The State Department of Social Services shall either contract directly with qualified nonprofit legal services organizations, or contract with a nonprofit agency to administer funding to nonprofit legal services organization subcontractors, to provide legal services to detained individuals in removal proceedings who are not otherwise entitled to legal representation under an existing local, state, or federal program. The department may award prioritize the award of contracts to provide legal services for nondetained detained individuals in removal proceedings if sufficient funds are appropriated for that purpose. proceedings. The department may prioritize the award of contracts to qualified nonprofit legal services organizations that also receive county or city funding to provide legal services to individuals in removal proceedings.
(2) By ____, the department shall request proposals for agencies to act as the umbrella agency in order to determine whether an umbrella agency model is more efficient than contracting directly with individual organizations. (b) Funds provided under a contract awarded pursuant to this section shall not be used to provide legal services to individuals who previously have been convicted of a violent crime, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 of the Penal Code.
(b)
(c) For purposes of this chapter, the term “individual in removal proceedings” means an individual who is in removal proceedings pursuant to Section 240 of the federal Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. Sec. 1229a) before a federal immigration judge that is located in California, an individual who is arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement within California and placed in expedited removal proceedings, an individual who is paroled into the United States at or near a port of entry in California for purposes of removal proceedings, or an individual who is a party to an appeal made to the Board of Immigration Appeals, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, or a federal District Court district court in California arising from either of those proceedings.
SEC. 4.
Section 13308 is added to the Welfare and Institutions Code, immediately following Section 13307, to read:
13308.
(a) Contracts awarded pursuant to Section 13307 shall be executed either with a nonprofit agency that will administer the contract through funding to nonprofit legal services organization subcontractors that meet both of the following requirements or directly with nonprofit legal services organizations that meet both of the following requirements:
(1) (A) Have significant experience in representing individuals in removal proceedings and asylum applications.
(B) For the purposes of this paragraph, “significant experience” means at least one of the following:
(i) A minimum of five years of experience as an organization.
(ii) Experience as a federal subcontractor for immigration representation.
(iii) Experience working with or under the supervision of an organization, including a legal training or a technical assistance organization, that has significant experience in removal defense.
(2) Are accredited by the Board of Immigration Appeals under the United States Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review or meet the requirements to receive funding from the Trust Fund Program administered by the State Bar of California.
(b) (1) The department may contract with organizations that provide legal training and technical assistance to other organizations qualified under subdivision (a).
(2) Legal services organizations that provide legal training and technical assistance shall have at least 10 years of experience conducting immigration legal services trainings and technical assistance specifically on removal defense and that meet the requirements as a support center to receive funding from the Trust Fund Program administered by the State Bar of California.
(3) “Legal training and technical assistance” includes, but is not limited to, webinars, in-person trainings, mentoring, removal defense boot camps, and technical assistance in the form of answering questions via email, fax, or telephone from organizations qualified under subdivision (a) and their staff and volunteers that who assist individuals with removal defense.
(c) (1) The department may contract with organizations that provide postconviction relief services to immigrants.
(2) Organizations with contracts described in this subdivision may be clean slate service providers or criminal defense organizations that will file postconviction relief motions and petitions in California’s courts.
(d) The department may contract with organizations that provide case coordination and placement services to ensure that all individuals eligible for representation pursuant to a contract entered into under this section Section 13307 or 13309 receive that representation in a timely fashion.
SEC. 5.
Section 13309 is added to the Welfare and Institutions Code, to read:
13309.
(a) The California Universal Representation Trust Fund is hereby established in the State Treasury to accept donations from private foundations and other philanthropic entities for the purpose of expanding the number of individuals that who may be provided legal services through contracts entered into by the department pursuant to Sections 13307 and 13308.
(b) Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 13308, the department may utilize moneys in this fund to contract with private attorneys that who are members of the American Immigration Lawyers Association for the purpose of providing legal services, if the private attorneys demonstrate that, within the past five years, he or she has they have been substantially involved in the practice of immigration and nationality law, as described in Section 2.0 and Section 3.0 of the California State Bar Standards for Certification and Recertification in Immigration and Nationality Law (as revised November 19, 2010). A private attorney does not need to be certified by the State Bar of California as a specialist in immigration and nationality law in order to qualify for a contract described in this section.
SEC. 6.
The State Department of Social Services shall adopt emergency regulations implementing this act no later than ____. The department may readopt any emergency regulation authorized by this section that is the same as, or substantially equivalent to, any emergency regulation previously adopted pursuant to this section. The initial adoption of emergency regulations pursuant to this section and one readoption of emergency regulations shall be deemed to be an emergency and necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety, or general welfare. Initial emergency regulations and the one readoption of emergency regulations authorized by this section shall be exempt from review by the Office of Administrative Law. The initial emergency regulations and the one readoption of emergency regulations authorized by this section shall be submitted to the Office of Administrative Law for filing with the Secretary of State and each shall remain in effect for no more than 180 days, by which time final regulations shall be adopted.
SEC. 7.
The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.
SEC. 8.
The sum of ____ dollars ($____) is hereby appropriated from the General Fund to the State Department of Social Services for the purposes of implementing this act.
SEC. 9.
This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the California Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
In order to ensure Californians’ due process rights are protected by providing better access to counsel prior to the federal government’s expected expansion of deportation policies, which will have a significant impact on California’s population, it is necessary that this bill take effect immediately.
Introduced by Senator De León
(Principal coauthor: Senator Pan)
(Principal coauthor: coauthors: Assembly Member Members Chiu, Gomez, and Levine)
December 05, 2016
An act to repeal Section 11369 of the Health and Safety Code, and to add Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 885) to Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, 17.25 (commencing with Section 7284) to Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, relating to law enforcement. enforcement, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 54, as amended, De León. Law enforcement: sharing data.
Existing law provides that when there is reason to believe that a person arrested for a violation of specified controlled substance provisions may not be a citizen of the United States, the arresting agency shall notify the appropriate agency of the United States having charge of deportation matters.
This bill would repeal those provisions.
Existing law provides that whenever an individual who is a victim of or witness to a hate crime, or who otherwise can give evidence in a hate crime investigation, is not charged with or convicted of committing any crime under state law, a peace officer may not detain the individual exclusively for any actual or suspected immigration violation or report or turn the individual over to federal immigration authorities.
This bill would, among other things, prohibit state and local law enforcement agencies and school police and security departments from using resources to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, report, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes, or to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal program requiring registration of individuals on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or national or ethnic origin, as specified. The bill would require require, within 6 months after the effective date of the bill, state agencies to review their confidentiality policies and identify any changes necessary to ensure that information collected from individuals is limited to that necessary to perform agency duties and is not used or disclosed for any other purpose, as specified. The bill would require public schools, hospitals, and courthouses to establish and make public policies that limit immigration enforcement on their premises and The bill would require require, within 3 months after the effective date of the bill, the Attorney General, in consultation with appropriate stakeholders, to publish model policies for use by those entities for those purposes. The bill would also require, within 3 months after the effective date of the bill, the Attorney General to publish model contractual provisions for all state agencies that partner with private vendors for data collection purposes to ensure that those vendors comply with the confidentiality policies, as specified. The bill would require all public schools, health facilities operated by the state or a political subdivision of the state, courthouses, and shelters to implement the model policy, or an equivalent policy. The bill would state that all other organizations and entities that provide services related to physical or mental health and wellness, education, or access to justice, including the University of California, are encouraged to adopt the model policy.
The bill would state findings and declarations of the Legislature relating to these provisions.
By imposing additional duties on public schools, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
DIGEST KEY
Vote: majority2/3 Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program: yes
BILL TEXT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
Section 11369 of the Health and Safety Code is repealed.
SEC. 2.
Chapter 817.25 (commencing with Section 885)7284) is added to Title 3Division 7 of Part 2Title 1 of the PenalGovernment Code, to read:
CHAPTER 17.25. Cooperation With Federal Immigration Authorities
885.7284.
This chapter shall be known, and may be cited, as the California Values Act.
885.2.7284.2.
The Legislature finds and declares the following:
(a) Immigrants are valuable and essential members of the California community. Almost one in three Californians is foreign born and one in two children in California has at least one immigrant parent.
(b) A relationship of trust between California’s immigrant community and state and local law enforcement agencies is central to the public safety of the people of California.
(c) This trust is threatened when state and local law enforcement agencies are entangled with federal immigration enforcement, with the result that immigrant community members fear approaching police when they are victims of, and witnesses to, crimes. crimes, seeking basic health services, or attending school, to the detriment of public safety and the well-being of all Californians. (d) Entangling state and local agencies with federal immigration enforcement programs diverts already limited resources and blurs the lines of accountability between local, state, and federal governments. (e) State and local participation in federal immigration enforcement programs also raises constitutional concerns, including the prospect that California residents could be detained in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, targeted on the basis of race or ethnicity in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, or denied access to education based on immigration status.
(d)
(f) This act seeks to ensure effective policing, to protect the safety safety, well-being, and constitutional rights of the people of California, and to direct the state’s limited resources to matters of greatest concern to state and local governments.
885.4.7284.4.
For purposes of this chapter, the following terms have the following meanings:
(a) “Civil immigration warrant” means any warrant for a violation of federal civil immigration law, and includes civil immigration warrants entered in the National Crime Information Center database.
(b) “Federal immigration authority” means any officer, employee, or person otherwise paid by or acting as an agent of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement or United States Customs and Border Protection, or any division thereof, or any other officer, employee, or person otherwise paid by or acting as an agent of the United States Department of Homeland Security who is charged with immigration enforcement. (c) “Health facility” includes health facilities as defined in Section 1250 of the Health and Safety Code, clinics as defined in Sections 1200 and 1200.1 of the Health and Safety Code, and substance abuse treatment facilities.
(c)
(d) “Hold request,” “notification request,” “transfer request,” and “local law enforcement agency” have the same meaning as provided in Section 7283 of the Government Code. 7283. Hold, notification, and transfer requests include requests issued by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement or United States Customs and Border Protection as well as any other federal immigration authorities.
(d)
(e) “Immigration enforcement” includes any and all efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal civil immigration law, and also includes any and all efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal criminal immigration law that penalizes a person’s presence in, entry, or reentry to, or employment in, the United States, including, but not limited to, violations of Section 1253, 1324c, 1325, or 1326 of Title 8 of the United States Code.
(e)
(f) “Judicial warrant” means a warrant based on probable cause and issued by a federal judge or a federal magistrate judge that authorizes federal immigration authorities to take into custody the person who is the subject of the warrant. (g) “Public schools” means all public elementary and secondary schools under the jurisdiction of local governing boards or a charter school board, the California State University, and the California Community Colleges.
(f)
(h) “School police and security departments” includes police and security departments of the California State University, the California Community Colleges, charter schools, county offices of education, schools, and school districts.
(g)
(i) “State agency” has the same meaning as provided in Section 11000 of the Government Code.
885.6.7284.6.
(a) State and local law enforcement agencies and school police and security departments shall not do any of the following:
(1) Use agency or department moneys, facilities, property, equipment, or personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, report, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes, including, but not limited to, any of the following:
(A)Responding to hold, notification, and transfer requests from federal immigration authorities.
(A) Inquiring into or collecting information about an individual’s immigration status. (B) Detaining an individual on the basis of a hold request. (C) Responding to requests for notification or transfer requests.
(B) Responding
(D)Providing or responding to requests for nonpublicly available personal information about an individual, including, but not limited to, information about the person’s release date, home address, or work address for immigration enforcement purposes.
(C)
(E) Making arrests based on civil immigration warrants.
(D)
(F) Giving federal immigration authorities access to interview individuals in agency or department custody for immigration enforcement purposes. (G) Assisting federal immigration authorities in the activities described in Section 1357(a)(3) of Title 8 of the United States Code.
(E)
(H) Performing the functions of an immigration officer, whether pursuant to Section 1357(g) of Title 8 of the United States Code or any other law, regulation, or policy, whether formal or informal.
(2)Use agency or department moneys, facilities, property, equipment, or personnel to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal program requiring registration of individuals on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or national or ethnic origin.
(3)
(2) Make agency or department databases databases, including databases maintained for the agency or department by private vendors, or the information therein other than information regarding an individual’s citizenship or immigration status, available to anyone or any entity for the purpose of immigration enforcement or investigation or enforcement of any federal program requiring registration of individuals on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, immigration status, or national or ethnic origin. enforcement. Any agreements in existence on the date that this chapter becomes operative that make any agency or department database available in conflict with the terms of this paragraph are terminated on that date. A person or entity provided access to agency or department databases shall certify in writing that the database will not be used for the purposes prohibited by this section.
(4)
(3) Place peace officers under the supervision of federal agencies or employ peace officers deputized as special federal officers or special federal deputies except to the extent those peace officers remain subject to California law governing conduct of peace officers and the policies of the employing agency.
(b) Nothing in this section shall prevent the department or any state or local law enforcement agency, including school police or security departments, from responding to a request from federal immigration authorities for information about a specific person’s previous criminal arrests or convictions where otherwise permitted by state law or from responding to a lawful subpoena. law.
(c) Notwithstanding any other law, in no event shall state or local law enforcement agencies or school police or security departments transfer an individual to federal immigration authorities for purposes of immigration enforcement or detain an individual at the request of federal immigration authorities for purposes of immigration enforcement absent a judicial warrant. This subdivision does not limit the scope of subdivision (a).
885.8.7284.8.
(a) In order to ensure that eligible individuals are not deterred from seeking services or engaging with state agencies, all state agencies shall shall, within six months after the effective date of the act that added this section, review their confidentiality policies and identify any changes necessary to ensure that information collected from individuals is limited to that necessary to perform agency duties and is not used or disclosed for any other purpose. Any necessary changes to those policies shall be made as expeditiously as possible, consistent with agency or department procedures. The Attorney General shall, within three months after the effective date of the act that added this section, publish model contractual provisions for all state agencies that partner with private vendors for data collection purposes to ensure that those vendors comply with the confidentiality policies established pursuant to this section.
(b) The Attorney General, within three months after the effective date of the act that added this section, in consultation with the appropriate stakeholders, shall publish model policies for limiting immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible consistent with federal and state law at public schools, hospitals, and courthouses health facilities operated by the state or a political subdivision of the state, courthouses, and shelters, to ensure that all public schools, hospitals, and courthouses they remain safe and accessible to all California residents, regardless of immigration status. All public schools, hospitals, and courthouses shall establish and make public policies that limit immigration enforcement on their premises to the fullest extent possible consistent with federal and state law. All public schools, health facilities operated by the state or a political subdivision of the state, and courthouses shall implement the model policy, or an equivalent policy. All other organizations and entities that provide services related to physical or mental health and wellness, education, or access to justice, including the University of California, are encouraged to adopt the model policy.
885.10.7284.10.
Nothing in this chapter prohibits or restricts any state or local agency government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, any local, state, or federal agency, immigration authorities, information regarding an individual’s the citizenship or immigration status. “Information regarding an individual’s citizenship or immigration status,” for purposes of this section, means a statement of the individual’s country of citizenship or a statement of the individual’s immigration status, respectively. status, lawful or unlawful, of an individual pursuant to Sections 1373 and 1644 of Title 8 of the United States Code.
885.12.7284.12.
The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.
SEC. 3.
If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
SEC. 4.
This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the California Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are: Because changes in federal immigration enforcement policies require a statewide standard that clarifies the appropriate level of cooperation between federal immigration enforcement agents and state and local governments as soon as possible, it is necessary for this measure to take effect immediately.
“…Catholic Charities gets billions of taxpayer dollars for refugee resettlement and general immigration services, which puts it into the category of a smallish government agency. For example, in 2010, 62 percent of Catholic Charities’ budget was funded by the unwilling taxpayer. The feds and the Catholic bishops are partners.”
George Soros funded organizations: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1237
Every congress member is given an annual budget to cover staff salaries, travel to and from the home district, official mail to constituents and other office necessities. The budgets vary. The average budget for 2011 was $1.45 million. USA Today http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-04-05/house-office-expenses-cutbacks/54056520/1Updated 4/6/2012 8:36
