Senators Are Pushing Ahead with a Health Care Deal as President Trump Sends Mixed Signals

Less than a full day after cheering a bipartisan deal being worked out in Congress to stabilize the individual insurance marketplace, President Donald Trump suggested he couldn’t support it. In a tweet sent Wednesday morning, Trump said that while he stood behind Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, who worked with Washington Sen. Patty Murray on…

via Senators Are Pushing Ahead with a Health Care Deal as President Trump Sends Mixed Signals — TIME

California lawmakers approve landmark ‘sanctuary state’ bill to expand protections for immigrants

Frim left, Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles), Gov. Jerry Brown and Assembly Spe

BY: Jazmine Ulloa 

California lawmakers on Saturday passed a “sanctuary state” bill to protect immigrants without legal residency in the U.S., part of a broader push by Democrats to counter expanded deportation orders under the Trumpadministration.

The legislation by Sen. Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles), the most far-reaching of its kind in the country, would limit state and local law enforcement communication with federal immigration authorities, and prevent officers from questioning and holding people on immigration violations.

After passionate debate in both houses of the Legislature, staunch opposition from Republican sheriffs and threats from Trump administration officials against sanctuary cities, Senate Bill 54 was approved Saturday with a 27-11 vote along party lines. But the bill sent to Gov. Jerry Brown drastically scaled back the version first introduced, the result of tough negotiations between Brown and De León in the final weeks of the legislative session.

The decision came hours after a federal judge in Chicago blocked the Trump administration’s move to withhold Justice Department grant funds to discourage so-called sanctuary city policies.

On the Senate floor minutes before 2 a.m. on Saturday, De León said the changes were reasonable, and reflected a powerful compromise between law enforcement officials and advocates.

“These amendments do not mean to erode the core mission of this measure, which is to protect hardworking families that have contributed greatly to our culture and the economy,” he said. “This is a measure that reflects the values of who we are as a great state.”

Officially dubbed the “California Values Act,” the legislation initially would have prohibited state and local law enforcement agencies from using any resources to hold, question or share information about people with federal immigration agents, unless they had violent or serious criminal convictions.

After talks with Brown, amendments to the bill made this week would allow federal immigration authorities to keep working with state corrections officials and to continue entering county jails to question immigrants. The legislation would also permit police and sheriffs to share information and transfer people to immigration authorities if they have been convicted of one or more crimes from a list of 800 outlined in a previous law, the California Trust Act.

Some immigrant rights advocates who were previously disappointed with the list of offenses under the Trust Act, were dismayed to see the same exceptions applied in the so-called sanctuary state bill. The list includes many violent and serious crimes, as well as some nonviolent charges and “wobblers,” offenses that can be charged as a felony or misdemeanor, which advocates said has the potential to ensnare people who do not pose a danger to the public.

But immigrant rights groups did not withdraw their support for Senate Bill 54 and also won some concessions. Under the additions to the bill, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation would have to develop new standards to protect people held on immigration violations, and to allow immigrant inmates to receive credits toward their sentences serviced if they undergo rehabilitation and educational programs while incarcerated.

The state attorney general’s office would have to develop recommendations that limit immigration agents’ access to personal information. The attorney general also has broad authority under the state constitution to ensure that police and sheriffs agencies follow SB 54’s provisions should it be signed into law.

“This was a hard-fought effort, but the end product was worth the fight,” Jennie Pasquarella, immigrants’ rights director with the ACLU of California, said in a statement Saturday.

The compromise helped draw support for the bill from Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-Paramount), and moved the California Police Chiefs Assn.’s official position from opposed to neutral. The California Sheriffs Assn. remained opposed.

In a statement Saturday, Thomas Homan, acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said California politicians had “chosen to prioritize politics over public safety.”

“This bill severely undermines that effort and will make California communities less safe,” said Homan, who hosted a March town hall with Republican Sacramento County Sheriff Scott Jones on immigration enforcement that erupted in protests.

In their respective chambers on Friday, at least 20 members of the Assembly and six members of the Senate took the floor for debate on the bill, voicing complex stances on illegal immigration, federalism and the diversity of families in California.

Assemblyman Steven Choi (R-Irvine), a first-generation immigrant from South Korea, argued that he came to the U.S. legally and said the bill created “chaos” for a country built on law and order.

Others pointed to the opposition from sheriffs organizations, saying SB 54 tied officers’ hands, allowing serial thieves, chronic drug abusers and gang members to slip through the cracks. Supporters countered the Trump administration was trying to paint all immigrants in the country illegally as criminals.

They pointed to provisions in the bill that would make hospitals, schools and courthouses safe zones for immigrants from federal immigration authorities at a time of fear for some communities.

“We are ironically ending this session the way we started, talking about protecting the most vulnerable among us,” Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) said.

De León introduced SB 54 on what was an unusually acrimonious first day of the 2017 legislative session, as lawmakers in both chambers were locked in bitter debate over the still newly elected President Trump.

It was at the center of a legislative package filed by Democrats in an attempt to protect more than 2.3 million people living in the state illegally. Other legislative proposals and budget deals have expanded workplace protections against raids from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and increased legal defense services for immigrants facing deportation and financial aid for students without legal residency.

Senate Bill 54 received national attention as the U.S. Department of Justice pledged to slash government grants for law enforcement from any so-called sanctuary cities, which limit the collaboration between local and federal authorities on immigration enforcement.

In a statement Saturday, Department of Justice spokesman Devin O’Malley said “state lawmakers inexplicably voted today to return criminal aliens back onto our streets.”

“This abandonment of the rule of law by the Legislature continues to put Californians at risk, and undermines national security and law enforcement,” he said.

At the request of the California Senate earlier this year, former U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric H Holder Jr. reviewed the bill and said it passed constitutional muster, adding that the states “have the power over the health and safety of their residents and allocation of state resources.”

Still, debate raged on and divided even law enforcement officials and associations. In Los Angeles, Police Chief Charlie Beck voiced his support, while L.A. County Sheriff Jim McDonnell was a vocal opponent.

In a statement Saturday, McDonnell said the final version of the bill was not perfect, but “reflects much of what the LASD implemented years ago and the work is well underway.”

On Friday, lawmakers said some children without legal status were too afraid to go to school, while police statistics showed a drop in reports of sexual assault and domestic violence as immigrant victims refused to come forward.

Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia (D-Bell Gardens) said the era was reminiscent of the 1980s, when her father dreaded immigration raids.

“We are not living in a hypothetical fear,” she said. “That fear is a reality.”

Edited for mb3-org.com

 

NEO-NAZI MILO YIANNOPOULOS’S BLACK HUSBAND PROVES “YOU CAN’T HELP WHOM YOU LOVE” IS WHITE SUPREMACIST BULLSHIT

“White supremacy itself is a sexual fantasy.” — Sherronda Brown

Milo Yiannopoulos is a white supremacist. Perhaps doing so with his tongue-in-cheek, the former Brietbart journalist admitted as much this weekend when he posted multiple photographs of his wedding to his long-time boyfriend “John,” declaring himself the “WORST WHITE SUPREMACIST EVER” while linking to a Daily Mail article about the wedding on Facebook.

John, whose face and last name are obscured from every photo, is Black. Yiannopoulos has previously bragged about being “bottom for tall black men,” explaining how he used to hold a paint sample called “Pharoahs Gold 5” up to men at clubs to determine if they were dark enough to have sex with—his particular version of a paper bag test. He has also claimed that he likes “black guys for my love life, straight white males as employees, and girls as drinking buddies.” For him, Black men are sexual objects and nothing more.

 

A post shared by MILO (@milo.yiannopoulos) on

Yet John, whose wedding jacket featured the phrase “Blind For Love” stitched across the back, has spent over a decade in a relationship with the conservative author and Nazi provocateur, whose speaking tour prompted violent protests at university campuses across the country this summer.

The irony of this faceless Black groom, who is also Muslim, “loving” a white supremacist illuminates just how the myth that love is not political, or that whom you love can’t be helped, has been used to cover up white supremacist propaganda for ages.

While it is beyond a doubt that sexual attractions are influenced by things like genetics, it is equally unquestionable that society influences our attractions (what to speak of the way it influences which genes are turned off and on in the first place). This is why identical twins are far more likely to share the same sexual orientation, but twins who share DNA don’t always have identical sexualities.

Love is a mixture of personality predispositions and political choices, which is why whom you decide to sleep or build a life with says just as much about you as whom you decide to be friends with.

In this “postracial” world that is increasingly showing itself to be anything but, this reality causes very real dissonance within the minds of those who claim to be pro-Black or body positive or anti-ableist, but whose dating practices are anything but. It is much easier to disregard working on the most intimate display of one’s politics—love—when the narrative is that love can’t be helped. Rather than self-reflecting on the obvious proof of internalized anti-Blackness in not dating other Black people as a Black person, you get to tell the lie that dating has nothing to do with things you need to work on, letting yourself off the hook.

This is how white supremacy works. It does not want you to evaluate how you can divest from it, because it relies on everyone’s investment, even those who are harmed by it.

It requires that we believe the way things are now are natural and unchangeable, when they have been affected by centuries of violent social programming. We know white supremacist beauty standards exist, that anti-Black ideas about Black people of all (non)genders exist, but supposedly we can’t help whom we love, even though white supremacy has already been helping for ages.

If Yiannopoulos and John are “Blind For Love” like John’s jacket proclaims, then Yiannopoulos would have never sought Black men out in such disgustingly fetishistic ways in the first place. If races don’t fall in love with other races, and love is just about humans falling in love with other humans, then the dehumanizing way Yiannopoulos speaks about Black people, both within his own personal relationships and outside of them, would not exist. There is no such thing as blind love, there is only the blinding light of white supremacy that obscures all the ways we might resist it.

Edited for mb3-org.com

Pussy Riot Members Reportedly Detained After Protest In Siberia

They were protesting a Ukrainian filmmaker’s 20-year prison sentence.

By Katherine Brooks

Two members of the Russian punk activist group Pussy Riot were detained in Russia on Monday after participating in a protest outside of a Siberian prison, The Associated Press reports.

Maria Alyokhina, one of three Pussy Riot members famously arrested after performing in a Moscow cathedral in 2012, tweeted that she and Olga Borisova were taken into custody by police after protesting the imprisonment of Ukrainian filmmaker Oleg Sentsov in Yakutsk, a remote city in Siberia located approximately 3,000 miles east of Moscow.

Sentsov, best known for his 2011 film “Gamer,” was originally arrested in Crimea, the Ukrainian region seized by Russia in 2014, and later charged with participating in a terrorist conspiracy. He was sentenced to 20 years in jail by a Russian court.

Sentsov’s family has described his experience with the Russian legal system as a “Stalin-era show trial,” while his lawyers have classified the charges against him as “absurd and fictitious.” According to The Guardian, at least 10 Ukrainian individuals were serving extended sentences in Russia as of 2016.

“For three years I’ve been sitting in a Russian prison. For those three years a war has been conducted against my country,” Sentsov wrote in a letter that was allegedly smuggled out of the Yakutsk penal colony. “The enemy is fighting like a coward, vilely, pretending he’s got nothing to do with this. Nobody believes it. But that doesn’t stop him.”

Alyokhina and fellow Pussy Riot member Nadezhda Tolokonnikova were convicted of “hooliganism motivated by religious hatred” after performing an anti-Putin “punk prayer” in Moscow’s Christ the Savior Cathedral in February of 2012. The two were freed before the end of their two-year prison sentences in 2013, ahead of the Olympics in Sochi.

Since leaving prison, Pussy Riot has advocated on behalf of various individuals they deem political prisoners. Tolokonnikova also recently announced an immersive theater project titled “Inside Pussy Riot,” which will open in London this fall.

Edited for mb3-org.com