↓ Archives ↓

Archive → August 9th, 2017

More Immigrant Children in U.S. Illegally to Receive Health Care

More Immigrant Children in U.S. Illegally to Receive Health Care

California Sen. Ricardo Lara speaks at a rally where health care and immigrant rights advocates celebrated the expansion of Medi-Cal to children.

California Sen. Ricardo Lara speaks at a rally where health care and immigrant rights advocates celebrated the expansion of Medi-Cal to children. RICH PEDRONCELLI / AP PHOTO


Connecting state and local government leaders

A half-dozen states plus Washington, D.C., have extended Medicaid benefits to children in the country illegally.

This article was originally published at Stateline, an initiative of The Pew Charitable Trusts, and was written by Michael Ollove.

When Dolores Loaeza was a baby and she needed medical care, her mother could call her pediatrician in Mexico for free advice, and, if needed, to send medication across the border to Los Angeles.

As an immigrant without legal permission to be in the country, Dolores was not eligible for full Medicaid coverage. When she got older, her mother, Wendy Pech, would have to scrape together the money to pay for Dolores’ medical expenses out of pocket. “I took extra precautions to make sure Dolores didn’t get sick or injured because we couldn’t afford those bills,” she said through a translator last week.

Those precautions are no longer necessary. Last year, California extended full Medicaid benefits to child immigrants, no matter their immigration status, if their families otherwise meet the income thresholds for the joint federal-state health insurance program for the poor and disabled. Dolores, now 17, is enrolled.

Oregon just followed suit, joining the five other states plus Washington, D.C. that extend Medicaid health benefits to children living in the country illegally. Immigration advocates welcomed the news, but with the Trump administration cracking down on illegal immigration, they don’t expect to see similar laws enacted in other states in the near future.

“When it comes to covering kids here illegally, there aren’t that many more states that are going to join that camp and a fair number of states that are definitely in the other camp,” said Randy Capps, research director of the Migration Policy Institute, a Washington think tank that studies migration in the United States and abroad.

Still, advocates regard the victory in Oregon and elsewhere as significant, certainly for the estimated 15,000 immigrant children in Oregon who are expected to become eligible for health care under the new law.

The financial commitment for the state in enacting the law is considerable because it will not come with the federal Medicaid matching funds available to legal residents. Oregon must pick up the entire tab, which is estimated to be more than $36 million for the first two years and $55 million for every two years after that. Oregon officials say that because there is no federal match, the children will not technically be Medicaid beneficiaries. But the program will be administered by the state Medicaid agency and the benefits will be the same.

Source: Will County News

West Wing Reads August 9, 2017

“Trump Vows U.S. Will ‘Win’ Fight Against Opioid Crisis”

– Ali Vitali and Corky Siemaszko, NBC News
NBC News reports President Donald Trump vowed yesterday that “the U.S. would ‘win’ the battle against the heroin and opioid plague,” and promised to “protect innocent citizens from drug dealers that poison our communities.” The news organization noted, the President’s focus on the opioid crisis came on “the same day that it was revealed that officials in and around Cincinnati, Ohio reported treating some two dozen people for heroin overdoses over the weekend.” Nearly 35,000 people across the country died of heroin or opioid overdoses in 2015, NBC News said.
Click here to read more.


In positive economic news, in The Hill, Heartland Institute fellow Peter Ferrara highlights the July jobs report and other recent positive economic indicators, saying “what we are seeing now under Trump are the stirrings of a real recovery from the 2007-2009 financial crisis, which never happened under Obama.” And US News & World Report gives a rundown of the Labor Department’s latest JOLTS report, which showed that “job openings roared to an all-time high in June,” with “nearly 6.2 million” job openings in the U.S. economy.


In The Denver Post, Ball Corporation CEO John A. Hayes writes that tax reform is critical to keep American businesses competitive, saying “a pro-growth tax reform plan” with lower business rates, a “modern international tax system,” and lower income tax rates for all Americans “will position America for a future of strong economic growth.”


After introducing merit-based immigration reform last week, Politico reports on a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll which shows that “voters support most elements of President Donald Trump’s proposal to scale back legal immigration to the United States and change criteria by which the U.S. admits immigrants.”


Moreover, in USA Today, Sens. Tom Cotton and David Perdue write that by implementing a merit-based immigration system, the RAISE Act would enact changes that are “pro-worker, pro-growth and proven to work.”


Source: Will County News

Less immigration means more American jobs, higher wages

Less immigration means more American jobs, higher wages


More than half a century after the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, and 30 years after the Immigration Reform and Control Act, U.S. Senators Tom Cotton (R- Arizona) and David Perdue (R-Georgia) introduced a sensible merit-based bill that will help all Americans.

The Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy Act, or RAISE Act, proposes to cut legal immigration roughly in half from one million new arrivals annually to about 500,000, and would screen them on a points-based system similar to Canada and Australia for skills, education and English language ability. In the process, the RAISE Act would mostly eliminate the haphazard chain migration system that allows family members to petition their adult siblings, adult sons and adult daughters, who in turn can bring their own relatives, and create an endless incoming immigrant stream.

Under the RAISE Act, only nuclear family members could be admitted. In addition to tightening up immigration entry standards, the proposed legislation would eliminate the outdated and pointless Diversity Visa lottery – the random admission of 50,000 immigrants – and mandate a maximum refugee resettlement total of 50,000 per year, instead of allowing the president to decide what cap, if any, should be imposed.

Those are the RAISE Act’s bare bones, but the proposed legislation represents a much-needed boost to unemployed, underemployed and employed Americans whose wages have been frozen for years. Referencing studies from Harvard and Princeton, Cotton and Perdue say legal immigration would be cut by RAISE in the first year by 41 percent – from roughly 1.1 million to 637,960 – and to 539,958 by the tenth year, for a 50 percent decline. And the resulting tighter labor market would mean that more Americans would fill jobs and that wages would rise, the indisputable effects of supply and demand economics.

In his opening statements which he delivered from the White House, President Trump said that the current immigration policy has placed “substantial pressure on American workers, taxpayers and community resources,” and, most importantly, is unfair to minority workers who compete for jobs with recently arrived immigrants. The RAISE Act would, said President Trump, put American families first.

Congressional Democrats, the media and advocacy groups quickly went on attack mode. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-California) charged President Trump with pursuing a hateful, senseless anti-immigrant agenda. CNN reporter Jim Acosta charged that RAISE isn’t in keeping with Statue of Liberty values. And ITI, a technology industry trade group, claimed that the bill would impede Silicon Valley’s ability to compete globally – false, predictable, knee-jerk statements that don’t stand up to rational thought. The truth is that after more than 50 years of immigration continuing on autopilot, and regardless of 9/11, recessions, mortgage meltdowns or soaring city and state populations, a congressional debate is very overdue.

The RAISE Act faces a considerable, and possibly insurmountable, Senate challenge. But at a minimum, it will spark a debate that might cause many entrenched pro-immigration legislators to reconsider.

People often ask me how long I’ve been covering immigration. I tell them I can answer in two ways. First, I’ve been on the immigration beat for 31 years, or, second, I’ve been writing about immigration long enough that more than 25 million legal, work-authorized immigrants have been admitted.

An immigration slow-down, the RAISE Act’s key objective, benefits all Americans.

— Joe Guzzardi

Source: Will County News

Here Is The Alias Email Account Loretta Lynch Used As Attorney General

Here Is The Alias Email Account Loretta Lynch Used As Attorney General


Like her predecessor, Eric Holder, former Attorney General Loretta Lynch used an email alias to conduct government business, The Daily Caller has confirmed.

Several of Lynch’s emails were included in 413 pages of DOJ documents provided to the conservative groups Judicial Watch and the American Center for Law and Justice. Both groups had filed lawsuits for records regarding Lynch’s controversial meeting with President Bill Clinton at the Phoenix airport last June 27.

Using the pseudonym “Elizabeth Carlisle,” Lynch corresponded with DOJ press officials to hammer out talking points in response to media requests about the meeting. The tarmac encounter drew criticism from conservatives because Lynch was overseeing the federal investigation into whether Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information on her private email system.

The meeting was revealed not by Lynch, Clinton or the Justice Department, but by a reporter in Phoenix working based on a tip.

On June 28, a reporter with Phoenix’s ABC News affiliate contacted the Justice Department to inquire about the meeting. Internal DOJ emails show that the request touched off a mad-dash to develop talking points and statements to respond to the developing story.

Lynch, using the Elizabeth Carlisle account, which was hosted on the Justice Department’s system, was also involved in those discussions.

Lynch’s attorney, Robert Raben, confirmed to TheDC on Monday that Lynch emailed under that pseudonym. He pointed to an articlepublished in The Hill last February in which the Justice Department acknowledged that Lynch was using an email handle that was not her given name.

“That address was and is known to the individuals who process [Freedom of Information Act] requests; the practice, similar to using initials or numbers in an email, helps guard against security risks and prevent inundation of mailboxes,” Raben said.

The aversion to an overflowing email inbox was one of the defenses offered by Holder after his use of a pseudonym was revealed last year. Holder used the alias “Lew Alcindor” — the birth name of NBA legend Kareem Abdul-Jabbar — as his email handle until he left DOJ in 2015.

The Carlisle emails were discovered over the weekend by followers of Reddit accounts that support President Trump. Some users developed the theory that Lynch used her grandmother’s name as a her pseudonym. Others concluded that Lynch broke the law by using a pseudonym, though it is not illegal for government officials to do so.

In one email, sent just minutes after ABC News inquired about the tarmac meeting, Melanie Newman, the director of DOJ’s public affairs office at the time, wrote an email to the Elizabeth Carlisle account that she addressed to “AG Lynch.”

Lynch responded later in the day to Newman and other DOJ officials.

“Thanks to all who worked on this,” reads the reply, which was ended with the initials “AG.”

Using the Carlisle account, Lynch was involved in several other email exchanges discussing drafts of talking points regarding her interaction with Clinton.

On June 29, Newman sent an email to the account — again with a greeting for “AG Lynch” — containing TV clips of news coverage of the airport encounter.

Lynch would go on to downplay her meeting with Clinton, though it had significant influence on the Clinton email probe.

Lynch claimed that the former president boarded her airplane uninvited and spoke for about 30 minutes with her and her husband. She said that the conversation centered on grandchildren and other mundane issues. She has insisted that the Hillary Clinton email investigation was not discussed.

Nevertheless, Lynch decided to relinquish control over the email investigation after acknowledging that the meeting could be interpreted in a negative light.

FBI Director James Comey stepped in to oversee the investigation, which came to an end on July 5 when he gave a press conference announcing that charges would not be filed against Clinton. Though Comey said that there was not enough evidence to prosecute the former secretary of state, he criticized her carelessness in using a private email account to send and receive classified information.

Other Obama administration officials have been caught using email aliases.

Former IRS official Lois Lerner, who targeted conservative non-profit groups seeking tax-exempt status, occasionally used the alias “Toby Miles” to send and receive work emails.

Lisa Jackson, the former administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, infamously used the alias “Richard Windsor” to conduct work business.

Follow Chuck on Twitter

Source: Will County News