Sunday, September 1, 2019





Millions of illegal aliens live in California; drive in California with official state-issued drivers’ licenses; and of course, use those licenses to vote in California. Millions. That’s precisely how Hillary won California by over 4 million votes.
California supports illegal aliens over legal, law-abiding American citizens. They support illegals getting free college tuition, while children of native-born Americans pay full fare. They support illegals over police and ICE. Many liberals in California want to abolish ICE. They want no borders and no immigration law.  WAYNE ALLWYN ROOT

California governor reaches ‘historic’ deal to cap rising rents


Proposal sets 5% limit plus inflation with a 10% maximum increase

This 2010 photograph shows a sign advertising an apartment for rent in Mill Valley. (Jeff Vendsel, Marin Independent Journal)

By ERIN BALDASSARI | | Bay Area News Group
SACRAMENTO — Apartment dwellers and other tenants may soon see relief from steep rent hikes thanks to a landmark deal California Gov. Gavin Newsom reached Friday on legislation that would cap how rapidly rents can rise.
In a boon to tenants, the deal caps annual rent increases at 5%, plus inflation, with a maximum of 10% per year. That’s a lower threshold than the 7% lawmakers had previously negotiated amid strong opposition from the real estate and development industries. Staff members from San Francisco Democratic Assemblyman David Chiu’s office shared with this news organization details of the amended bill which have not yet been formally disseminated.
The bill must still be approved by both houses of the Legislature, which adjourns in two weeks, and signed by the governor before it becomes law. But proponents say it is now looking more likely the legislation will be approved. It comes at the end of a contentious legislative session, which was marked by early optimism among Democratic legislators about making significant progress to address the state’s housing shortage that then began to fade when many of those bills fall apart.
Progress on the rent cap bill, however, marks a victory for tenants who say they are being priced out as rents rise, although many tenants’ rights groups have said there is still much more that needs doing to fully protect tenants from rapidly escalating rents and widespread evictions. Chiu, the bill’s author, had made numerous concessions to the real estate and development industries even to get the bill to the state Senate. But he said in an interview Saturday the deal struck by the governor was very similar to the one he initially proposed, while still balancing the interests of real estate developers and property owners.
“We are in the most intense housing crisis in our state’s history,” he said. “We have millions of Californians who are living paycheck-to-paycheck and are one rent increase away from being forced out of their homes and becoming homeless.”
He added, “This bill will protect millions of Californians from egregious rent increases and predatory evictions, while providing landlords and the rental housing industry with the opportunity to make a fair rate of return.”
In an email, Debra Carlton, senior vice president for public affairs for the California Apartment Association, said her organization would not oppose the bill. But other real estate groups said they would continue to fight it.
“The proposed version of (the bill) headed to the senate floor will not incentivize production of rental housing or help more people find an affordable place to live,” California Association of Realtors President Jared Martin said in a statement Saturday. “It discourages new rental housing, which is why C.A.R., representing more than 200,000 real estate agents and brokers across California, strongly opposes it.”
The bill exempts new apartments built within the past 15 years from the rent cap on a rolling basis, up from a period of 10 years proposed in earlier iterations. Other changes to the bill include a longer sunset period of 10 years, as opposed to three and inflation costs determined on a regional basis, meaning the costs could increase at different rates in San Francisco than in the Central Valley. Single family homes, except those owned by large corporations, are exempt.
Voters last year rejected a ballot measure that would have allowed cities and counties more flexibility in how to implement rent control, by removing provisions in California law that exempt single family homes and apartments built after 1995. Backers of the ballot measure threatened to mount another campaign if lawmakers didn’t act. It wasn’t immediately clear if they were satisfied with Newsom’s proposal, which would not change that state law.
Michael Lane, the deputy director of SV@Home, likened the state’s housing shortage to a natural disaster and the rent caps to the same anti-gouging measures that are often instituted following a major fire or earthquake.
“In this case, we have a housing affordability crisis, so we think it’s appropriate to take this kind of measure,” he said. “It’s an historic breakthrough that strikes the perfect balance between the interests of real estate investors and tenants.”
SV@Home was part of a coalition of private companies, nonprofits and politicians called the Committee to House the Bay Area, or CASA, that is taking a three-pronged approach to addressing the housing crisis: advocating for tenant protections, the production of housing at all levels of affordability, and the preservation of already-affordable housing. There’s still more work to be done to address the state’s severe housing shortage, Lane said.
California needs to build about 180,000 new homes each year to meet the demand for its nearly 40 million people. But the state has averaged only 80,000 new homes in each of the last 10 years, according to a report from the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

Lawmakers this year proposed a number of bills that would have addressed the shortage, but many failed to pass. The much-watched Senate Bill 50would have allowed fourplexes in neighborhoods where only single-family homes currently are allowed, and forced cities to approve taller, denser condo and apartment buildings near transit stops, but it died in committee. Its author, state Senator Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, has vowed to resurrect it for a third time next year.
But other bills did advance on Friday, including ones to streamline the approval process for projects that comply with local zoning rules, to make it easier to build on surplus public land and to remove barriers to “granny” or in-law units.
“We need to move forward on all fronts simultaneously to address the production of 3.5 million units of new housing, the preservation of affordable housing and the protection of millions of tenants,” Chiu said. “As soon as this session is done, we will be back at it, looking for the most significant ideas to accomplish all of these simultaneously.”
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Fueled by progressive indifference, the state’s public-health crisis is mounting.
June 4, 2019 
Health Care
California, to some people’s way of thinking, is the most modern state in the country, if not the most cutting-edge place on earth. It’s progressive, hip, innovative—a bellwether, filled with pioneers and opinion-makers. It’s also unique for its constant battles against biblical catastrophes—earthquakes, droughts, landslides, and floods are all part of the state’s past as well as its present, as are raging wildfires that have left large tracts in ashes. Even secular humanists might be tempted to declare the state cursed.

Now California is home to a public-health crisis. This one is no act of God, though, but rather the inevitable result of tolerating unsanitary conditions. Diseases, some bringing to mind medieval times, have returned to urban streets. Typhus, carried by infected fleas and transmitted by rats and other animals, plagues Los Angeles. Hepatitis A, spread through fecal matter, has sickenedmore than 1,000 people in Southern California since 2017. A “trash and rodent nightmare” threatens downtown Los Angeles. There’s “a mountain of rotting, oozing, stinking trash” that stretches “a good 20 yards along a skid row alley,” where “rats popped their heads out of the debris like they were in a game of Whac-A-Mole.”
The garbage and disease outbreaks are closely linked. In late May, the local NBC affiliate reported that “piles of rotting garbage left uncollected by the city of Los Angeles, even after promises to clean it up, are fueling concerns about a new epidemic after last year’s record number of flea-borne typhus cases.” These garbage piles, along with human feces in San Francisco streets requiring apps for avoidance, contrast with California’s progressive past. Progressives once cared about clean streets and public health. Today, they value political correctness, protecting the interests of the homeless over pedestrians. Their policies have produced appalling conditions in urban neighborhoods.
 “This approach calls itself progressive but is the polar opposite of what progressives supported, which was sanitation and public health,” said Joel Kotkin, a City Journal contributing editor and a Chapman University fellow. “Sewer socialism, if you will, was a noble attempt to clean up what were often dirty dystopias. The new progressives want to create a new green dystopia, turning the modern city back into a place more like Dharavi in Mumbai than La Guardia’s New York.”
Henry Miller, a senior fellow for health studies at the Pacific Research Institute, believes that California is virtually unable to provide basic municipal services. The state “has become a victim of its own attractiveness, combined with political mismanagement” and “one-party rule.” Miller agrees with the downtown merchant who told a Los Angeles Times columnist that “once a pile takes shape, the appearance of lawlessness and neglect is a magnet for other dumpers.” The same, he noted, is “true of homeless encampments, panhandlers, the expansion of skid row neighborhoods, the increase in vandalism and other minor crimes, and so on.”
Under progressive governance, California appears to be regressing at an alarming pace. While the state can’t do much about some disasters, aside from cleaning up afterward, it can stop its self-inflicted march into the past.

Kerry Jackson is a fellow with the Center for California Reform at the Pacific Research Institute. 

Los Angeles Homelessness Surges 12 Percent: 59,000 Now on the Streets…. OF COURSE ,THEY REALLY HAVE NO IDEA HOW MANY HOMLESS OR ILLEGALS LIVE IN LOS ANGELES!

  4 Jun 20191,633

The number of homeless people in Los Angeles County jumped 12 percent over the last year to nearly 59,000 living on the streets, according to a report released Tuesday.

The newly released data revealed that nearly three-fourths of the homeless population, which includes 58,936 people, are sleeping in cars, tents, and other make-do shelters.
Released by the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority to the Board of Supervisors, the data found that the majority of homeless people were residing in the city of Los Angeles, which saw an increase of 16 percent to 36,300.
Officials claim the data show economic stress placed on the thousands that are on the streets and said that they have worked to provide permanent housing for some 21,631 people over the year.
The report revealed more than 3,800 of the total homeless population are veterans, 2,866 of which are unsheltered and “not in family units.”
The total of unaccompanied minors who are “not included in family units” and are homeless totaled 66, with 45 of those without shelter.
In a tweet issued to his account last week, Democrat California Gov. Gavin Newsom boasted that “California’s what happens when rights are respected.”

California’s what happens when rights are respected. When work is rewarded. When nature’s protected. When diversity is celebrated and free markets are fair markets.

We are nothing less than the progressive answer to a transgressive President. #CADEM19

“California’s what happens when rights are respected,” Newsom stated. “When work is rewarded. When nature’s protected. When diversity is celebrated and free markets are fair markets.”
He added, “We are nothing less than the progressive answer to a transgressive President.”
Follow Kyle on Twitter @RealKyleMorris and Facebook.




A dashcam video of downtown Los Angeles on Christmas day reveals a stunning sight: hundreds of tents and lean-tos on the sidewalks that serve as shelter for the homeless. The scene is reminiscent of a third-world country. RICK MORAN / AMERICANTHINKER com





Approximates the great depression

HOMELESS AMERICA’S HOUSING CRISIS as 40 million illegals have climbed U.S. open borders.


EVERY AMERICAN (Legal) only one paycheck and one hundred illegals away from living in their cars. 

Nolte: Punk Legend Johnny Rotten Sounds Alarm over L.A. Homeless Epidemic

Michael Loccisano/Getty Images for Tribeca Film Festival
 29 Apr 2019422

Sex Pistols frontman Johnny Rotten isn’t afraid to buck the establishment and sound the alarm over L.A.’s homeless epidemic, which has literally landed at his front door.

The 63-year-old lives in Venice Beach where there has been a surge of homeless vagrants that have vandalized his multi-million dollar home and spoiled the beaches with “poo” and “needles.”
“A couple of weeks ago I had a problem,” he said. “They came over the gate and put their tent inside, right in front of the front door. It’s like . . . the audacity. And if you complain, what are you? Oh, one of the establishment elite? No, I’m a bloke that’s worked hard for his money and I expect to be able to use my own front door.”
He added that his wife Nora, who suffers from Alzheimer’s, isn’t able to cope with bums trying to “steal the iron bars off the windows” for the scrap metal and bricks coming through his windows.
“My wife’s ill and she can’t cope with this. But at 2 a.m. last week, a brick whizzed through the top floor window, the bedroom. Sorry, Mr. Policeman. I need your help.”
“The vagrants moved in en masse . . . [in] tent cities. They’re all young; they’re all like 24,” he said, adding that, “They’re aggressive, and because there’s an awful lot of them together they’re gang-y.”
They have also spoiled beach life: “And the heroin spikes . . . You can’t take anyone to the beach because there’s jabs just waiting for young kids to put their feet in — and poo all over the sand.”
This might sound like hypocrisy coming from a punk rocker, but it’s really not. The whole ethos of ’70s and ’80s punk rock is live and let live. No rules … at least until you interfere with me living the life I want to live, which is exactly what is happening to Rotten.
If you want to know what an actual punk rock sellout looks like, I give you Henry Rollins, the Vandals legend who endorsed … Obamacare.
In fact, Rotten (whose real name is John Lydon) is bucking an establishment that treats these vagrants as sacred cows while at the same time pretending they do not exist because their rising numbers reflect badly on the Democrat-run strongholds that cannot manage the growing problem.
The media and the left-wing political establishment want us to see the homeless as victims of a cruel American capitalism that allows good people to fall through society’s cracks. Naturally, the only solution to this problem is big government socialism.
But the truth is that American capitalism licked poverty decades ago. The so-called “poor” in this country now have cable TV, central heat, air conditioning, videogames, microwave ovens, iPhones, and struggle with over eating. The homeless are an altogether different problem.
Certainly, good people slip through the cracks temporarily. No question. But there are all kinds of avenues to help those who are sincere about getting back on their feet. The homeless epidemic is actually an epidemic of mental illness, addiction, and tolerance.
City’s that tolerate poopy beaches and sidewalks, hypodermic needles, and aggressive panhandling only end up attracting even bigger problems and making the lives of their normal citizens miserable.
Johnny Rotten complaining about one of the most sacred of sacred cows is as punk as it gets, and so is his support of Trump and Brexit.
 Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNCFollow his Facebook Page here.

Another line they cut into: Illegals get free public housing as impoverished Americans wait

Want some perspective on why so many blue sanctuary cities have so many homeless encampments hovering around?
Try the reality that illegal immigrants are routinely given free public housing by the U.S., based on the fact that they are uneducated, unskilled, and largely unemployable. Those are the criteria, and now importing poverty has never been easier. Shockingly, this comes as millions of poor Americans are out in the cold awaiting that housing that the original law was intended to help.
Thus, the tent cities, and by coincidence, the worst of these emerging shantytowns are in blue sanctuary cities loaded with illegal immigrants - Orange County, San Francisco, San Diego, Seattle, New York...Is there a connection? At a minimum, it's worth looking at.
The Trump administration's Department of Housing and Urban Development is finally trying to put a stop to it as 1.5 million illegals prepare to enter the U.S. this year, and one can only wonder why they didn't do it yesterday.
According to a report in the Washington Times:
The plan would scrap Clinton-era regulations that allowed illegal immigrants to sign up for assistance without having to disclose their status.
Under the new Trump rules, not only would the leaseholder using public housing have to be an eligible U.S. person, but the government would verify all applicants through the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database, a federal system that’s used to weed illegal immigrants out of other welfare programs.
Those already getting HUD assistance would have to go through a new verification, though it would be over a period of time and wouldn’t all come at once.
“We’ve got our own people to house and need to take care of our citizens,” an administration official told The Washington Times. “Because of past loopholes in HUD guidance, illegal aliens were able to live in free public housing desperately needed by so many of our own citizens. As illegal aliens attempt to swarm our borders, we’re sending the message that you can’t live off of American welfare on the taxpayers’ dime.”
The Times notes that the rules are confusingly contradictary, and some illegal immigrant families are getting full rides based on just one member being born in the U.S. The pregnant caravaner who calculatingly slipped across the U.S. in San Diego late last year, only to have her baby the next day, now, along with her entire family, gets that free ride on government housing. Plus lots of cheesy news coverage about how heartwarming it all is. That's a lot cheaper than any housing she's going to find back in Tegucigalpa.
Migrants would be almost fools not to take the offering.
The problem of course is that Americans who paid into these programs, and the subset who find themselves in dire circumstances, are in fact being shut out.
The fill-the-pews Catholic archbishops may love to tout the virtues of illegal immigrants and wave signs about getting 'justice" for them, but the hard fact here is that these foreign nationals are stealing from others as they take this housing benefit under legal technicalities. That's not a good thing under anyone's theological law. But hypocrisy is comfortable ground for the entire open borders lobby as they shamelessly celebrate lawbreaking at the border, leaving the impoverished of the U.S. out cold.
The Trump administration is trying to have this outrage fixed by summer. But don't imagine it won't be without the open-borders lawsuits, the media sob stories, the leftist judges, and the scolding clerics.


The Trump Administration Is Cracking Down On Illegal Aliens' Housing

Source: AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) plans to crack down on illegal aliens who are taking advantage of public house assistance programs, The Daily Caller reported. As it currently stands, illegal aliens are now allowed to receive financial housing assistance. They often skirt this rule by living with family members who are U.S. citizens and receive their assistance from HUD.
The new rule would prevent illegal aliens from living in homes that receive HUD funding, even if they're not the ones actually receiving the assistance. Those who are caught with illegal aliens living in their homes will have to comply with the new rule or move to a different non-HUD location.
To determine whether or not a household is complying with the program, families will be screened through the "SAVE" program, which stands for Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements.
HUD estimates that there are tens of thousands of illegal aliens who are skirting the requirement process by living in these "mixed families." As of now, millions of Americans are on the HUD waitlist because there isn't enough money to assist everyone. 
“This proposal gets to the whole point Cher was making in her tweet that the President retweeted. We’ve got our own people to house and we need to take care of our citizens,” a HUD official told The Daily Caller. “Because of past loopholes in HUD guidance, illegal aliens were able to live in free public housing desperately needed by so many of our own citizens. As illegal aliens attempt to swarm our borders, we’re sending the message that you can’t live off of American welfare on the taxpayers’ dime.”

Sanctuary Cities Welcome Illegal Aliens with ‘Open Arms’ While 38K American Veterans Remain Homeless


Sanctuary cities across the United States are responding to President Donald Trump’s threat to bus border crossers and illegal aliens to their jurisdictions, saying they plan to welcome all illegal immigration with “open arms” despite soaring homelessness problems.

Last week, Trump threatened to bus border crossers and illegal aliens into sanctuary cities and states, like California and New York City, if the country’s asylum laws were not changed. White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders on Sunday confirmed that the White House is considering the plan.
“The USA has the absolute legal right to have apprehended illegal immigrants transferred to Sanctuary Cities,” Trump posted on Twitter over the weekend. “We hereby demand that they be taken care of at the highest level, especially by the State of California, which is well known or it’s poor management & high taxes!”

Just out: The USA has the absolute legal right to have apprehended illegal immigrants transferred to Sanctuary Cities. We hereby demand that they be taken care of at the highest level, especially by the State of California, which is well known or its poor management & high taxes!

Sanctuary city mayors like Oakland, California, Mayor Libby Schaaf have responded to Trump’s threat by saying they plan to welcome any and all illegal aliens to their cities — even those cities that are struggling with rising homelessness. Currently, there are nearly 38,000 homeless American veterans across the country.
“Oakland welcomes all, no matter where you came from or how you got here,” Schaaf wrote on Twitter.
As of 2017, there were more than 2,700 Oakland residents who were homeless — an increase of 25 percent when compared to two years before. In all of Alameda County, there are about 5,630 homeless residents. In all of California, there are nearly 130,000 homeless residents, including nearly 11,000 homeless American Veterans.
Sanctuary city New York City’s Mayor Bill de Blasio originally blasted Trump for the plan, claiming the president was using illegal aliens as “chess pieces,” but he then advocated for giving illegal aliens driver’s licenses in order to attract more illegal aliens to the state.
“Undocumented immigrants are our neighbors and part of the backbone of our economy,” de Blasio wrote online. “It’s mind-boggling that they aren’t allowed to have driver’s licenses in New York State.”
New York City homelessness has reached the highest levels since the 1930s when the country struggled through the Great Depression. Today, there are nearly 64,000 homeless residents in New York City, including more than 15,000 homeless families with almost 23,000 homeless children. This is the largest metro area homeless population in the country. There are more than 1,200 homeless American veterans living in New York state.
In interviews with the Daily Beast, sanctuary city mayors from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Chicago, Illinois; and Cambridge, Massachusetts, said their jurisdictions would be happy to welcome all illegal aliens.
Philadelphia, Chicago, and Cambridge have a combined homeless population of at least 12,000 residents. In the state of Massachusetts, alone, there are now more than 20,000homeless residents, including almost 1,000 homeless American veterans.
“The city would be prepared to welcome these immigrants just as we have embraced our immigrant communities for decades,” Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney said.
“As a welcoming city, we would welcome these migrants with open arms, just as we welcomed Syrian refugees, just as we welcomed Puerto Ricans displaced by Hurricane Maria and just as we welcome Rohingya refugees fleeing genocide in Myanmar,” Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel said.
Burlington, Vermont, Mayor Miro Weinberger said in a statement that illegal aliens were vital to making his city “more prosperous” and “more diverse.”
“We know from decades of experience that newcomers to Burlington will make us more prosperous, more diverse and stronger, just as generations of past immigrants have driven our past growth and success,” Weinberger said.
In total, there are more than 550,000 American residents who are homeless nationwide. Meanwhile, the U.S. admits more than 1.5 million illegal and legal immigrants every year — the overwhelming majority of which are low skilled workers who compete for jobs against America’s poor, working, and middle class. The Washington, DC-imposed mass immigration policy drives housing costs up for Americans, economists have found.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.

Cher: Los Angeles ‘Can’t Take 

Care of Its Own, How Can It 

Take Care of’ More Immigrants

Pop icon Cher said Sunday that Los Angeles, California, “can’t take care of its own” residents, much less newly arrived illegal and legal immigrants.

Cher said she failed to understand how the city of Los Angeles in the sanctuary state of California could afford to admit and take care of any more immigrants when city officials have failed to care for homeless, veterans, and poverty-stricken Americans.

“I Understand Helping struggling Immigrants,but MY CITY (Los Angeles) ISNT TAKING CARE OF ITS OWN.WHAT ABOUT THE 50,000+Citizens WHO LIVE ON THE STREETS.PPL WHO LIVE BELOW POVERTY LINE,& HUNGRY? If My State Can’t Take Care of Its Own(Many Are VETS)How Can it Take Care Of More,” Cher said.

I Understand Helping struggling Immigrants,but MY CITY (Los Angeles) ISNT TAKING CARE OF ITS OWN.WHAT ABOUT THE 50,000+ Citizens WHO LIVE ON THE STREETS.PPL WHO LIVE BELOW POVERTY LINE,& HUNGRY? If My State Can’t Take Care of Its Own(Many Are VETS)How Can it Take Care Of More

The post came after President Trump threatened to bus border crossers and illegal aliens into sanctuary cities and states, like California, if the country’s asylum laws were not changed. White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders confirmed that the White House is considering the plan.
In response, Democrat mayors across the country — like New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and Oakland, California Mayor Libby Schaaf — have welcomed bringing illegal aliens and border crossers to their cities.
While left-wing mayors say they will continue to admit any and all illegal and legal immigrants, Los Angeles is home to the second largest homeless population in the country, second to only New York City. About 50,000 residents of Los Angeles are homeless and about 7.5 percent of California’s American Veteran population is homeless.
As the city remains crippled by homelessness and skyrocketing housing costs, Los Angeles metro area is also home to the second largest illegal alien population — with nearly a million illegal aliens living in the region, according to Pew Research Center.
Last year, economists at Deakin University found that immigration — both illegal and legal — drives up housing prices on average, with the researchers writing “we find no evidence that house prices sink as a result of immigration.”

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder


"La Voz de Aztlan has produced a video in honor of the millions of babies that have been born as US citizens to Mexican undocumented parents. These babies are destined to transform America. The nativist CNN reporter Lou Dobbs estimates that there are over 200,000 (dated) "Anchor Babies" born every year whereas George Putnam, a radio reporter, says the figure is closer to 300,000 (dated). La Voz de Aztlan believes that the number is approximately 500,000 (dated) "Anchor Babies" born every year."



“Currently, the U.S. admits more than 1.5 million legal and illegal immigrants every year, with more than 70 percent coming to the country through the process known as “chain migration” whereby newly naturalized citizens can bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the U.S. In the next 20 years, the current U.S. legal immigration system is on track to import roughly 15 million new



LA City Council May Operate Tent Encampments for 34,000 Homeless… THEY DON’T ASK ILLEGALS TO LIVE IN TENTS!!!

Jae C. Hong / Associated Press
by CHRISS W. STREET25 Mar 2018Newport Beach, CA99

The Los Angeles City Council voted last week to develop an “emergency” plan that could operate trailer and tent encampments to house 34,000-homeless — similar to the plan developed by Orange County.

The Los Angeles City Council on March 23 declared a homeless crisis by requesting the Los Angeles County Homeless Services Authority implement an Emergency Response to Homelessness Plan that would provide an alternative to encampments for 100 percent of the Los Angeles homeless population by December 31, 2018.
The Los Angeles Housing Authority recently reported that of the 34,189 homeless identified in the 2017 federally mandated count, 25,237 or 76 percent, were unsheltered and living on sidewalks, cars, tents, or mobile homes.
The report was released 16 months after homeless advocates convinced city voters they could permanently solve homeless by passing Measure HHH ballot initiative, which raised property taxes by $9.64 per $100,000 of assessed valuation to fund a $1.2 billion bond.
Los Angeles County then convinced voters in March 2017 to pass Measure H to provide $350 million per year worth of homeless mental health and addiction services through a ¼ percent increased sales tax up to 10 percent in a number of L.A. County cities.
Both measures only achieved the 2/3 majority required to pass because of a miraculous surge from absentee voters in central and south LA districts that supported higher taxes.
LA City Council members also recently voted to build 222 units of permanent supportive homeless housing in each of the 15 LA City Council districts by 2020. The first 122 of the 3,330 approved homeless units broke ground in East Hollywood in November.
But the federal 2017 City of Los Angeles homeless count found the population had spiked by 5,698, or about 20 percent, since 2016. That means despite raising $1.2 billion in taxes, the net number of homeless after the new construction has already increased by 2,368.
Last month, the city council voted unanimously to start housing 60 homeless people in trailers on a city-owned downtown lot. But despite the city paying $2 million for trailers equipped with bathrooms and showers, and funding allocating another $1 million a year to operate the downtown trailer park, CBS News reported that local restaurant owners say transients already hurt their business, and the trailers will make the situation worse.
The City of Los Angeles told voters it could solve the homeless problem with the HHH tax increase and $1.2 billion. But it cost Orange County $780,000 per month temporarily to house 700 homeless evicted from the Santa Ana River in 400 motel rooms. Given the enormous scale of L.A.’s homeless problem, that would cost the city about $49.2 million a month.
Orange County Supervisors voted on March 19 to set up tent cities on county parcels next to public parks in Irvine, Huntington, and Laguna Niguel. All 3 cities are threatening to file lawsuits to prevent the Orange County from dumping its problem on local communities.
None of the 15 Los Angeles Districts wants the risk exposure to infectious diseases that come with a homeless encampment. Breitbart News reported that a hepatitis A outbreak began among San Diego’s homeless population and has spread statewide. The latest California Public Health report found 703 new cases, 460 hospitalizations, and 21 deaths.


Rising Homelessness Among Working Californians… a state that employs millions using stolen social security numbers and hands out tens of BILLIONS in social services and welfare!


In California, the rising number of homeless people are not who you may think they are. The Los Angeles Times editorial board recently drove home that point by personalizing what it means to be homeless in the United States' second-most populous city in 2018.

Many people think of homelessness as a problem of substance abusers and mentally ill people, of chronic skid row street-dwellers pushing shopping carts. But increasingly, the crisis in Los Angeles today is about a less visible (but more numerous) group of “economically homeless” people. These are people who have been driven onto the streets or into shelters by hard times, bad luck and California’s irresponsible failure to address its own housing needs.
Consider Nadia, whose story has become typical. When she decided she had to end her abusive marriage, she knew it would be hard to find an affordable place to live with her three young children. With her husband, she had paid $2,000 a month for a three-bedroom condo in the San Fernando Valley, but prices were rising rapidly, and now two-bedroom apartments in the area were going for $2,400 — an impossible rent for a single parent who worked part time at Magic Mountain.
Nadia and her children are among the economically homeless — men, women and, often enough, families, who find themselves without a place to live because of some kind of setback or immediate crisis: a divorce, a short-term illness, a loss of a job, an eviction. In many cities across the nation, these are not necessarily problems that would plunge a person into homelessness. But here they can. Why? Because of the shockingly high cost of housing in Los Angeles.
Perhaps the most important thing that anyone should take away from Times' editors' take on Nadia's situation is that she is functional adult who is more than capable of improving her lot. Later in the editorial, the LA Times' editors disclose that she was able to get her family into a homeless shelter and that she has been able to secure a full time job doing data entry at an insurance company, where only a few of her co-workers know of her homeless status.
Nadia is far from alone in Los Angeles.

Meanwhile, north of Los Angeles, Santa Barbara is one of the wealthiest cities in California. There, the New Beginnings counseling center has made arrangements to allow up to 150 Californians who are either living in their cars or in recreational vehiclesto be able to park them overnight in the otherwise empty parking lots of local churches and government offices.
The clients can park after 7 p.m., but have to clear out as early as 6 a.m. The benefit is that the vehicles are no longer parked on city streets, which riles some residents and merchants. And because the lots are monitored by New Beginnings, the clients, who all go through a screening process, can at least feel safe while they sleep.
Santiago Geronimo works in the kitchen of a high-end Santa Barbara restaurant and until recently, he, his girlfriend and her son Luis lived in a two-bedroom apartment shared by four adults and three kids. But the girlfriend, Luisa Ramirez, lost her retail clerk job because of a back injury, and they've lived in a Ford Explorer since September. Their new home is a church parking lot on the Goleta border.
There is a common element among many of California's employed homeless, in that many were living in apartments or houses until one of their household's members experienced a job loss. Beyond that, many were employed with relatively good incomes until they lost their jobs, where they soon found that their available employment options were limited to low-paying jobs that weren't enough to pay their rents or mortgages.
Then the evictions came, and they became homeless. All across the state.

Steve Lopez, a LA Times columnist, asked a good question about why California's working population doesn't move to where housing is cheaper:
You might ask why people of lesser means don't head to less expensive areas than Santa Barbara — it's a fair question, and I've written about people who eventually did make such a move. In Santa Barbara, the answers I got were the same ones I've heard elsewhere in coastal California. People hold open the option of leaving, but many are connected to specific places by history, family and employment connections, and they're not quite ready to give up on a turnaround, move to a place they don't know, and start over from scratch.
Besides that, local economies rely on those of lesser means, so where are they supposed to live?
"You know," said Phil, "there's a huge Hispanic population that does all the damn work around here. Every restaurant you go into, you can watch them slaving away. And they're taking care of people's gardens and everything else, and they wind up with eight or 10 people living in a one-bedroom place."
Until that doesn't work, as Santiago Geronimo found out.
The truth is that many Californians have tried to move to greener pastures, as many have from California's economically-distressed Central Valley, where that region's oil industry has yet to recover from the decline of oil prices from July 2014 through February 2016. According to Moody's, for every job lost in the oil and gas industry, an additional 3.43 jobs may be lost in other sectors, creating a negative deficit that other, more strongly growing sectors of the economy must be in overdrive to overcome, just to get to the point where any positive economic growth may be recorded. California's Central Valley lost thousands of oil and gas industry jobs during the downturn, where some of the impact of those losses are also being felt in other communities throughout the state's interior.
In Bakersfield, in Kern County, where many of the state's oil and gas industry jobs are centered, the city's homeless shelters were forced to turn away Californians seeking shelter earlier this year because they ran out of space to accommodate them during a short cold snap, when having to sleep outdoors became too intolerable.
Some of the economically displaced from California's Central Valley have migrated to where jobs are available in the state's thriving metropolises, such as San Francisco and Los Angeles, where they've run into the same situation of excessively high rents. Consequently, they've joined the ranks of the employed homeless.
Others are fleeing the state altogether, paradoxically seeking to escape the "prosperity" of the state's coastal cities, with the housing shortage-driven soaring rents and declining quality of life in those cities becoming a primary motivation for their flight.
All these things together would appear to have set California on a very different course than the rest of the United States. At the very least, where the trends for homelessness are concerned.
For his part, the state's governor, Jerry Brown, refused to declare the state's homelessness crisis to be an emergency in 2016, which denied the state's counties and cities any additional resources to combat homelessness. The state's data for homeless in 2017 shows the results of that decision, where at the national level, if not for California, the trend for homelessness in the U.S. would have improved.

Census Bureau: Immigration Driving Half of U.S. Population Growth


Immigration to the United States is now driving nearly half of all population growth in the country instead of increased birth rates, the U.S. Census Bureau finds.

The latest Census Bureau estimates on the U.S. population reveal that about 48.5 percent of all population growth is driven by the country’s mass illegal and legal immigration policy, where more than 1.5 million foreign nationals are admitted to the country every year.
Axios analysis by Stef Knight details the growing share to which immigration is increasingly driving population growth across the U.S. Since 2011, for example, the level to which immigration has accounted for overall population growth has increased more than 13 percent.
According to the Wall Street Journal analysis, about nine percent of U.S. counties are growing solely because of immigration. This concludes that about nine percent of counties have regional birth rates that do not exceed the annual number of deaths in the area.
Similarly, the Wall Street Journal notes, more than half of all population growth in states like Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Kansas, and Michigan, among others, is because of immigration.
Though pundits have claimed that the country’s admittance of 1.2 million legal immigrants a year is necessary to increase birth rates, researchers have found that the growth of the immigrant population has little impact on birth rates.
Center for Immigration Studies Director of Research Steven Camarota discovered in his latest study this year that “immigrant fertility has only a small impact on the nation’s overall birth rate,” citing that immigrants in the U.S. raise the nation’s birth rate for all women by two births per 1,000 women.
“Immigration has a minor impact because the difference between immigrant and native fertility is too small to significantly change the nation’s overall birth rate,” Camarota noted in the study.
At current legal immigration levels, the U.S. population is set to hit an unprecedented 404 million residents by 2060 — including a foreign-born population of 69 million.
The U.S. does not have to rapidly increase its total resident population and foreign-born population, as legal immigration moratoriums have been implemented in the past to give time for new arrivals to properly assimilate to American life. Halting all immigration to the country would stabilize the population to a comfortable 329 million residents in the next four decades.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder

California Wants to Secede? Let's Help Them!

California is a part of America. But it’s no longer American. It is a foreign state. It is a fugitive state. The U.S. Constitution and the rule of law no longer apply in California. Call it, “The People’s Socialist Republic of California.” It’s a state without a country. But it’s certainly no longer American in any way. 

Liberals in California want to secede. They are trying to put it on the ballot. They call it “Calexit.” I say, “Glory Hallelujah."  Let’s help make it happen. I propose 63 million Trump voters join the team. Let's work 24/7 to turn their dream into a reality!

Millions of illegal aliens live in California; drive in California with official state-issued drivers’ licenses; and of course, use those licenses to vote in California. Millions. That’s precisely how Hillary won California by over 4 million votes.
California supports illegal aliens over legal, law-abiding American citizens. They support illegals getting free college tuition, while children of native-born Americans pay full fare. They support illegals over police and ICE. Many liberals in California want to abolish ICE. They want no borders and no immigration law. 
The Attorney General of California has warned any business owner who cooperates with ICE will face prosecution by the state of CaliforniaYou heard correctly. California will put the business owner in prison, for cooperating with federal law, to protect the criminal breaking the law.
The Mayor of Oakland famously played Paul Revere to warn illegal felons “ICE is coming. ICE is coming.” The Feds report over 800 felons evaded arrest because of that stunt. How many legal, law-abiding, native-born Americans will be robbed, raped, or murdered in the coming weeks because of that act of sedition?
A California judge just sided with the ACLU and barred LA County from enforcing gang restrictions that dramatically lowered crime. California has once again sided with hoodlums and gang-bangers over the law-abiding taxpayers. 
In Oakland, a coffee shop prohibits employees from serving police, in order to create a “safe space” for their customers. Californians hate and distrust police more than illegal felons and thugs who speak no English and wear gang tattoos. Really.
All of this is sheer madness. But California has taken it to a whole new level. 
Just this week the California Senate appointed the first-ever illegal alien to an official statewide post. Lizbeth Mateo, a 33-year old illegal alien-turned-attorney, will serve on the official state committee that doles out money to illegals attending college. In California, illegals now decide how taxpayer money is spent.
President Trump loves to brand (see "Crooked Hillary"). Let’s brand California. It’s not a “Sanctuary State.” It’s a “Fugitive State.” It’s a place that chooses to let felons and fugitives run free. It’s a place where the rights of criminals are far more important than protecting legal, law-abiding American citizens who pay taxes. We are the second class citizens in California. 
Here’s the way to fix the problem. Liberal Californians want to secede. I'm joining the movement. How about you? 
Conservatives should beg California to secede. We should make it easy for them. We should help pay for it. Pass the hat. Every conservative should chip in $20. I’ll throw $1000 to get the ball rolling.
Just think of elections. Without California, Trump and all future Republican presidential candidates would win, without breaking a sweat. Without California, we’d easily win the popular vote. And we'd win the electoral vote by a landslide.
Next think of Congress. California has 53 House seats. Democrats lead 39-14, for a net gain of 25 seats. Send California packing and the GOP gains a 25 House seat lead. We would dominate the House for decades to come. 
And of course, the GOP would gain an automatic two seats in the Senate through the subtraction of California. As it stands now, those two U.S. Senate seats are deep blue Democrat forever. But if California secedes a 51-49 GOP lead instantly moves to 51-47. 
If 63 million Trump voters just gave an average of $20 each to the "Calexit movement" that’s over $1.2 billion dollars. That’s enough money to help California secede, with enough left over as a down payment on building a wall…

with California.

Democrats enforce crackdown on vehicular homelessness in Los Angeles

On July 30 the Los Angeles City Council restored regulations that had expired at the beginning of the month preventing people from sleeping at night in vehicles on residential streets or living in vehicles within a block of parks, schools, preschools or daycares.
At last count, over 9,500 people live in vehicles throughout the city, and a total of 16,528 in all of Los Angeles County. In Los Angeles, a program of safe parking sites in private lots has room for less than 200 vehicles. Violators of the ordinance are ticketed $25 for the first offence, $50 for the second and $75 for each offense after that.
According to press reports, as the Democratic
 Party-controlled City Council voted 13-0 in 
favor of the measure, those present began 
chanting “Shame on You!”
Opponents of the prohibition point out that there are few options for the homeless. Similar prohibitions apply in the cities that surround Los Angeles. Last month the City of Long Beach announced a plan to give 30-day parking permits in selected areas to families living in their cars, which the city estimates at 85, out of Long Beach’s estimated homeless population of 1,900 persons.
In signing the measure, which is to last until September, Los Angeles’ Democratic mayor Eric Garcetti justified his approval of the measure on the grounds of balancing the needs of the homeless with community complaints of lack of parking and bad sanitation, a time-worn practice of dividing workers and pitting the homeless against their surrounding neighbors. Garcetti cynically promised to provide another 200 “safe-parking spots” this year.
The “safe-parking” initiative, along with many other measures, including giving bus tickets to the homeless to leave town—known cynically as “Greyhound therapy,” a tactic being aggressively pursued by San Francisco and San Diego—and the housing of 21,631 persons last year, have not kept up with the explosion of homelessness in Los Angeles County.
The latest count by the LA Homeless Services Authority reported 58,936 homeless individuals in Los Angeles County, a 12 percent increase from 2018. In the city proper the count is 36,165, 16 percent higher than in 2018. Of those, 27,221 are “unsheltered” (44,214 in the county), a category that includes those forced to live in their vehicles.
In fact, with the exception of a negligible drop in homeless military veterans (from 3,886 to 3,878), the increase impacts every category. Chronically homeless people increased 17 percent since 2018; youth homelessness exploded by 24 percent; senior homelessness jumped 8 percent.
While shelter capacity and homes for the homeless have been built, the growth in the homeless population is being fed by an increase in the number of evictions across the state, a product of the ever-rising cost of rents that far exceeds increases in real wages for most Angelinos.
In Los Angeles, one-third of households spend more than half of their income on housing costs; 721,000 of them are even more “severely rent-burdened.” According to the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, a person with an hourly wage of $13.25 in Los Angeles would have to work 79 hours a week to afford a modest one-bedroom apartment. Los Angeles needs more than half a million “housing units” to meet the needs of low-income renters.
For apartment units built before October 1978, there is a limited rent-control law which caps yearly rent increases to between 3 and 8 percent. A family that has continuously occupied such an apartment since 1985 would now be paying four times as much as when they moved in.
Under the terms of this labyrinthine law, landlords can raise rents above the rent-controlled percentage for a number of reasons, such as another tenant joining the household. Once tenants move out or are evicted the rent increases to whatever the market will bear, a clause that serves as an incentive for landlords to rid themselves of tenants that face financial uncertainties.
Rent control ended for apartments built after October 1978 on the pretext that rent control lowers the supply of affordable housing in the long-run.
While over 5,000 units have been built in the last year to house the homeless, another 100,000 are planned over the next decade.
Yet, Los Angeles City Councilman Mike Bonin estimates that 110,000 units in Los Angeles currently sit empty; Bonin is proposing a “vacancy tax” such as the one recently passed in the city of Oakland, California. The actual number may even be higher. Housing investigators Walter Dominguez and Brad Kane of the Pico Neighborhood Council found that in many high-rise buildings in trendy West Los Angeles, where monthly rents start at around $3,000 for a studio apartment, 40 to 50 percent of the units are unoccupied.
It is more and more the case that investment firms, such as the Blackstone Group in Sacramento, where renters were recently hit with a 50 percent rent hike, or Taylor Equities in Los Angeles, are buying up apartments and homes in bulk across the state, creating monopolies that manipulate rents at will by controlling the supply of homes.
According to housing advocates, the state as a whole has a 300,000 surplus of above moderate-income rental housing. Investment is also flowing to the building of luxury housing instead of less profitable affordable units.
In the current electoral season, it has become fashionable for politicians, Democrats and Republicans, to call for the break-up of monopolies; this is done with a wink and a nod. No doubt, any palliative measure on homelessness will avoid constraining monopoly profits.
The homeless crisis is a sure indication that the breakup of those  monopolies and the  solution of the homeless crisis in Los  Angeles and in California requires the breaking up of the housing monopolies, the  takeover of vacant apartments and homes and their distribution according to need, at affordable prices. Such a mobilization will not 
be carried out by the Democratic Party, which represents Wall Street and the big banks; it requires the mass mobilization of workers, independently of capitalist politicians, and the socialist transformation of society, to place 
human needs ahead of corporate profits.
"Instead of saying, 'Where can people sleep?' they continue to pass things telling us where we can't sleep," Busch said. "We can issue hundreds more tickets, tie up more courtrooms, more jails, more police time with homeless people … and the city can pay out millions more in civil rights lawsuits, or we can do what we need to do."


L.A. could ban homeless people from sleeping near schools, parks and other facilities

Los Angeles has long been locked in battles over where and how people can bed down on its streets and sidewalks — a debate that has played out for decades in City Hall, in the courts and on avenues lined with squalid tents and bedrolls.
The city has been brushed back in court by homeless advocates, who argue that it is cruel and useless to punish people if they have nowhere else to sleep. Last year, those advocates hailed a federal ruling against a Boise, Idaho, law that prohibited sleeping on the street, saying the ruling cemented their earlier victories in Los Angeles and set a crucial precedent across the western United States.
Now L.A. politicians are weighing a new set of rules that could bar people from sitting or sleeping on streets and sidewalks near schools, parks and day care centers, and in a range of other prohibited areas — an idea that has drawn fire from homeless advocates.
With tens of thousands of people bedding down on the streets — far more than the city can house in new homeless housing or shelters built to date — "You can't do this and expect that you'll have something that's enforceable," said attorney Carol Sobel.
The newly proposed restrictions, put forward by Councilman Mitch O'Farrell, would replace a blanket ban on sidewalk sleeping that has been on the books for decades, but which L.A. had agreed to pull back on enforcing at night after being sued by skid row residents.
Sobel, one of the attorneys who represented homeless people in the Jones vs. City of Los Angeles case, called the proposed rules "completely unworkable" and argued that it was ridiculous for city officials to frame their newly proposed restrictions as an effort to comply with the Boise ruling.
The Boise ruling "does not require you to put in all these restrictions," Sobel said, arguing in a letter to council members that the proposed rules would make it almost impossible to sleep anywhere on skid row.
The disputed section of the Municipal Code — 41.18(d) — has been a rallying cry for neighborhood activists who argue that the Jones settlement has led to chaos and blight on city sidewalks. Mark Ryavec, president of the Venice Stakeholders Assn., said that the proposed rules failed to address the most important issue: homeless encampments in or abutting residential areas.
"What we're dealing with here in Venice — and what is so difficult for residents — is these encampments literally being in their frontyard," argued Ryavec, whose group has repeatedly sued the city over homelessness issues.
The proposed rules were unveiled at the council's homelessness committee meeting Wednesday at City Hall, where Senior Assistant City Atty. Valerie Flores said that prohibiting people from sleeping near schools, parks, newly established shelters and in other specified areas would be legally defensible, even after the federal decision that tossed out rules against sleeping on public property in Boise.
In that case, a federal court ruled that "as long as there is no option of sleeping indoors, the government cannot criminalize indigent, homeless people for sleeping outdoors, on public property."
But the court also opined that "even where shelter is unavailable, an ordinance prohibiting sitting, lying, or sleeping outside at particular times or in particular locations might well be constitutionally permissible."
Flores argued that L.A.'s existing laws on sidewalk sleeping "would benefit from modernization, clarification and a better balance between the competing needs of persons using the public right-of-way."
After meeting with Flores and other city staffers behind closed doors Wednesday, O'Farrell laid out the proposed rules: No sitting, lying down or sleeping within 500 feet of schools, parks or day care centers. No bedding down near homeless housing, shelters or other facilities to serve homeless people that have opened in recent years.
People would also be banned from bunking down on bicycle paths, in tunnels or on bridges designated as school routes, in public areas with signs barring trespassing or setting closing times for safety or maintenance purposes, and in crowded areas near big venues such as Staples Center.
And people sleeping on the streets would still have to stay away from entrances and driveways and leave enough room for wheelchair users to pass under the Americans With Disabilities Act.
O'Farrell said in a statement Thursday that "the reality is we have sensitive areas to consider and as city leaders we must strike the balance between the needs of those experiencing homelessness and keeping our public spaces safe and accessible."
John Lee, who was recently elected to represent the northwestern San Fernando Valley in a council race that focused heavily on homelessness, said he was still reviewing the proposed rules but called them "a good step" toward protecting public safety and ensuring sidewalks are accessible.
"As I said during the campaign, we need to be compassionate to homeless people," Lee said. "But we have to be compassionate to businesses and homeowners too."
The proposed rules still have to be vetted by the full City Council and drafted by city lawyers before coming back to council members for approval. At the Wednesday meeting, council and committee member David Ryu said he was hearing the proposal for the first time.
A spokesman for Mayor Eric Garcetti said Thursday that their office was reviewing the proposal. Progressive activists said they were galled by the idea.
Such rules would "create containment zones like skid row all over the city," putting homelessness out of sight without addressing the need, said Jed Parriott, a member of the Services Not Sweeps coalition. He and other activists had urged the city to repeal, rather than amend or replace, the existing ban on sidewalk sleeping.
David Busch, a longtime activist who is homeless in Venice, said the city was "looking at this problem backwards."
"Instead of saying, 'Where can people sleep?' they continue to pass things telling us where we can't sleep," Busch said. "We can issue hundreds more tickets, tie up more courtrooms, more jails, more police time with homeless people … and the city can pay out millions more in civil rights lawsuits, or we can do what we need to do."
Other Angelenos had argued against loosening the law on the books. In a letter to council members before Wednesday's meeting, Venice resident Travis Binen said that with tens of thousands of people living on the streets, "the city needs to be able to legally move them instead of leaving them on the sidewalk to die or harm others."
Ryavec, the Venice association president, said that it was premature to adjust the rules, arguing that the city should instead be working with Boise to reverse the "ridiculous decision" that was handed down by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Attorneys representing Boise filed a petition Thursday asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the federal ruling, arguing that the court decision would have "catastrophic" effects.
L.A. and other cities "are grappling with how to interpret and follow the decision," which "raises more questions than it answers," said Theane Evangelis, lead counsel for Boise.
Evangelis argued that the Boise ruling ties the hands of cities to deal with the harmful effects of encampments, including fires and disease. "It's laudable that L.A. is trying to limit these encampments — but what the 9th Circuit decision is going to mean, in practice, is very much an open question," Evangelis said.
Gary Blasi, professor emeritus of law at UCLA, said that whether L.A.'s proposed rules could survive a court challenge would depend on how they were implemented, including whether homeless people have a practical way to know where they can legally sleep and whether the proposed rules leave enough room on city sidewalks for them to do so.
"Could anyone reasonably be expected to know if a particular spot is more than 500 feet from something?" Blasi asked.
The debate marks the latest turn in L.A.'s long and impassioned battle over where homeless people can lay their heads. More than half a century ago, L.A. enacted a law declaring that "no person shall sit, lie or sleep in or upon any street, sidewalk or other public way."
After homeless residents sued in the Jones case, L.A. reached a settlement agreeing that until it had built a minimum amount of homeless housing, it would allow people to sleep on sidewalks from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. if they stayed far enough from doorways and driveways.
When the 9th Circuit struck down the Boise law, homeless advocates said it reaffirmed the arguments in the Jones case.
The clash also echoes the recent furor over L.A.'s restrictions on where people can sleep in their cars. L.A. had crafted the disputed rules, which ban sleeping in vehicles in residential areas and near parks and schools, after a federal court struck down a citywide ban.
The Los Angeles City Council recently voted to extend the rules over the angry objections of activists, who argued that lawmakers had piled on so many restrictions on parking and sleeping that L.A. effectively had a "de facto ban" on bunking in vehicles.
Backers of the plan said the rules were needed to fend off trash and filth from RVs and other vehicles repurposed as homes.


Xavier Becerra breaks the news, files suit against Trump administration public-charge rule.

August 19, 2019

More than 22 million people are illegally present in the United States, according to a recent study by scholars at MIT and Yale. Pew Research pegged the figure at 11 million, and for years it stood as the official count for media and government. It now emerges that 11 million is more like the number illegally present in California alone.
“California is home to over 10 million immigrants,” reads a chart displayed by California attorney general Xavier Becerra and governor Gavin Newsom as they announced a lawsuit against the Trump administration’s public-charge rule. “Immigrants,” is California code for “illegals,” a term the state’s ruling class has banned. As Rachel Bovard notes at American Greatness, even a legal immigrant’s ability “to stay off the welfare system must be taken into account when considering qualifications for a green card.”  
California heaps welfare benefits on those illegally present, including nearly $100 million for health care in the recent budget. Many of those 10 million illegals came to California specifically to get those taxpayer-funded benefits. It disturbs Becerra and Newsom that this disqualifies the recipients from any future legal status, but there’s more to it. As attorney Madison Gesiotto explains in The Hill, voting must also be taken into account. 
“Voting as an illegal alien in federal elections is a crime punishable by fine, imprisonment, deportation, or inadmissibility.” According to a State Department investigation, false-documented illegals have been voting in federal, state and local elections for decades. In 1996, illegals cast 784 votes against Republican Robert Dornan in a congressional race Democrat Loretta Sanchez won by only 984 votes.
If Newsom and Becerra are certain that more than 10 million people illegally reside in the state, they doubtless know how many voted in 2016. Trouble is, California Secretary of State Alex Padilla refused to release any voter information to a federal voter-fraud probe.
Back in 2015, Padilla told the Los Angeles Times, “At the latest, for the 2018 election cycle, I expect millions of new voters on the rolls in the state of California,” with “new voters” code for ineligible voters. True to form, by March, 2018, more than one million “undocumented” immigrants received driver’s licenses from the state Department of Motor Vehicles, which automatically registered them to vote under the “Motor Voter” program.
Padilla is now claiming that only six “California residents” were erroneously added to voter rolls for 2018, that it was all due to DMV errors, and that none was guilty of “fraudulently voting or attempting to vote.” To paraphrase John Goodman in The Big Lebowski, this is what happens when the governor’s own department of finance, not the official state auditor, investigates the DMV.
In reality, California officials know full well how many non-citizens voted in 2016 and 2018. With more than 10 million illegals in the state, the ballpark figure of one million illegal voters is probably low. In California, illegals are the Democrats’ electoral college, and the Democrats reward them with welfare benefits and protection from deportation through sanctuary laws. This raises another issue.
Illegals’ use of welfare benefits and practice of voting in federal elections disqualifies them from legal residency and citizenship. This makes for a permanent group of more than 10 million foreign nationals in California alone. In these conditions, Congress should start pushing back.
Public officials who apportion taxpayer-funded benefits for foreign nationals should be required to register as agents of the governments of those foreign nationals. The primary candidates would be the governments of Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador, which Gavin Newsom visited before he had even toured his own state.
State and federal governments should also bill the foreign governments for welfare, medical, education and incarceration costs. Some of this could be alleviated by a tax on remissions, such as the 33.4 billion Mexicans abroad sent back last year. That amount is impossible without massive inputs from U.S. taxpayers. Legitimate citizens and legal immigrants have no obligation to relieve foreign governments of responsibility for their own citizens.
Meanwhile, as Rachel Bovard also notes, the Trump administration’s new rule only updates a 1996 law proclaiming “inadmissible” those aliens likely to become a public charge. The law was supported by Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden and other leading Democrats.  The Trump administration measure gives more definition to what constitutes a welfare benefit, food stamps, Medicaid, public housing assistance and such. Those benefits are all for legitimate citizens and legal immigrants but Bovard cites Census data showing that 63 percent of non-citizens use the welfare system.
Those who thought there were only 11 million illegals nationwide were mistaken. Thanks to Jerry Brown crony Gavin Newsom, and Xavier Becerra, once on Hillary Clinton’s short list as a running mate, Americans now understand that “more than 10 million” illegally reside in California alone, and that might understate the figure.
The MIT-Yale estimate ranges as high as 29.1 million nationwide, more than the population of Australia, with 25,088,636 and a veritable occupation. To all but the willfully blind, politicians have abandoned the rule of law, and made false-documented illegals a protected, privileged class.
This is how a nation loses its sovereignty. 

The Homeless, Illegals, and the Politics of Virtue Signaling

We have no idea how many of the homeless are illegal immigrants, but we do know that homeless shelters in big cities will not cooperate with blanket ICE searches for illegals.

Shelter workers are trained to request a warrant for a specific individual, and without that, they are told to keep ICE at bay.
The extent to which the ACLU and pro-illegal immigration organizations have gone to educate homeless shelters about how to deal with ICE indicates that the presence of illegals in these shelters is not insignificant.
Shelters are all-too-often in lesser supply than the demand for accommodations, especially during winter in brutal climes in places like Chicago.
Having walked the frigid streets of that city going from shelter to shelter in search of a homeless relative, I know something about the dynamics of how the homeless survive the unforgiving cold where a place in a shelter can mean the difference between freezing to death in the street or waking up alive.
Competition for safe harbor is fierce. And the homeless line up and prance in the cold to stay warm long before the shelters open.
American citizens -- even veterans, mothers, and children -- compete equally with illegals. This is the consequence of our so-called policy of “compassion” enunciated by open-border billionaires like Beto O’Rourke and liberal virtue signalers.
O’Rourke would like to send $5 billion to the failed states that have produced the immigration crisis. How many billions would solve our own humanitarian crisis of homelessness?
Illegal immigrants do not compete for resources or jobs with billionaires or smug middle-class professionals who drip with compassion and want to bring them into America in ever larger numbers.
But on the streets of our cities, illegals compete with the most vulnerable people in our society, just as decades ago when Cesar Chavez saw an unending supply of cheap illegal labor being a threat to the wellbeing of his union members.
A CEO that I know speaks insufferably of her support of “immigrants” and DACA, but she will never have to face competition from anyone crossing the border illegally. Her well-paid position in a Silicon Valley startup and her stock options are not at risk. But America’s homeless sleeping on the streets and in shelters, just a mile from her trendy townhouse in a gated San Francisco complex, will compete with these people for the basics of survival.
They are disproportionately black and LGBTQ, the latter having suffered abuse and neglect, especially sexual abuse.
Homeless youth, contrary to myth, do not choose to be on the streets, and they are ten times more likely to die than non-homeless people their own age.Homeless children experience developmental delay.
To date, their cause is not part of the 2020 Democrat political agenda. But an unceasing demand for more resources for the illegals charging the border is. No one discusses a limit on the resources to be allocated to illegals -- to feed, house, and clothe them.
Sen. Kamala Harris (D, Ca) can grandstand before the klieg lights by grilling those responsible for homeland security and immigration about conditions at the border, but she will not seize the bully pulpit for the thousands of homeless living under the Oakland maze not far from where she was born and a few miles down the street from where she went to law school.
The conditions of both our veterans and vulnerable youth living on the streets do not rise to be considered as even talking points in the current conversations about how the society is to be improved by a change of administration in 2020. The focus is almost entirely on our compassion for the illegals overwhelming the border, the vast number of whom are economic migrants, not refugees.  
Oakland and Berkeley representative Barbara Lee (D) has been in Congress since 1988. She is an economic progressive, and she is strongly against deportation. But can you be against deportation while advocating for social services for your own poor who are living under highways?
Resources are finite. Solving the problems of one’s own poor -- who have grown in number since 1988 when almost no one lived under the maze -- should take precedence over the impossible task of rescuing the poor of Mexico and Central America, if not the world.
The truth is that the illegals are the latest trend in virtue signaling. My CEO acquaintance can sit with her friends in upscale San Francisco restaurants and talk about her compassion for the homeless and her political work for DACA while ignoring the plight of the people she practically steps over daily on Market Street.
Kamala Harris will demand more diapers and wipes for the children at the border while ignoring America’s own homeless under California’s freeways. Barbara Lee will tout her progressive credentials at the next election, but whatever her progressive ideology has done for Oakland and Berkeley’s impoverished, it seems neither to have touched the growing street population nor to have abated it.
Politics is not about finding solutions. It is about gesturing toward policies that will provide what the mass public thinks are solutions while mobilizing their votes.
If you want to see a meaningful change in both immigration and homeless policies, start inviting millions of middle-class professionals into America and give them quick licenses as doctors, lawyers, and accountants to compete with middle-class virtue signalers. Don’t invite poor people who will end up competing with America’s homeless for a warm grate on a pitiless Chicago winter night.
Abraham H. Miller is an emeritus professor of political science and a distinguished fellow with the Haym Salomon Center.

Paying for illegals' 'free' health care by fining Californians who can't afford Obamacare

The leftists running California's one-party state have done it again. They've rolled out a $312 billion budget that includes $98 million for free health care for illegal immigrants under the age of 26. That's a dinner triangle to all able-bodied foreign nationals working off the books that the free ride is about to arrive.
According to the Sacramento Bee:
The expansion will take effect Jan. 1, 2020 and cost $98 million in the upcoming fiscal year. It will make California the first state to allow undocumented adults to sign up for state-funded health coverage.
The budget includes a fine on people who don’t buy health insurance known as an individual mandate. The fines were initially implemented as part of the federal Affordable Care Act law known as Obamacare, but Republicans acted in 2017 to roll them back. Newsom and legislative leaders say re-imposing the penalty at the state level will shore up the state’s health insurance marketplace and keep premiums from rising dramatically.
As if that $98 million is really going to cover it as migrants from Central America and beyond surge into the U.S. in record numbers, and five million from Latin America alone planning to enter the U.S. with or without papers.
California, remember, was quite convinced $39 billion would cover the cost of its famed bullet train up and down the state in 2008. The price tag now, with just a tiny portion of it out in the Central Valley to be built? $98 billion.
Given the incompetence of those numbers, you can bet the surplus that the money is about to be taken from is ... not going to remain a surplus.
All this, while the burned-out city of Paradise remains un-rebuilt due to all the state's environmental concerns. Priorities, see...
But it's not just that which makes the measure so objectionable. 
The free health care - and Medi-Cal is very, very, free, with no deductibles for anything - is going to be paid for out of a new program of fines for California citizens who don't qualify for free health care, yet can't afford Obamacare - quite possibly due to the high cost they are paying for keeping a roof over their heads, for one. 
The Associated Press reports that the few Republican legislators remaining have tried to make exactly that point in their objections:
Republicans on the legislative committee negotiating the budget voted against the proposal, arguing it was not fair to give health benefits to people who are in the country illegally while taxing people who are here legally for not purchasing health insurance.
A subsidy program is going into place, supposedly to "help" them, but you can bet it won't cover the average Californian who can't afford Obamacare. As for the illegals, well, when you work off the books, you can pretty well claim anything as your income, so rest assured that all those who want the free health care, no matter what they earn, are going to be able to get it.
 So what we are about to see now is the fining of Californians trapped in the high cost of living brought on by leftist policies, in order to bankroll the state's abundant illegal immigrant population, which now stands at a quarter of the nation's count.
And the little claim at the bottom of that last cited paragraph from the Sacramento Bee suggests even more trouble on the horizon for Californians who can just barely pay those gargantuan Obamacare premiums: "keep premiums from rising dramatically."
What's the takeaway on that? That bankrolling illegals is going to make premiums rise on Californians who are stuck in the individual market, but rest assured, the hikes won't be dramatic.
Sound like a recipe for flight from the state? You would be insane if you didn't think so, and the state already is bleeding people. Fifty-three percent of the state's citizens, according to one poll, want to leave, and more than one report shows that the state lost more people than it gained, even with the border surge bringing new supplicants in. Voters know their votes don't count in a state where ballot-harvesting by illegal immigrants is routinely done now, so any discontent is virtually impossible to telegraph at the ballot box, and the leftist mafia running the state insists that this is what Californians want. Color me skeptical on all fronts.
The one thing worth watching for in this is not the cost overruns, though that should be an interesting topic. It's whether Californians will finally switch their voting patterns in sufficient numbers to finally get this crew out. The odds are against them with ballot-harvesting, yet still, still, one expects something to eventually blow. Maybe this will be what does it.

Illegal Aliens in NYC To Be Eligible for Limited Affordable Housing as Rent Skyrockets


Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Illegal aliens living in New York City, New York will soon be eligible to rent subsidized housing, which is already limited in quantity amid a homeless crisis and skyrocketing rents.

This week, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio rolled out new eligibility rules that will allow the city’s some 725,000 illegal alien residents to apply for subsidized, affordable housing — which has historically been reserved for American taxpayers.
The rules will no longer mandate that those applying to live in affordable housing show their credit rating, a legitimate Social Security number, and documents proving them to be a taxpayer. Instead, applicants will only have to prove that they paid rent on time every month for a year, a plan that is likely to allow thousands of illegal aliens to obtain affordable housing units over American citizens.
De Blasio has hoped to increase the number of affordable housing units to 300,000 by 2026, a limited amount for a city with more than 8.5 million residents, the majority of whom are renters who have had to deal with increasing housing prices.
Already, as Bloomberg News notes, the city receives more than 500 applications for each available affordable housing unit that currently exists with the stricter rules. That number is expected to significantly increase when the new rules open the application process to hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens and temporary foreign workers on various visa programs, shutting out more and more Americans from cheaper housing.
The country’s mass illegal and legal immigration policy of the last four decades has greatly driven population growth in the country’s largest cities like New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. As a result, experts — including former federal immigration official Lou Di Leonardo — say rents and housing prices sour with increased competition for affordable housing.
Leonardo wrote in the San Fransisco Chronicle:
Just like everyone else, immigrants need places to live. Their demand for a limited supply of apartments and houses drives up rents, especially in metropolitan areas where immigrants tend to concentrate. Curbing immigration levels would do more than any welfare program to ensure that working-class Americans can afford the roofs over their heads. [Emphasis added]
Take the Bay Area, for example. Immigrants account for roughly 36% of the population. The average home was valued around $1.34 million last year.San Francisco’s housing prices have risen so rapidly that one U.N. official called it a “human rights violation.” [Emphasis added]
In Los Angeles, where immigrants make up 35% of the population, home values shot up 50% in the past five years. Nine in ten homes are now unaffordable to the average L.A. resident. [Emphasis added]
As of 2017, New York City is now home to more than three million foreign-born residents — making up about 37 percent of the total city’s population. This indicates that there are more foreign-born residents living in New York City today than there are people living in Chicago, Illinois; San Diego, California; and Houston, Texas.
Coinciding with illegal and legal immigration that has increased New York City’s population, one-bedroom rents in the city, as well as two-bedroom rents, have grown to astronomical levels. The latest analysis by Zumper finds that median one-bedroom New York City rent is about $3,050 a month, growing 3.7 percent in August and beating out the last three-year, all-time high of median rents in June, which came in at $2,980 a month.
Two-bedroom monthly rents in New York City also grew more than two percent this month, increasing the median rate to about $3,450 for the city’s residents.
Currently, there is an estimated record high of 44.5 million foreign-born residents living in the U.S. This is nearly quadruple the immigrant population in 2000. The vast majority of those arriving every year arrive through the process known as “chain migration,” whereby newly naturalized citizens can bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the country.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.