California Nail Salons Plan to Sue Gov. Gavin Newsom After He Said They Were Source of Coronavirus
2:03
California nail salons are planning to sue Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom after he said they were to blame for the first case of the coronavirus in the state.
It all started when the California governor was asked why nail salons were part of phase 3 of reopening instead of phase 2, KGO reported.
“This whole thing started in the state of California, the first community spread, in a nail salon,” Newsom said Thursday.
His remarks drew a backlash from the beauty industry in California and the Vietnamese-American community, who own most of the salons in the state.
The tension mounts even more as California is moving into its next phase of reopening, and while more businesses were allowed to reopen for curbside pickup and delivery in this next phase, nail salons were nowhere near reopening.
This brought in an association of barber shops and salons, which said it would try to sue to attempt to force the California Democrat to let them reopen sooner.
“I have dealt at a very close proximity with cashiers, with Walmart associates, with Costco and Sam’s Club associates, with a Home Depot guy who helped me cut some wood. None of them had gloves; only some of them had masks,” Fred Jones, public policy director and legal counsel for the Professional Beauty Federation of California, told KCRA.
“There’s not going to be a salon in California, when we reopen, that doesn’t have both. We are trained in this,” he said.
Some salons have already opened despite Newsom’s order. In Northern California, a line went out the door of a Yuba City salon on Wednesday. Some of the customers wore masks while others did not. Newsom said at least 33 salons operating illegally have been shut down across the state.
California entered its first phase of stage two of reopening on Friday, which allows curbside pickup at retail stores and the reopening of parks for hiking and trails.
Pelosi is a ghastly creature. She and her ilk –
Feinstein, Boxer, Jerry Brown, Gavin Newsom – have effectively destroyed
California and they did it on purpose. They strive to import as many
illegal migrants as possible; they've created and fostered the homelessness and
let it fester. California is now a socialist disaster and the further
destruction of the economy is just what they've wanted. PATRICIA McCARTHY
California Is Reckoning With Its Huge Budget Deficits
At this fraught stage
of the coronavirus pandemic, a lot of state
government officials are either honestly or dishonestly withholding judgment
about how the public-health crisis and its economic consequences are going to
affect their own budgets in the near term. Nobody, of course, really knows
exactly how the pandemic will play out in the months ahead. Aside from these
legitimate doubts, however, many Republican officials around the country are
invested (perhaps knowing better) in the Trumpian idea that we are on the brink
of a dazzling economic recovery that will be so awesome that Americans in the
millions will snake-dance to the polls in November to Keep America Great. So
these Trump allies are deliberately putting on blinders before looking very far
ahead.
The largest and least
Trump-y state, California, has no reason to entertain such unlikely hopes. So
word from Governor Gavin Newsom’s advisers is already going out that the budget
picture in the Golden State is growing dark, as the Los Angeles Times reports:
California’s government faces a $54.3-billion budget deficit
through next summer, according to an analysis released Thursday by advisors to
Gov. Gavin Newsom, the deepest projected fiscal hole in state history …
Newsom’s budget team forecasts a $41.2-billion drop in tax
revenues compared to their estimates from just four months ago. Most of that —
$32.2 billion — would appear in the fiscal year that begins in July. Current
year tax revenues, according to the report, are expected to miss the mark by
$9.7 billion, even though most of the state’s budget year had already passed by
the time the virus became an immediate concern in March.
Expenses are also projected to skyrocket. The fiscal report
released Thursday assumes some $13 billion in higher state costs due to the
pandemic, with a combined $7 billion in higher-than-expected caseloads for
programs such as Medi-Cal, which provides free healthcare, and CalWorks, the
state’s welfare assistance program. As much as $6 billion in expenses are
assumed to be the result of the state’s COVID-19 response.
As CalMatters notes, this budget ignores any happy-talk
assumptions of a quick economic (and revenue) comeback in the days ahead:
It’s an about-face for a state that began the year with ambitions of expanding child care
for working parents and health care for undocumented seniors.
Compared to the expansive budget Newsom released in January,
this one has shrunk to reflect decreases in the general fund’s main revenue
sources: a 25% drop in personal income taxes, 27% drop in sales taxes and 23%
drop in corporate taxes.
When Newsom releases
an official budget revision next week, we’ll see how his administration
proposes to deal with the sudden fiscal crisis, and where spending cuts might
fall. He’ll also certainly echo the pleas of other state and local officials
for federal assistance — not that the Trump administration will be among the
sympathetic listeners to this particular state’s problems.
Before you hear any
Republican kvetching about California being a typically profligate Democrat-run
state that’s in trouble because of its big-spending ways, it is important to
note that most of the problem is on the revenue side of the ledger, reflecting
Newsom’s decision not to hope or lie his way into stronger economic
assumptions. This is a state, moreover, that built up a $16 billion rainy-day reserve — more
than enough to deal with any non-catastrophic set of circumstances — since the
Great Recession. It’s not, of course, adequate to the kind of public-health
earthquake and economic wildfires California’s dealing with now, despite what
is generally regarded as a smart and aggressive response to
COVID-19.
Perhaps Newsom’s
estimates will turn out to be excessively grim. But we could see a return to
what all but the youngest Californians likely remember as a long period of budget gridlock in the
state that finally ended when Democrats achieved enough political power to recast
the state’s fiscal policies along the lines they preferred. An early test of
how voters respond to the new climate could occur in November, when a long-awaited initiative to remove
commercial real estate from the protections created in the famed (or some would
say infamous) 1978 Proposition 13 — sharply limiting property tax increases so
long as a single owner (or family) held a given parcel — is expected to be on
the ballot. Without question, state government will need the additional
revenue. But corporate and real-estate lobbies will argue it’s time to starve,
not feed, state government. Despite the distractions of disease, recession, and
a presidential contest, the so-called “split-roll” initiative could create an
epic battle, as I noted last summer:
While this will mostly be a classic left-right,
business–versus–unions and governments battle, California’s progressive tilt
doesn’t guarantee victory for split-roll. As noted above, corporate types will
offer a slippery-slope claim that once the taxman has feasted on commercial
property taxes, homeowners will inevitably be next. And there are some
affordable-housing advocates who fear split-roll will perversely
incentivize commercial real-estate development by making it a larger revenue
generator for local governments.
Preliminary polling shows split-roll
commanding a sparse majority of popular support. But by the time this expensive
slugfest comes to a close, anything could happen.
That’s particularly
true now that the state’s bleak fiscal future has been exposed for all to see.
Kobach:
California Shouldn’t Demand Money from the Rest of Us Only to Give it to
Illegal Aliens
17 Apr 20208,016
3:51
Once again,
California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) has gone to extraordinary lengths to
reward illegal immigration and encourage illegal aliens to stay in the United
States. On Wednesday, he announced that—due to the coronavirus pandemic—California will give
$500 checks to 150,000 low-income illegal aliens. The cost to taxpayers will be
$125 million.
This came a day after Los Angeles
Mayor Eric Garcetti announced that illegal aliens will be eligible to receive $1,500
checks that the city will be handing out to its residents.
What Newsom and Garcetti are doing
is illegal under federal law. In 1996 Congress passed a major welfare reform
act. A crucial section of that law prohibits states and localities from giving
public benefits to illegal aliens. And it remains in federal law today at 8 U.S.C. 1621: an
illegal alien “is not eligible for any State or local public benefit.” Public benefit includes “any … benefit
for which payments or assistance are provided to an individual, household, or
family eligibility unit by an agency of a State or local government….”
We stopped hoping that California
would follow federal law a long time ago; these latest actions continue a
pattern. As I wrote last July, California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) was the
first governor to sign a bill making free health
care available to illegal aliens. The cost of providing those
benefits to illegal aliens was a massive $98 million. That giveaway, too,
violates federal law.
But now Newsom is providing millions
of dollars in checks to illegal aliens while at the same time expecting
the rest of the country to subsidize this spending. California officials
are hoping that the federal
government will reimburse 75% of the state’s coronavirus expenditures.
And Democrats in Congress are
demanding that we federal taxpayers cough up the money. Speaker Nancy Pelosi
(D-CA) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) want the federal government to
provide $150 billion to state and local governments to help absorb their
coronavirus spending.
The audacity of handing unlawful
checks to illegal aliens while demanding that the rest of us pay for it is
breathtaking. Especially when red states have kept their spending under control
and have not been handing checks to illegal aliens.
No state that is handing checks to
illegal aliens, subsidizing free health care for illegal aliens, and offering
sanctuary to illegal aliens – all in violation of federal law – deserves a
penny of assistance from the rest of us taxpayers. Not to mention the fact that
an unprecedented number of low-income Americans are unemployed. Those U.S.
citizens shouldn’t have to compete with illegal aliens for jobs when the
economy reopens. But Newsom and other California Democrats are encouraging the
illegal aliens to remain.
You would think that California
officials would put U.S. citizens first just once, during this time of national
crisis. But you’d be wrong.
Kris W. Kobach is a candidate for
the U.S. Senate in 2020 and is the former secretary of state of Kansas. He is
currently General Counsel for We Build the Wall. An expert in immigration law and policy, he coauthored the
Arizona SB-1070 immigration law and represented in federal court the 10 ICE
agents who sued to stop President Obama’s 2012 DACA amnesty. During 2001-03, he
was Attorney General John Ashcroft’s chief adviser on immigration law at the
Department of Justice. His website is kriskobach.com.
THEY ASSAULT OUR
BORDERS, JOBS, WELFARE LINES AND INSTITUTIONS.
He added, “Illegal
immigration, in particular, drives down wages and inhibits job opportunities
for legal residents, while bringing more low-skilled, low-wage workers to these
states. In turn, this increases costs to state and local governments, and
discourages investment by businesses seeking a skilled labor force and lower
overhead.” PAUL BEDARD
Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $6.5K a
year each: Report
VIDEO:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/report-illegal-immigrants-cost-taxpayers-6-500-a-year-each?utm_source=Washington%20Secrets_02/06/2020&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=WEX_Washington%20Secrets&rid=117930
Illegal immigrants in
growing numbers are flooding into so-called sanctuary cities and states where
they are consuming up to $6,500 in taxpayer-funded services, according to a new
review of costs in 10 small states.
The surge is having an
outsized effect on smaller states and is cutting funds for services to
veterans, children, and disabled Americans, according to the report provided
exclusively to Secrets from the Federation
for American Immigration Reform.
The report said illegal
immigration costs the 10 states $454 million. “To put that figure into context,
that $454 million expenditure is more than 200 times what the state of Montana
budgets for its entire Veterans Affairs program, and it is 2.5 times the total
sum that West Virginia invests in its state university,” said the report.
And, it added, illegal
immigrants cost between $4,000 and $6,500 annually above any tax benefit they
provide.
“In many ways, the
influx of immigrants into less populous areas of the country has an even
greater impact on long-time residents than it does in larger and more urban
areas,” said Dan Stein, president of FAIR. “These areas have neither the tax
base, nor the economic and social infrastructure to accommodate the needs of
the growing numbers of immigrants taking up residence.”
The 10 states analyzed
in the study, Small
Migrant Populations, Huge Impacts, were New
Hampshire, Mississippi, Alaska, Maine, North Dakota, West Virginia, South
Dakota, Vermont, Montana, and Wyoming.
“Many local officials
tout immigration, including illegal immigration, as a remedy to economic
stagnation. However, as this report reveals, the reality is precisely the
opposite,” said Stein.
He added, “Illegal
immigration, in particular, drives down wages and inhibits job opportunities for
legal residents, while bringing more low-skilled, low-wage workers to these
states. In turn, this increases costs to state and local governments, and
discourages investment by businesses seeking a skilled labor force and lower
overhead.”
The report comes on the
heels of a key U.S. Supreme Court decision to let the Trump administration
block entry to immigrants who are likely to burden taxpayers.
FAIR’s report also
showed that sanctuary cities are a growing attraction for illegal immigrants,
especially in smaller states where the costs of living can be lower.
The key findings from
the report to Secrets:
- In each
of these states, each illegal immigrant resident carried a net tax deficit
of between $4,000 and $6,500 annually.
- Some
415,000 foreign-born reside in these 10 states, of whom about 88,000 (or
21%) are illegal immigrants. Additionally, there are about 35,000
U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants in these states.
- Collectively,
these illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born children cost taxpayers in the
10 states about $454 million each year for the provision of essential
services such as education and healthcare.
- Local
schools struggle to provide educators and cover the costs of instruction
for 50,000 K-12 students classified as Limited English Proficient.
- A
growing number of sanctuary jurisdictions (29 and counting, including the
entire state of Vermont), and lower living costs are a magnet for illegal
immigrants.
- The
growing immigrant population competes with legal residents for jobs in
economically depressed areas.
“This report highlights
the fact that the adverse effects of unchecked mass immigration, combined with
an immigration selection process that does not choose people based on
individual merit, job skills and education, are now being felt in all parts of
the country. Americans, in every part of the nation, are being affected by
antiquated and unenforced immigration policies, which is why it is at the top
of the list of voter concerns heading into the 2020 elections,” said Stein.
Report: Taxpayers
Forking Over Up to $6,500 per Illegal Alien
By Rob
Shimshock | February 6, 2020 | 12:24pm EST
(CNSNews.com) -- Much of the
media attention garnered by the border crisis typically revolves around states
that border Mexico like Arizona and Texas. Yet a February report reveals the
devastating economic consequences of illegal aliens on taxpayers as far north
as Montana.
Illegal aliens cost taxpayers in the ten states with the fewest
immigrants around $454 million per year, which works out to a net tax deficit
of $4,000 to $6,500 per illegal, according to a report by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).
“In many ways, the influx of immigrants into less populous areas
of the country has an even greater impact on long-time residents than it does
in larger and more urban areas,” FAIR President Dan Stein said in the report's
news release. “These areas have neither the tax base, nor the economic and
social infrastructure to accommodate the needs of the growing numbers of
immigrants taking up residence.”
FAIR examined migration to Alaska, Maine, Mississippi, Montana,
New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming
in its study and found that 88,000 out of the 415,000 foreign-born residents in
these states are illegal aliens, or 21 percent. Around 35,000 others are
citizen children of illegal aliens.
“Many local officials tout immigration, including illegal
immigration, as a remedy to economic stagnation. However, as this report
reveals, the reality is precisely the opposite,” Stein continued. “Illegal
immigration, in particular, drives down wages and inhibits job opportunities
for legal residents, while bringing more low-skilled, low-wage workers to these
states. In turn, this increases costs to state and local governments, and
discourages investment by businesses seeking a skilled labor force and lower
overhead.”
FAIR notes that 29 sanctuary jurisdictions exist in these 10
states, including the whole state of Vermont.
The report also examined the financial implications of
immigrants more generally, noting that more than 50,000 K-12 students in the
ten states examined are categorized as having limited English proficiency
(LEP). FAIR estimated that taxpayers spend $96 million on the education of
these students.
Nationwide, the immigration nonprofit calculated that taxpayers
spent $59.8 billion educating LEP students in 2016, up from $51.2 billion in
2010.
Matt O’Brien, director of research at FAIR, expanded on the
impact of immigration on Lewiston, Maine, a city the nonprofit honed in on in
its analysis, while speaking with CNSNews.com.
Lewiston, which has a population under 40,000, has taken in more
than 7,500 migrants during the past decade-and-a-half. Between 2004 and 2017,
the percentage of LEP students in the town went from five to 30 percent.
“You’re putting all of the kids that have to go through that
school system at a deficit that they have to recover from after they get out of
the public school system," O’Brien told CNSNews.com. “Now they have to
compete with the massive amount of immigrants...as they’re trying to get
entry-level jobs.”
The FAIR report highlighted employers’ preference for hiring
foreign-born workers, who demand lower wages, over American citizens.
“This report highlights the fact that the adverse effects of
unchecked mass immigration, combined with an immigration selection process that
does not choose people based on individual merit, job skills and education, are
now being felt in all parts of the country. Americans, in every part of the
nation, are being affected by antiquated and unenforced immigration policies,
which is why it is at the top of the list of voter concerns heading into the
2020 elections,” Stein concluded in the release.
Court Green-Lights Newsom’s Illegal Alien California Giveaway
Program
Executive and judicial abuse on display.
May 8, 2020
Joseph
Klein
Judicial Watch announced
Tuesday that it filed an application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against California Governor Gavin Newsom and his
Director of the California Department of Social Services Kim Johnson. Judicial
Watch requested the TRO to prevent the governor’s imminent spending of $79.8
million dollars of California taxpayers’ money for direct cash benefits to illegal
aliens present in California. This action followed a lawsuit filed in the
Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles by Judicial Watch on behalf
of two California taxpayers late last month. “Governor Newsom has no legal
authority on his own to spend state taxpayer money for cash payments to illegal
aliens,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The coronavirus challenge
doesn’t give politicians a pass to violate the law. If California politicians
want to give cash payments to illegal aliens, they must be accountable and
transparent, and, as federal law requires, pass a law to do so.”
Judicial Watch said that its
TRO application was urgent because the illegal aliens are now able to
immediately apply for the cash benefits without a judicial hearing first as to
whether Governor Newsom possessed the necessary explicit authority from the
California legislature to provide such benefits. “Without a restraining order,
those funds will be spent, and there is no way of recovering them after they
are distributed,” Judicial Watch’s TRO application said. Not surprisingly,
however, the California court sided with Governor Newsom and the illegal
aliens, denying Judicial Watch’s request for the TRO.
According to Judicial Watch,
“Though the court found that Judicia[l] Watch was likely to succeed on the
merits (that Governor Newsom had no authority under law to spend the money),
the court found that there was a public interest in sending tax money to the
illegal aliens during the coronavirus crisis.” In other words, the California
state judge ignored the law and legislated from the bench to help Newsom
accomplish a fait accompli.
Newsom was two for two in the
California courts on May 5th. A federal judge upheld his ban on
church assemblies in the interest of public health during the coronavirus
pandemic, throwing aside First Amendment protections of freedom of religious
expression and the right to assemble. “Constitutional rights cannot be
suspended by a virus,” the church’s attorney, Dean Broyles, said. Evidently, in
California they can be suspended along with legal constraints on Newsom’s
spending authority.
Governor Newsom rolled out his
cash giveaway executive initiative, known as the “Disaster Relief Fund” or the
“Disaster Relief Assistance for Immigrants Project" (DRAIP), for illegal
aliens on April 15th. His office issued a statement in
which it anticipated that approximately “150,000 undocumented adult
Californians will receive a one-time cash benefit of $500 per adult with a cap
of $1,000 per household to deal with the specific needs arising from the
COVID-19 pandemic.” The governor and his social services director also plan to
spend an estimated $4.8 million of taxpayer funds overseeing and administering
the distribution of those cash benefits.
California became the first
state to offer such direct disaster assistance in the wake of the pandemic to
illegal aliens. Philanthropic partners, including the Latino Community
Foundation, will be distributing the funds through their networks and are
raising additional funds on their own for dispersal to illegal aliens. But
Judicial Watch is only concerned with the unauthorized giveaway of taxpayers’
money.
As of February 2020, California
had $17.5 billion in reserves for economic uncertainties, according to a
Legislative Analyst’s Office report issued in April. But the coronavirus
pandemic threatens to not only drain this reserve but hurl California into a
gaping financial hole amidst a severe recession. Newsom recognized the
financial crisis he was facing. “This year I will be doing a May revise looking
at tens of billions of dollars in deficit,” Newsom said last Friday during his
daily coronavirus response briefing. “We just went tens of billions in surplus
in just weeks to deficits.” Newsom wants a federal bailout even though he is
squandering the hard-earned money of his state’s taxpayers on a cash giveaway
to illegal aliens. The federal individual cash payments program under the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, as well as the expanded
unemployment provisions that increase benefits by $600, exclude illegal aliens
as beneficiaries.
Under federal immigration law,
8 U.S.C. § 1621(a), a state “may provide that an alien who is not lawfully
present in the United States is eligible for any State or local public benefit
… only through the
enactment of a State law … which affirmatively provides for such eligibility.
(Emphasis added) Judicial Watch’s complaint alleged that the California state
legislature has not enacted any law that affirmatively provides that such
unlawfully present aliens are eligible for the millions of dollars of cash
public benefits announced by Newsom.
Newsom is likely to argue that
he has adequate legislative authority to make direct state payments to illegal
aliens under the broad emergency powers that the legislature granted him in
March to deal with the coronavirus pandemic crisis. But it makes little sense
to assume that such emergency powers were meant to entitle the governor to
spend as much money as he wishes on illegal aliens while California’s legal
residents are suffering en masse. As state Senator John Moorlach, a Republican
from Costa Mesa, said, “I see the state of California and its budget as a house
of cards and with this coronavirus-induced recession. I’m just trying to figure
out where the money would come from. I would say helping undocumented would be
a luxury item.”
The Democrat-dominated
California state legislature may well come to Newsom’s rescue upon its return
from recess. Democrat leaders in both chambers have already indicated that a
relief package for illegal aliens is under active consideration. Their passage
of the authorizing legislation necessary to cover his new spending on illegal
aliens retroactively is highly likely. California already provides
taxpayer-funded health benefits to low-income illegal immigrant adults 25 and
younger. California is also a sanctuary state.
Governor Newsom on more than
one occasion has referred to California as a “nation state.” At times,
particularly with respect to California’s non-compliance with federal
immigration laws, California acts as if it were already an independent
sovereign nation state. While there are some U.S. citizens who would be more
than happy to see the ultraliberal state secede from the union, for now
California is still part of the United States of America and does not have the
power to nullify federal laws. Governor Newsom should also address the rising
resistance to his draconian stay-at-home orders from California citizens rather
than go about channeling scarce state funds to illegal aliens.
* * *
No comments:
Post a Comment