House Budget Committee rejects amendment aimed at halting family separations

As the full House prepared to consider high-profile immigration legislation Thursday, the House Budget Committee voted down a Democratic proposal aimed at halting the separation of migrant children from their parents at the border — a subject engulfing both Capitol Hill and the White House this week.

The proposal from Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham, who chairs the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, would prevent taxpayer dollars from being used to separate the children from their parents, and calls for Congress to pass legislation to prevent the Department of Homeland Security from forcing the separations except in extraordinary circumstances. “Not one penny of taxpayer dollars should ever be used to inflict pain and suffering on a child in order to punish their parents and push a political agenda,” the New Mexico Democrat said.

Committee Chairman Steve Womack said the proposal, offered as an amendment to Republicans’ 2019 budget resolution, raises an “important dialogue” and serious concerns about immigration policy but doesn’t address the federal budget in a “meaningful way.” “Rather, it seeks to change immigration policy, which is more appropriate for consideration in the committees of jurisdiction…and for a debate on the House floor,” said Mr. Womack, Arkansas Republican.

The committee voted down the amendment 16-9 Thursday.President Trump on Wednesday signed an executive order addressing the issue, though he also said he expects Congress to follow up and act as well. The House was scheduled to vote Thursday on a pair of immigration bills, including language that would allow families caught at the border to be held in Homeland Security detention facilities, rather than Justice Department facilities that aren’t set up to hold families. But it’s unclear whether either bill will have enough support to pass. Democrats say neither Mr. Trump’s executive order nor the GOP-proposed legislation is wide-ranging enough.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jun/21/house-budget-committee-rejects-amendment-aimed-hal/

Lawyer: Feds unexpectedly drop charges against 17 immigrants

McALLEN, Texas (AP) — A civil rights group attorney says federal prosecutors unexpectedly dropped misdemeanor charges against 17 adult immigrants who crossed the border with children. Efren Olivares, a lawyer with the Texas Civil Rights Project, said outside of the federal courthouse in McAllen, Texas, that the 17 immigrants were supposed to have been sentenced Thursday morning for improperly entering the U.S.

Olivares says the 17 will likely be placed in immigration detention, though he didn't know whether they would be reunited immediately with their children or released altogether. Asked if they had any reaction to the charges against them being dropped, he said, "They're asking about their children, frankly." The Texas Civil Rights Project is interviewing adults to track them and their children through separate government systems. The dropping of the charges comes a day after President Donald Trump reversed a policy of forcibly separating immigrant children from their parents upon entering the U.S. without permission.

https:// townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2018/06/21/lawyer-feds-unexpectedly-drop-charges-against-17-immigrants-n2493084

John Bolton heads to Moscow to arrange Trump-Putin summit

National Security Adviser John R. Bolton is headed to Moscow to discuss a possible meeting between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, the National Security Council announced Thursday.

National Security Council spokesman Garret Marquis announced the trip in a tweet: “On June 25-27, U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton will meet with U.S. allies in London and Rome to discuss national security issues, and travel to Moscow to discuss a potential meeting between Presidents Trump and Putin,” he wrote.

A possible meeting between the two presidents would likely take place next month, when Mr. Trump in in Europe for a NATO summit July 11 in Brussels and a July 13 visit to Britain. By sitting down with Mr. Putin, the president would be bucking political convention and inviting criticism. Russia has increasingly made malicious moves on the world stage, from an nerve-agent assassination attempt on a former spy in England in March to interfering in the 2016 U.S. presidential election to annexing Crimea in 2014.

However, Mr. Trump is accustomed to breaking with political norms, having met with North Korea dictator Kim Jong-un last week in Singapore to broker a denuclearization deal. Mr. Trump said he wants to improve relations with Russia, including suggesting adding Russia back into the Group of Seven. Russia was kicked out to the then-G-8 over the annexation of Crimea and other interference in Ukraine. Mr. Trump has championed U.S.-Russia relations despite special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of Trump campaign collision with Moscow and Democrats’ unrelenting criticism of his pro-Russia stance. Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin explored a possible meeting in a telephone conversation March 20.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jun/21/john-bolton-heads-moscow-arrange-trump-putin-summi/

White House proposes re-privatizing mortgage giants Fannie, Freddie

The White House proposed Thursday to move Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac out of government custody and back into the private sector, the most comprehensive statement of the administration’s preferences on housing finance reform yet. It calls for allowing Fannie and Freddie to enter the private sector after being in government conservatorship since 2008. Then, they — and their competitors that might enter the market — would be given an explicit government guarantee on mortgage-backed securities that they issue. Fannie and Freddie help create a secondary market for home loans by buying mortgages from banks and other lenders, and packaging them into securities for investors to purchase, with a guarantee that they will be covered if the loans fail. The two also have affordable housing mandates and are required to shunt some earnings toward affordable housing trust funds. In the administration’s proposals, the Department of Housing and Urban Development would administer aid to low-income households.

A major question is whether that part of the plan could win support from affordable housing groups. They have opposed the Corker draft, which in turn has failed to gain Democratic support. Outside conservative groups, too, are likely to oppose the administration’s plan on the grounds that it would provide a government backstop for mortgage-backed securities. Opposition from all sides has doomed past efforts to take Fannie and Freddie out of government hands or shutter them entirely. In 2013, House Republicans advanced a conservative bill that would have ended the two government-sponsored enterprises, but it failed to get a vote in the full chamber. Similarly, in 2014 a bipartisan bill passed the Senate Banking Committee, but it didn't get a floor vote thanks to a lack of interest from Democrats and Republicans.

https:// www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/economy/white-house-proposes-re-privatizing-mortgage-giants-fannie-freddie

Supreme Court sides with immigrant in case over accumulation of continuous time in US

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a notice to appear sent from the federal government to an immigrant that lacks information such as the time and date of removal proceedings does not prevent that immigrant from accumulating "continuous presence" time in the U.S. The court ruled 8-1 in the case, and Justice Samuel Alito was the sole dissenter. The court overturned a decision from the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and sent the case back to the lower court in light of its decision.

The case dealt with whether the “stop-time rule” is triggered once an immigrant receives a notice to appear, even if that notice does not include the date or time of removal proceedings. The question is important because immigrants who have accrued 10 years of continuous presence can be eligible for relief that allows them to remain in the U.S. “If the government serves a non-citizen with a document that is labeled ‘notice to appear,’ but the document fails to specify either the time or place of the removal proceedings, does it trigger a stop-time rule?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the majority. “The answer is as obvious as it seems: No.” Sotomayor concluded that a notice that doesn’t tell an immigrant when and where to appear for removal proceedings is not officially a “notice to appear” under federal statute. “The plain text, the statutory context, and common sense all lead inescapably and unambiguously to that conclusion,” she continued. The case involved Wescley Pereira, an immigrant from Brazil who came to the U.S. on a six-month tourist visa at 19, but remained after the visa expired.

In May 2006, federal immigration authorities served Pereira with a notice to appear, which said he is subject to removal for overstaying his visa. The notice ordered him to appear in immigration court and instructed him to appear “on a date to be set at a time to be set.” More than a year later, the immigration court mailed Pereira a notice scheduling the time of his removal hearing, but the notice was sent to his street address instead of his P.O. box and subsequently returned. The immigration hearing was held despite Pereira’s absence, and he was ordered to be deported. Pereira, however, remained in the U.S., “having never received any hearing notice, and having no knowledge of the in absentia removal order,” according to a brief his lawyers filed with the court. In March 2013, Pereira was arrested for a motor vehicle violation and detained by federal immigration authorities. An immigration judge reopened his removal proceedings, and Pereira applied for cancellation of removal, saying he lived in the U.S. for more than 10 years. The judge, though, denied Pereira’s request, citing the notice to appear Pereira received in 2006, which stopped the clock on his period of continuous presence. Under this ruling, Pereira had only been in the U.S. for six years.

The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the decision, citing an earlier decision from 2011 that found the period of continuous presence ends when a notice to appear is served, even if it does not include the elements listed in the statute.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied Pereira's request for review, deferring to the Board of Immigration Appeals and citing Chevron. The federal appeals court said the stop-time rule is ambiguous and the Board of Immigration Appeals’ interpretation of the rule permissible. The Chevron doctrine, stemming from the 1984 case Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc., says courts should defer to federal agencies 'reasonable interpretations of statutes when they are ambiguous. But writing in a concurring opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy raised concerns with the way the court’s decision in Chevron “has come to be understood and applied.” “Given the concerns raised by some members of this court, it seems necessary and appropriate to reconsider, in an appropriate case, the premises that underlie Chevron and how courts have implemented the decision,” Kennedy wrote. “The proper rules for interpreting statutes and determining agency jurisdiction and substantive agency powers should accord with constitutional separation-of-powers principles and the function and province of the judiciary.”

https:// www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/courts/supreme-court-sides-with-immigrant-in-case-over-accumulation-of-continuous-time-in-us