(WASHINGTON) — The Biden administration on Friday faced new legal hurdles to its plans to manage a migration crisis as Title 42 pandemic-era border restrictions came to an end Thursday night.
A federal judge in Florida temporarily blocked U.S. Customs and Border Protection from releasing migrants without a formal notice to appear in court.
The parole authority CBP uses to release migrants quickly comes with requirements to report back to authorities, even if no court date has been set.
Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas called the ruling by Judge T. Kent Wetherell “very harmful” in an interview Friday morning with ABC News’ Good Morning America co-anchor George Stephanopoulos.
“This is a harmful ruling and the Department of Justice is considering our options,” Mayorkas said.
Separately, the American Civil Liberties Union and other immigrant advocates filed a lawsuit challenging the new Biden administration restrictions on asylum that are taking effect Friday.
“People fleeing persecution have a legal right to seek asylum, no matter how they reach the border,” litigation chief Melissa Crow with the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies said in a statement. “Our asylum system was designed to protect people fleeing imminent threats to their lives, who do not have the luxury of waiting for an elusive appointment or for an application to be adjudicated in a country where they are in danger.”
The new limits on asylum target migrants who cross illegally between federal southwest border check points.
Those non-Mexicans who do not apply for asylum elsewhere will face expedited deportation.
(WASHINGTON) — With the clock ticking for lawmakers to reach a debt ceiling deal or risk an unprecedented default, several emergency scenarios and short-term fixes are being debated.
A White House meeting between President Joe Biden and congressional leaders on Tuesday, which was the first major discussion between the parties in months, ended without a deal.
Staffers have been meeting daily since then to try to make progress, according to the White House, and the leaders are expected to meet again early next week.
But lawmakers are barreling toward default as early as June, according to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, though the exact date is uncertain.
Democrats say raising the debt ceiling is nonnegotiable and argue it should be done without conditions, while Republicans are pushing to tie long-sought federal spending cuts to any increase.
Two potential areas of agreement in budget negotiations appeared to have emerged: unspent COVID-19 money and energy permitting reforms.
But if there’s no deal between Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, here are possible options being discussed to avoid or delay default.
A short-term fix
Lawmakers could agree to raise debt ceiling for a short period of time to avoid default while negotiations continue on federal spending. The issue would most likely be punted until Sept. 30, which is the end of the fiscal year.
Biden this week signaled a possible compromise on unspent COVID-19 money, saying he would consider clawing back those funds as Republicans have proposed — but didn’t say whether that would be part of debt limit talks.
“I’m not ruling anything out,” Biden said when asked Tuesday whether he’d support a short-term increase.
But neither side seems all-in on such a scenario.
“He’s gotta stop ignoring problems,” McCarthy said about Biden. “And why continue to kick the can down the road? Let’s solve it now.”
White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre also said a short-term fix wasn’t the administration’s “plan” either.
Invoking the 14th Amendment
The impasse has raised questions about whether the Biden administration can unilaterally act to avoid default by essentially declaring the debt ceiling unconstitutional.
“I have been considering the 14th Amendment,” Biden told reporters on Tuesday. But he expressed concern it would be litigated and take months to resolve, ultimately not solving the problem fast enough.
The 14th Amendment states, “the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”
McCarthy and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell have rejected the idea. “Unconstitutionally acting without Congress is also not an option,” McConnell said.
Payment prioritization, trillion-dollar coin and other tools
Some have said the Treasury Department could prioritize some payments if the debt limit is not increased. The GOP-led House Ways and Means Committee advanced a bill in March that would require the Treasury to first pay all principal and interest on the national debt, then all Social Security and Medicare benefits.
But officials have questioned how feasible payment prioritization is, and economists have predicted it would still likely lead to job losses and higher unemployment
Yellen told the House panel in March that such a scenario was just “default by another name.”
“The government, on average, makes millions of payments each day, and our systems are built to pay all of our bills on time and not to pick and choose which bills to pay,” Yellen said. “It would be an exceptionally risky, untested and radical departure from normal payment practices of agencies across the federal government.”
Another idea floated in past debt ceiling battles and now is the minting of a trillion-dollar coin — or a coin of another large denomination — by the Treasury to keep paying its bills.
Biden revealed Tuesday that his team hadn’t looked into the idea of a trillion-dollar coin as a potential workaround, and Yellen previously dismissed it as a “gimmick.”
“The only responsible path forward here is for Congress and the administration to work together to expeditiously pass a debt ceiling increase. Any scenario that does not envision a passage of a debt limit increase prior to the deadline puts at significant risk the safety and soundness of the U.S. dollar and the U.S. markets and the U.S. economy,” Chris Campbell, chief policy strategist at the financial services firm Kroll and a former assistant Treasury secretary, told ABC News.
“That being said, any serious Secretary of Treasury — which all of them in the United States have been — I’m certain are carefully reviewing their options should Congress and the administration not come to an agreement by the time that the debt ceiling is breached,” Campbell said “In the extremely unlikely event that that occurs, I’m certain that the Treasury Secretary would have a series of options at her disposal to be able to work through the challenges should that occur.”
Discharge petition
House Democrats have been laying the groundwork for a discharge petition, ABC News previously reported.
The petition is a complicated procedural tool that would allow members of the House to move a bill out of a committee and bring it to the floor without the support of the majority party leadership.
The petition requires 218 signatures to force a vote, meaning Democrats would need to get the support of at least five Republicans, and timing constraints.
(WASHINGTON) — The last time Joe Biden and Donald Trump shared a debate stage, the Democratic presidential nominee repeatedly attacked his opponent over his administration’s immigration policies.
“This is the first president in the history of the United States of America that anybody seeking asylum has to do it in another country. That’s never happened before. That’s never happened before in our country,” Biden said with outrage.
“You come to the United States, and you make your case. That’s how you seek asylum, based on the following premise: Why I deserve it under American law,” the former vice president added at the time.
But now, that very criticism has come back around more than two years into Biden’s own term because critics — including members of his own party — human rights groups, and immigration lawyers say he has now implemented something close to what his predecessor did.
“Promises broken,” tweeted Julián Castro, who served with Biden in President Barack Obama’s cabinet and ran against him during the 2020 Democratic primary.
Biden administration officials, however, are quick to reject that idea, saying the new restrictions on asylum that the Biden administration announced on Wednesday do not close off the opportunity to seek asylum like Trump tried to do.
“This is not a ban on asylum. This is very different than the asylum ban that President Trump issued,” Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas told ABC News Wednesday. “Our president has led the expansion of lawful pathways more than anyone in our history.”
The ban is different from Trump’s in a critical way. After penalizing Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador with cuts in aid, the Trump administration was able to force the three Central American countries to sign agreements saying they were so-called “safe countries” — meaning ones in which migrants seeking asylum would have to apply for the legal protection.
This meant that migrants reaching the southern U.S. border could not qualify for asylum if they transited one of those three countries — a policy that a federal judge ultimately struck down in Trump’s final days in office.
“Rather than ensure their safety, the rule increases the risk asylum applicants will be subjected to violence,” Judge Jon Tigar wrote, adding it was “inconsistent with existing asylum laws” and “deprives vulnerable asylum applicants of essential procedural safeguards.”
But Biden’s rule is quite similar. It requires a migrant seeking asylum to have first applied for and been denied the legal protection in another country. If not, it doesn’t mean an outright rejection like under Trump, but a “presumption of ineligibility.” In other words, an asylum-seeker would still have the chance to apply for asylum after crossing the border, but they’d have to meet a “higher threshold of proof” that they have a “credible fear” of returning to their home country and therefore qualify,” Mayorkas said.
That’s not the only restriction, either.
Migrants must make an appointment to request asylum at a port of entry using the U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s app called CBP One. If not, and they cross the border without documents and outside a port of entry, they could face removal and a five-year ban on reentry.
Like Mayorkas referenced, Biden administration officials also point to the expanded lawful pathways to the U.S., including a parole program that admits up to 30,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans a month — but only if they have a U.S.-based sponsor and apply from overseas and not after crossing the border. The administration has also committed to accepting this year up to 100,000 Guatemalans, Hondurans and Salvadorans who have family sponsors already in the U.S.
But migrant’s rights advocates say it’s no alternative to the right to law, enshrined under U.S. law. Like Trump’s so-called transit ban, they say, Biden’s new policy runs afoul of the section that specifies that migrants can apply for asylum once on U.S. soil “whether or not at a designated port of arrival.”
“At a time of unprecedented global displacement, the Biden administration has elected to defy decades of humanitarian protections enshrined in U.S. law and international agreements,” said Lee Williams, chief programs officer at Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, one of the largest U.S. resettlement agencies.
In particular, Williams condemned the requirement to first seek asylum in another country “as ludicrous as it is life-threatening” and the CBP One app “a life-or-death lottery.”
The app in particular has been the subject of ridicule because of glitches, including documented difficulty of taking photos of migrants with darker skin and the difficulty of obtaining an appointment, especially for families traveling together. CBP announced changes earlier this week, like prioritizing applicants who have been waiting the longest and making appointments available on a regular basis, not all at once at a scheduled time.
But for many, Biden’s new policies are particularly disheartening because of the very commitments that the president made during his campaign. On his campaign website, for example, he pledged to build a “fair and humane immigration system… ensuring the dignity of migrants and upholding their legal right to seek asylum.”
But even some of Biden’s own staffers have been disappointed. Jeremy Konyndyk, who was a senior Biden appointee at the U.S. Agency for International Development, said the policy “runs directly contrary to President Biden’s repeated and vocal promises to undo his predecessor’s weakening of U.S. asylum protections.”
“The U.S. reaction to unprecedented numbers of people needing refuge here should not be — must not be — simply changing policies to more easily deny them protection. Yet that will be the essential effect of this new policy,” added Konyndyk, now president of Refugees International.
ABC News’s Karen Travers contributed to this report.
Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images
(GOFFSTOWN, N.H.) — Former President Donald Trump’s town hall on CNN Wednesday featured no shortage of theatrics, from calling moderator Kaitlin Collins “nasty” to sparking laughs from a supportive audience with a jab against E. Jean Carroll, the author who accused him of rape and won a civil case in which a jury found him liable for battery and defamation.
But during the 70-minute forum, Trump also faced policy questions he either dodged or answered head-on, potentially revealing contours of a possible second Trump administration.
Here are five areas where Trump took new policy positions — or evaded.
Abortion
Trump hailed the Supreme Court overruling Roe v. Wade a “great victory,” taking credit because he nominated three of the conservative justices who voted to do so.
When it comes to what’s next, though, Trump was evasive.
“President Trump is going to make a determination what he thinks is great for the country and what is fair for the country,” Trump said when Collins pressed him on his position on some kind of national ban.
“I’m looking at a solution that’s going to work.”
Of last year’s Supreme Court ruling, Trump said, “You know that they wanted to bring it back to the states but that was probably the least important part of that victory,” but he didn’t explicitly say that’s what he’d support over federal legislation.
The comments served as a microcosm for the GOP’s broader struggles with abortion after Democratic fury over last year’s Supreme Court decision helped turn what was supposed to be a red wave midterm election into one that saw Democrats expand their Senate majority and minimize their House losses.
Trump has struggled to find his footing on the issue, sparking backlash from typically supportive evangelical and anti-abortion groups after blaming Republicans’ underwhelming midterm results on candidates who supported stringent restrictions on the procedure.
The former president met last week with Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, a powerful anti-abortion advocacy group in the U.S., after which Marjorie Dannenfelser, the group’s president, called the meeting “terrific.”
Debt ceiling
Trump made waves with his comments on the debt ceiling, seeming to put a historic and potentially calamitous default firmly on the table if Republicans don’t succeed in pushing for spending cuts.
“I say to the Republicans out there — congressmen, senators — if they don’t give you massive cuts, you’re going to have to do a default,” he said.
The remarks come as Republicans and Democrats negotiate over how to lift the limit on how much the government can borrow to pay its existing obligations.
Republicans are saying they’d only vote for an increase if President Joe Biden and congressional Democrats agree to significant spending cuts, while Democrats say a clean debt ceiling increase should pass Congress, warning the threat of default is too great to be negotiated over.
The talks were jumpstarted after Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said the government could run out of money to pay its expenses as early as June 1.
Trump, when pressed, doubled down on saying he would endorse default if negotiations reach a stalemate.
“We might as well do it now because you’ll do it later,” he said.
Ukraine
Trump claimed he would be able to bring a halt to the fighting in Ukraine but declined to come down firmly on Kyiv’s side in the fight against Russia’s invasion.
He boasted that if he were president, he could end the war in 24 hours but did not detail what he wanted an end to look like, dodging on whether he wanted Ukraine or Russia to win.
“I don’t think in terms of winning and losing,” he said. “I think in terms of getting it settled so we stop killing all these people.”
The comments followed Trump’s trend of being softer on Russia than many other Republicans.
During his administration, he said he believed Russian President Vladimir Putin’s assertion that Moscow didn’t interfere in the 2016 election — a stance at odds with the CIA’s own findings. And Wednesday, he declined to call Putin a war criminal over the invasion of Ukraine, which has seen hundreds of civilians killed, including many children.
“If you say he’s a war criminal, it will be a lot tougher to get a deal to get this thing stopped,” he said.
A possible return of family separations at the border
Trump sparked international backlash when he instituted a policy in 2018 that separated families at the border, ultimately rescinding the rule amid the outcry.
But on Wednesday, Trump admitted during the town hall that while the policy “sounds harsh,” he wouldn’t take it off the table.
“Well, when you have that policy, people don’t come,” he said. “If a family hears that they’re going to be separated, they love their family, they don’t come.”
Pardons for insurrectionists
Trump, who is accused of trying to overturn the 2020 election, repeated false claims that the voting was marred by widespread fraud, but he broke new ground on how he’d handle those convicted and imprisoned over taking part in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection.
“I am inclined to pardon many of them,” Trump told Collins. “I can’t say for every single one because a couple of them, probably, they got out of control.”
Trump did not delineate what charge or activity would be considered too severe to not qualify for a pardon, though the comments mark the first time that Trump has said he would consider freeing the lion’s share of the over 900 people who have been criminally charged over their involvement in or planning of the riot.
(MERRIMACK, N.H.) — As New Hampshire Republican voters cheered on former President Donald Trump at CNN’s town hall Wednesday night, there was one questioner who stood out.
Julie Miles, a registered nurse for more than 20 years, living in Merrimack, New Hampshire, wanted to know how Trump felt about abortion rights after the Supreme Court overruled decades of precedent in the landmark case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
A registered Republican, Miles had voted for Trump twice but was now undecided. She doesn’t chalk up her indecision to the abortion issue — “I’m not a one-issue voter,” she told ABC News in an interview Thursday. But, Miles said, she thinks Republican candidates should make clear where they stand given the stakes involved.
So, with the president in front of her, Miles stood up and asked a question she said was on behalf of the millions of women voters out there she said would be wondering the same thing: “How do you plan to appeal to women voters in New Hampshire who are concerned about the Dobbs decision and how states may change their laws?”
It’s one of many questions expected to follow Trump and other Republican candidates into 2024, including whether a future GOP president would embrace a proposed nationwide 15-week ban on abortion, what medical conditions qualify as a life-saving emergency, and if a woman in her third trimester should be forced to carry to term a non-viable pregnancy.
When confronted by Miles, Trump called it a “great question” — then dodged in answering it.
The former president took credit for nominating Supreme Court justices who delivered the Dobbs decision, saying he gave the anti-abortion rights movement “something to negotiate with” and that he was able to pull off what other Republican presidents couldn’t.
“Deals are being made. Deals are going to be made,” Trump told Miles.
Trump also falsely accused Democrats of wanting to “rip the baby out of the womb at the end of the ninth month” — a mischaracterization of the Democratic position on abortion. Last year, Senate Democrats tried to push a constitutional standard that allows states to restrict abortions after a fetus is likely to survive outside the womb, but with exceptions for risks to maternal life or health.
At one point, the former president did note that he believed in exceptions to abortion restrictions for anyone who is a victim or rape or incest or if their life is at risk.
But when pressed by CNN’s Kaitlan Collins, the moderator, on whether he would sign legislation imposing a 15-week federal ban on abortion, Trump repeatedly wouldn’t answer.
“What I’ll do is negotiate so that people are happy,” he said.
That answer left Miles unsatisfied.
“He didn’t actually answer me,” she later told ABC News.
Advocates weren’t satisfied either. Groups on both sides panned his non-answer, including one prominent anti-abortion rights group who said they want a candidate who will commit to a federal ban of 15 weeks with the option for states to enact tougher restrictions.
“We’re looking for a leader on life. Someone who will commit to being a national defender of life and as part of that commitment they need to support” the 15-week standard, said E.V. Osment, vice president of communications for SBA Pro-Life America.
But Republicans could risk alienating independent and moderate voters that don’t embrace a federal ban. According to an ABC NewsWashington Post poll released Tuesday, 78% of Americans say the decision to have an abortion should be left up to a woman and her doctor rather than regulated by law. Among women, that sentiment is particularly strong: 71% of women say they oppose the Dobbs ruling.
For Miles, she said she sees abortion as “a very personal decision between a doctor, a woman and her family” and says “the bottom line is the federal government should not dictate” that decision. And, she said, she’s also hoping New Hampshire GOP Gov. Chris Sununu might jump in the race. Sununu backed a 24-week ban on most abortions with the exception of fatal fetal abnormalities — a law that essentially allows the vast majority of abortions to occur up until the point of fetal viability.
How might other women see Trump’s response? What would another Trump term mean when it comes to abortion?
“They’d still have the same question,” Miles said.
(WASHINGTON) — The House voted to pass a sweeping border security and immigration bill on Thursday evening, just hours before the Trump-era immigration order– Title 42– expires at midnight.
The sweeping border security and immigration bill passed by a vote of 219-213. Two Republicans, Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and John Duarte of California, joined all Democrats in voting against the legislation.
The bill will likely die in the Democrat-controlled Senate, and the White House has issued a veto threat.
The legislation, which House Speaker Kevin McCarthy called the “strongest border security bill to come through Congress in more than 100 years,” would increase penalties for individuals who overstay their visas and bolster the number of Border Patrol agents.
H.R. 2, known as the “Secure the Border Act,” also restarts border wall construction and reinstates the “remain in Mexico” policy that required some asylum-seekers to be sent back to Mexico during immigration proceedings.
“If it passes, I am confident that we will stop the flood of fentanyl into our country, solve the Biden Border Crisis, and support our border patrol agents so they can continue to keep us safe,” McCarthy said on the House floor prior to the vote.
Republicans are scrambling to strengthen immigration policy ahead of the end of Title 42. The Trump-era policy, which allowed for border agents to expel upward of two million migrants from the border during the COVID-19 pandemic, is set to lift at 11:59 pm after months of complicated legal and political battles. Democrats argue the bill is “extreme” and does not increase border security.
“This extreme MAGA Republican piece of legislation will throw out your children who are fleeing, in many cases, extreme violence and persecution. They will build a medieval border wall… The child deportation act is not a serious effort to deal with the issue related to our broken immigration system.,” Leader Hakeem Jeffries said at a press conference Thursday.
The White House said the bill does not address “the root causes of migration” and “does very little to actually increase border security while doing a great deal to trample on the nation’s core values and international obligations, it should be rejected.”
The Biden administration has instead revealed a sweeping version of border restrictions that it said would “humanely manage the border” when Title 42 lifts.
Under the finalized policy, migrants will be required to either first apply for protection in a third country or apply for admission via the CBP One App while also presenting at a legitimate port of entry to be considered, according to one Biden administration official.
The vote on the House proposal comes after months of negotiations within the GOP conference to hash out policy differences. On Wednesday, House members and leaders met behind closed doors for hours, making last-minute significant changes to the 213-page bill in an effort to secure enough votes for passage. The bill joins proposals from the House Judiciary, Foreign Affairs and Homeland Security committees.
When Title 42 expires at 11:59 p.m. ET Thursday, officials will immediately return to processing under existing Title 8 guidelines. Title 42 has been used more than 2.8 million times to expel migrants since its implementation in March 2020.
ABC News’ Isabella Murray and Katherine Faulders contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — Embattled Congressman George Santos, R-N.Y., was indicted on 13 criminal counts, including seven counts of wire fraud Wednesday and has defied calls to resign from office.
Federal prosecutors have accused him of defrauding donors and illegally receiving unemployment benefits during the pandemic.
Defense attorney and former Assistant Manhattan District Attorney Jeremy Saland spoke with ABC News Live Wednesday to discuss the charges.
ABC NEWS LIVE: Let’s just start with your reaction to the substance of this 13-count, 19-page indictment against Santos. And I want to first focus on the charges of donor fraud. How significant are those charges of using donor funds for personal benefit?
JEREMY SALAND: From what I understand from reading the indictment, is he really, for lack of a term, duped the public and arguably knowingly so… intentionally. So to use those monies for himself, it’s very egregious. The dollar amount may not be as egregious as we’ve seen in the past, but it’s a constant ongoing scheme that I think really puts him in the most danger.
ABC NEWS LIVE: Yeah, and that’s no doubt going to resonate with voters, as well. I’m wondering about improperly receiving unemployment benefits as well, because a lot of people in this country so rely on that and what the charges he was actually making money while he was receiving those benefits.
SALAND: You’re not going to make any friends and help your defense when you are scheming, as alleged, you are scheming to take money when people were at their most vulnerable and most desperate and needed those dollars to pay for their family’s mortgage, to pay for food on the table, [and] to keep businesses afloat. And every time, every week that Mr. Santos allegedly have signed off and said, “I’m unemployed, I’m unemployed, I’m unemployed,” and then collecting those dollars, even though it’s only in the tens of thousands, it’s offensive to the average American and rightfully so.
ABC NEWS LIVE: I know from covering cases like this that the public integrity unit will move quickly if they have the evidence. But I’m wondering, were you surprised by the speed of this investigation and the indictment? And what, if anything, do you think that says about the government’s case?
SALAND: You don’t know when this ultimately started, [or] when initiated. I think the government started to look into Mr. Santos once his lies were being revealed. And there’s been so many lies, not necessarily in the four corners of this indictment, but in terms of his conduct. So it doesn’t shock me that we’re at this point, some might argue what took so long, but the government seems to have a very strong case, at least for some of the charges, if not most of them.
Again, there [are] records and records don’t lie. Records tell the truth. And if he was collecting, for example, as we just discussed before, unemployment benefits, but at the same time depositing checks into his bank account for work, there’s really no defense to that. It speaks for itself.
ABC NEWS LIVE: So we heard Santos after leaving the courthouse today. I’m sure you saw some of that. And if you didn’t, he basically stood there in front of a gaggle of reporters and said this was the beginning of his ability to address the charges and defend himself while calling this a familiar term — a witch hunt. What did you make of his remarks, his demeanor at the time of his remarks and how he’s handling this publicly?
SALAND: This was sort of the Donald Trump peacock feather defense, “Look at me and I’m the victim here.” And it shocks me that an attorney would allow his client or her client to be so open and start saying things without having control. Because he came across as cavalier [and] arrogant. I think he said something about, this will be my book. I’m going to stay in Congress. It’s a witch hunt. Again, talking points with Donald Trump. He did himself no favors. He seemed to relish the moment, arguably, which does not really do anything for him before a judge, if there’s a conviction, to sentence him well beyond the guidelines or less than the guidelines. So he really was foolish.
ABC NEWS LIVE: If you were his defense attorney, what kind of credible defense could Santos mount based on the charges against him and based on the lies we know to be true so far?
SALAND: They are starting a three-legged race, which is difficult enough with no legs, well behind everybody. It’s extremely difficult because…the papers don’t lie. The potential witnesses, we talk about these people in the indictment, there’s a lot that he has to deal with.
But the government, when they go after a legislator, they’re very serious about it. And they do their homework.
(WASHINGTON) — Rep. George Santos co-sponsored a bill to crack down on a crime he is accused of.
The House voted on H.R. 1163, known as the “Protecting Taxpayers and Victims of Unemployment Fraud Act,” on Thursday. The bill, which passed by a vote of 230-200, would provide incentives to help states recover money that was lost to COVID unemployment fraud. Under the bill, states would retain 25% of recovered fraudulent overpayments and the statute of limitations for federal criminal charges or civil enforcement actions related to unemployment insurance fraud would be extended from five to 10 years.
But on Wednesday, Santos was indicted on 13 criminal counts, including allegedly fraudulently applying for and receiving unemployment benefits during the COVID pandemic when he actually had a $120,000 salary working as a regional director of an investment firm, according to the charging documents.
Santos allegedly applied to receive New York state unemployment insurance benefits, falsely claiming that he had been unemployed since March 22, 2020, prosecutors said in charging documents. He is also accused of collecting more than $24,000 in benefits when he actually had a $120,000 salary working as a regional director of an investment firm, according to the indictment.
Santos denied the allegations of unemployment fraud Wednesday.
“I will get to clear my name on this,” Santos told ABC News’ Rachel Scott following his court appearance in Islip, New York.
“During the pandemic, it wasn’t very clear. I don’t understand where the government is getting their information but I will present my facts,” he added, saying his employment changed during that time.
Santos dismissed the criminal charges filed against him, telling reporters he was going to “fight the witch hunt” and “clear [his] name,” noting he was “innocent until proven guilty.”
The freshman congressman has admitted to fabricating parts of his biography, acknowledging that he never graduated from college, despite publicly saying that he earned a degree from Baruch College. He also said that he stated his work experience “poorly” when he said he worked for companies such as Citigroup and Goldman Sachs. Spokespeople for both companies told ABC News that they have no record of Santos ever being employed.
Rep. Jim McGovern, D-M.A., took to the floor Wednesday to suggest a change to the bill Santos sponsored in light of the charges against him.
“I think we should rename this the George Anthony Devolder Santos Fraudster Protection Act,” McGovern said.
“They ignore billionaires who pay no taxes, but they want us to believe there’s an unemployment insurance crime spree…while at the same time a sitting member of the House Republican Conference was indicted in federal court this morning for unemployment fraud.”
The bill will be brought up for consideration on Thursday alongside H.R. 2, or the “Secure the Border Act.”
(WASHINGTON) — With the end of the last major Trump-era Title 42 border restrictions Thursday, the Biden administration will revert to processing all migrants as was done before the pandemic.
Authorities will now rely more heavily on immigration law as defined under Title 8 of the U.S. Code. The law outlines processes for deportation and carries strict penalties, including five- and 10-year bans on reentry for those deported.
It will be a significant departure from the use of Title 42, a section of public health law that allowed for fast-track expulsions during the pandemic and carries no such consequences.
Title 8 versus Title 42 — what’s the difference?
For starters, Title 42 is not traditional immigration law. But it has major implications for immigrants at the border and has been used more than 2.8 million times to expel migrants — a sizable number of enforcement actions in just over three years.
The use of Title 42 has been controversial ever since the Trump administration invoked it as a COVID-19 precaution in March 2020. Given the fast-track nature of the expulsions — which often took place in a matter of hours or less — immigrant advocates say its use has been an illegal violation of the rights of migrants to seek asylum on U.S. soil.
“The sunset of Title 42 is long overdue and ends a shameful period in our country’s history,” said Jill Marie Bussey, director for public policy at Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service. “We unequivocally affirm the legal right of individuals to seek protection at our borders and stand in solidarity with those who are most vulnerable, including children and families.”
Bussey urged the Biden administration not to replicate Title 42 with its plans to ramp up deportations under Title 8.
Title 8, which includes decades-old immigration legislation, outlines processes for handling migrants at the border. And while this section of the U.S. Code dictates expedited deportation protocols, it typically allows more time for migrants to lodge asylum claims than what they were afforded under Title 42.
The Biden administration has been working to speed up Title 8 processes by surging hundreds of asylum officers to the border in an effort to more quickly adjudicate humanitarian claims while applying the consequences Title 42 does not carry.
How effective is Title 8 compared to Title 42?
While authorities have anticipated an unmanageable surge of migration when the Title 42 order ends, some evidence shows its use causes more repeat border crossings. Under Title 42, migrants are not subjected to the five- and 10-year bars on reentry.
The use of Title 42 at the border came from an order by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which was reportedly protested by public health experts there.
The CDC moved to repeal the Trump-era order last year. However, Republicans quickly filed legal challenges to keep it in place. The Biden administration has continued to rely on Title 42 to manage the border. Earlier this year, the administration struck a deal with Mexico to send non-Mexican migrants from some countries back across the border. U.S. officials have said that process will continue even after Title 42 ends.
What happens when Title 42 expires — and when does that happen?
Title 42 expires at 11:59 p.m. ET Thursday, and officials will immediately return to processing under existing Title 8 guidelines. Barring further legal action, the end of the national coronavirus emergency declaration will mean the end of the Title 42 order and a full return to Title 8.
Authorities at the border never stopped using Title 8, even as the pandemic largely shutdown global travel in 2020. But its use has increased ever since, and it will once again be the primary authority for managing migrants.
Both sections of the U.S. Code are decades old, and there is broad consensus that truly fixing the U.S. immigration system will require new legislation from Congress. Despite calls from top officials across administrations, including Biden’s Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, Congress has so far failed to pass any reform.
Immigration authorities have been working on overdrive to manage the historic levels of unauthorized migrant crossings in recent years. Along with the deportation consequences under Title 8, the Biden administration has rolled out limited legal pathways to parole some migrants into the U.S. from abroad.
“We are taking this approach within the constraints of a broken immigration system that Congress has not fixed for more than two decades and without the resources we need: personnel, facilities, transportation, and others that we have requested of Congress and that we were not given,” Mayorkas said Wednesday.
(WASHINGTON) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a challenge to California’s Proposition 12, a statewide ban on the sale of pork from pigs housed in cages or crowded group pens that prevent them from turning around freely.
The ruling, which animal welfare advocates hailed as a “watershed moment,” could have a major impact on thousands of farmers, millions of pregnant pigs — and the prices Americans pay at the grocery store for one of the country’s most popular meats.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for a five-justice majority, said that California voters overwhelmingly endorsed the “ethical pork” law in 2018 and have the right to decide what products appear on store shelves.
“Companies that choose to sell products in various States must normally comply with the laws of those various States,” Gorsuch wrote in the opinion. “While the Constitution addresses many weighty issues, the type of pork chops California merchants may sell is not on that list.”
“States have long enacted laws aimed at protecting animal welfare,” Gorsuch wrote. “Proponents hoped that Proposition 12 would go a long way toward eliminating pork sourced in this manner from the California marketplace.”
Proposition 12, which was approved four years ago but has not yet taken effect due to legal challenges, outlaws pork derived from mother pigs housed in less than 24-square-feet.
The nation’s $20 billion pork industry had argued that the restrictions violate the Constitution’s dormant Commerce Clause by significantly impacting farmers outside of California and their ability to sell in one of the largest markets.
California consumes 13% of U.S. pork, the largest market in the country, but produces just 1%, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Farmers in heavy pork-producing states like Iowa, Minnesota and North Carolina had warned it will cost billions of dollars to retool their operations to comply with California’s law, resulting in less efficient and environmentally sustainable production. Most American pork is produced in facilities that do not meet Prop 12 standards, the industry says.
“We are very disappointed with the Supreme Court’s opinion. Allowing state overreach will increase prices for consumers and drive small farms out of business, leading to more consolidation,” said Scott Hays, a Missouri pork producer and president of the National Pork Producers Council, which sued California.
The high court decision affirms rulings of two lower courts that found the out-of-state pork producers had failed to state a valid claim against California as a matter of law.
But several dissenting justices and outside legal scholars say the Court’s decision keeps the door open to a future legal challenge against Prop 12 on different grounds.
“We are still evaluating the Court’s full opinion to understand all the implications. NPPC will continue to fight for our nation’s pork farmers and American families against misguided regulations,” Hays said.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented in part from the Gorsuch opinion.
“I would find that the petitioners have plausibly alleged a substantial burden against interstate commerce and would therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case for the court below to decide whether petitioners have stated a claim,” Roberts wrote.
Last year, ABC News got a rare inside look at three commercial pork farms on both sides of the Prop 12 debate.
“When you need to make changes just to comply with the California market, I’m very worried about what our long-term success would be,” third-generation Minnesota pork farmer Mike Boerboom said at the time.
His farm, which raises more than 400,000 pigs a year, is not Prop 12 compliant. “We’ve been raising pigs in confinement for 40 years,” he said.
The Biden administration took the side of pork farmers, concerned that a single state should not be allowed to excessively disrupt a major American industry.
But even before the Court’s decision, there were signs market forces and consumer preferences have nudged producers toward what animal advocates consider more ethical practices.
“We believe that that creates a healthier animal, and a healthier animal equates to healthier product to eat,” said John Jovaag of Austin, Minnesota, whose farm is part of the Niman Ranch network of family farmers who specialize in certified “humanely-raised” pigs and other animals.
“They need more farmers doing it this way to meet the demand,” Ruth Jovaag said of rapidly evolving consumer preferences. “There’s not enough supply.”
Major pork producers like Hormel and Tyson Foods — who initially opposed Prop 12 — say they are preparing to comply with at least parts of the law because of growing demand for humanely raised meat.
“This is a truly watershed moment for animal welfare,” said Chris Oliviero, general manager of Niman Ranch in a statement on the Supreme Court decision. “Since day one, Niman Ranch has been one of the only companies to ban the use of crates for raising hogs and today our more than 500 independent family farmer partners proudly raise their pigs 100% crate free.”
Kitty Block, president and CEO of the Humane Society of the U.S., which helped enact and defend Proposition 12, said the law is now “the nation’s strongest farm animal welfare law.”
“We’re delighted that the Supreme Court has upheld California Proposition 12,” Block said in a statement, “and made clear that preventing animal cruelty and protecting public health are core functions of our state governments.”
