Tom Homan lays out for Charlie Kirk exactly how he will secure border, conduct deportations

Incoming “border czar” Tom Homan has been making the rounds of news shows since being appointed to the post by President-elect Donald Trump, and while many have questioned his past comments or the ethics of the plans for mass deportation, Homan got a chance on The Charlie Kirk Show to detail what those plans are.

Homan, the first ICE director who “came up through the ranks,” said that at the federal level, there are four key things that must first be done.

1. To reinstate the Remain in Mexico policy, where those who seek asylum or entry into the US and arrive at the US-Mexico border submit their petition or claim for entry then wait in Mexico for their court date or for adjudication of their claim. Under the Biden-Harris administration, this was considered inhumane and those who arrived were processed and then released into the US. Reinstating this policy would be a task for the president and Homan said that it was a real deterrent to would-be border crossers. Nine out of ten people who claim asylum do not actually qualify once their case is heard in court.

2. The First Safe Country agreements must be reinstated, Homan said. This is the policy wherein to qualify to make an asylum claim at the US border, the applicant must have claimed asylum in the first safe country in which they arrived after leaving their own nation. This is an agreement that was made by the three Northern Triangle Countries of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador and it is to ensure that the individual is actually seeking asylum, not simply using lax US asylum rules to enter the US and remain there until a court date.

3. “We’re going to stop Catch and Release day one,” Homan said. Under the Biden-Harris administration, those who were caught illegally entering the US were processed and released into the US to await a court date. Homan’s plan would be to ensure that illegal immigrants are either “immediately returned or detained,” but not released into the US.

4. The Border Wall is the final component of this strategy, he said. The Biden-Harris administration did not finish building that wall, Homan said, noting that the key components of that wall are the tech components that alert border patrol if the wall is being breached either under, over or through. There are also communications pieces of that wall that were not installed, which is “an officer safety issue.” He said that the border wall has proved to be a deterrent because when it is encountered, it actually stops people and that border agents are more easily able to manage the limited crossings as opposed to the lengthy US-Mexico border.

As to his plan to enact mass deportations to remove the 8 to 10 million illegal immigrants who came into the US over the past four years. Homan said that he intends to “kick off the largest mass deportation this country has ever seen.” He told Kirk his plans for that, too. Kirk noted that there are literally Venezuelan gangs taking over apartment buildings in both Colorado and Texas, and pressed Homan on what authority the federal government has to do.

Homan said that federal law supersedes state or local law when it comes to sanctuary cities. Under Trump’s first term, Homan said, nine out of ten of those illegal immigrants who were deported were convicted criminals or had pending criminal charges and that under the new term, ICE would start with those who were Convicted Criminals or have Charges Pending. “We’re going after the public safety threat and national security threats first,” he said. Homan said that in cities that refuse to aid ICE, he will “double the manpower for that city.”

He will also Enforce the Laws Enacted by Congress, including laws around arresting US citizens who are “harboring” illegal aliens. Homan intends to extend this principle to local jails that in sanctuary cities refuse to turn over illegal immigrants for deportation who have been charged with crimes.

Homan also cleared up just which illegal immigrants are and are not criminals, saying “Entry to this country illegally is a crime, every illegal alien in this country committed a crime to get here, so they’re all criminals.” For Homan, however, it’s not about the individuals, but what the massive influx of illegal immigrants facilitates: smuggling of human beings and drugs. When border patrol is overwhelmed at the border, he said, that’s when the cartels move in with fentanyl and other drugs that lay waste to American lives.

This Story originally came from humanevents.com

zerohedge
Economics , News , Politics , Science
November 22, 2024
2 views

Utility Companies Are Not On Our Side

Authored by Linnea Leuken & H. Sterlin Burnett via RealClearPolitics,

When electric power was a novel idea and just beginning to be adopted in urban centers, the industry had a Wild West feel to it as multiple companies strung wires, opened power plants, and sold electricity on an unregulated market. Competition was fierce, but state and local governments concluded that the inefficiencies and redundancies endangered the public and imposed higher costs.

So states set up service territories with monopolistic or oligopolistic service providers, who were entrusted with providing reliable power and sufficient reserve for peak periods in return for being guaranteed a profit on rates proposed by the utilities but approved or set by newly established state public utility commissions (PUCs). These commissions were charged with ensuring public utilities served the general public universally within their territory, providing reliable service at reasonable rates.

Much has changed since then. Politicians began to supplant engineers to decide, based on self-interested calculations, what types of power should be favored and disfavored, and what types of appliances and modes of transportation Americans could use. As the 21st century dawned, a new consideration entered the picture: Climate change.

Under the banner of combatting global warming, utilities were at first encouraged and then coerced into adopting plans and policies aimed at achieving net zero emissions of carbon dioxide. The aim of providing reliable, affordable power – the rationale for the electric utilities’ monopolies in the first place – was supplanted by a controversial and partisan political goal. Initially, as states began to push renewable energy mandates, utilities fought back, arguing that prematurely closing reliable power plants, primarily coal-fueled, would increase energy costs, compromise grid reliability, and leave them with millions of dollars in stranded assets.

Politicians addressed those concerns with subsidies and tax credits for renewable power. In addition, they passed on the costs of the expanded grid to ratepayers and taxpayers. Effectively, elected officials and the PUCs, with a wink and a nod, indemnified utilities for power supply failures, allowing utilities to claim that aging grid infrastructure and climate change were to blame for failures rather than the increased percentage of intermittent power added to the grid at their direction.

Today, utilities have enthusiastically embraced the push for renewable (but less reliable) resources, primarily wind and solar. PUCs guarantee a high rate of return for all new power source (wind, solar, and battery) installations, which has resulted in the construction of ever more and bigger wind, solar, and battery facilities. The costlier, the more profitable – regardless of their compromised ability to provide reliable power or the cost impact on residential, commercial, and industrial ratepayers.

A new report from The Heartland Institute demonstrates the significant financial incentives from government and financiers for utilities to turn away from affordable energy sources like natural gas and coal, and even nuclear, and instead aggressively pursue wind and solar in particular. All of this is done in the name of pursuing net zero emissions, which every single major utility company in the country boasts about on their corporate reports and websites. Reliability and affordability come secondary to the decarbonization agenda.

Dominion Energy is a good example, as they are one of the most aggressive movers on climate-focused policy. Dominion CEO Robert Blue speaks excitedly about government-forced transitions to a wind- and solar-dominated grid in interviews. During one interview with a renewable energy podcast, he said:

“[S]ometimes the government needs to focus on outcomes. We’re trying to address a climate crisis, and we are going to need to move quickly to do that.” In the same interview, he expressed enthusiasm about federal policy that would achieve a government-directed transition.

And why wouldn’t he? Dominion, like most utilities, is granted government tax credits and guarantees on returns for investing in large, expensive projects like offshore wind, the most expensive source of electric power. The bigger the project, the bigger the profit with guaranteed returns.

Also, onshore wind companies have received special “take limits” from the Fish and Wildlife Service to kill protected bald eagles and golden eagles, while prosecuting oil companies if birds are injured or killed on their sites.

Net zero policies are not the environmental panacea that climate change activists proclaim. Industrial-scale wind and solar use substantially more land than conventional energy resources, disrupting ecosystems and destroying wildlife habitats in the process.

And despite recent technological advances, wind and solar are still not dispatchable resources, meaning they cannot provide consistent power at all times needed. Refuting claims made by environmentalists and utilities that wind and solar are the cheapest sources of electric power, costs have risen steeply as the use of wind and solar has increased. Customers of Duke Energy in Kentucky, for example, are paying 78% higher rates in the wake of coal-fired plant closings.

Politicians and utilities are pushing for even more electrification for appliances and vehicles despite the fact that Federal Energy Regulatory Commission officials have repeatedly warned in recent years that adding more demand for electric power while replacing reliable power sources with intermittent renewables is destabilizing the power system.

It appears that the utilities prioritize short-term profits over grid reliability or keeping costs reasonable – and the government officials who are supposed to keep them in check are only encouraging them. It doesn’t need to be this way. The U.S. grid was not always this way. Only in recent years, with the obsessive pursuit of net zero, have rolling black and brownouts become so common.

Today, utility companies are sending lobbyists to conservative policymakers in order to convince them that the utilities have our best interests in mind. Their track record tells another story. Meanwhile, Americans have less reliable electricity at higher costs.

Linnea Lueken (llueken@heartland.org, X: @LinneaLueken) is a research fellow with the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy at The Heartland Institute.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 11/22/2024 – 06:30