Cutting Federal Law Enforcement Funding For ‘Sanctuary’ Blue States To Force Them To Comply With Federal Immigration Laws Is The ‘Tough Love’ The New Admin Should Apply

by Stefan Stanford, All News Pipeline:

In the wake of the Democratic wipeout November 5 and the tapping of Tom Homan as President Trump’s “border czar,” Democratic governors are busy trying to build a new “blue wall” to shield illegal aliens from promised immigration law enforcement. “Governors Safeguarding Democracy” is a new organization designed to stymie Trump initiatives in blue states. New Jersey governor Phil Murphy pledges to stand up “if there is an attack on the Garden State or any of its communities from Washington,” pledging “I will fight back with every fiber of my being.”

TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

What does Phil Murphy envision? Donald Trump in a rowboat, flag in hand, crossing the Delaware on Christmas Night to attack Trenton? Given the outfit now holding the state capital, this New Jerseyan thinks that wouldn’t be a bad idea.

Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker (co-founder with Colorado’s Jared Polis of “Governors Safeguarding Democracy) promises to block federal interference in the Land of Lincoln. While I have no doubt a J.B. Pritzker body block would be formidable, I think we can circumvent him.

These Democrats are channeling their inner George Wallace, promising to resist federal encroachment on their “state’s rights.” Consider the paradox: Democrats finally found the Tenth Amendment.

Except news flash to J.B., Phil, Kathy, Gavin, Gretchen, Maureen, Jared, and Ned: immigration is a federal priority.

That was your argument when Republican governors in Texas and Arizona tried to fill the vacuum caused by Obama and Biden non-enforcement of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Now that President-Elect Trump is committed to seeing the INA is “well and faithfully executed” — as the Presidential Oath of Office requires — just step aside.

Now, I never believed the argument that federal immigration jurisdiction preempted state cooperation with federal authorities. It only preempts, in my view, undermining federal enforcement, certainly actively but even passively.

One way “sanctuary” states and cities have refused to enforce federal immigration law has been how they handle criminals. Verifying whether people who are arrested have a right to be here should be a no-brainer. When we look at how most Blue States are governed, “no-brainer” seems about an apt description.

“Sanctuary” states do not verify immigration status and do not honor “retainers,” i.e., requests by federal law enforcement to hold someone otherwise to be released, when federal immigration is interested in them. This should stop.

Liberals used to claim the immigration system is flawed because employers do not verify employment eligibility and, therefore, Republican corporate types were as much to blame for illegal immigration as Democrats. There’s something to that argument, which simply means we should enhance the penalties for failing to verify employment eligibility status and/or hiring in violation of ineligibility. (Of course, most leftists have moved beyond “employers aren’t vetting illegals” to “no matter what, our economy will tank without them regardless of eligibility”).

That also means we need to break down some of the federal siloes that result in Social Security and other agencies not robustly interacting to track down fake users of Social Security numbers or verifying mismatched numbers and names.

All that said, however, if we expect employers to verify the right of somebody to work here, it’s legitimate to expect law enforcement – any law enforcement – to verify whether somebody in custody has a right to be here.

It is simply ludicrous to contend “it’s not my job.” If you detain a man who’s wanted in the next state for rape, you don’t say, “well, he didn’t do it in Illinois, so, good luck, be well, you might want to avoid Indiana.” If you hold a man in California, run his name, and discover he’s wanted in Arizona for “breaking and entering,” you don’t say (well, it’s California, you might): “You’re free to go, just don’t book any flights to Tucson.” If you can be extradited for breaking and entering a house, why are you immune for breaking and entering America’s house?

How to solve the “Blue Wall?” I suggest combined regulations and law changes. Require states to run immigration status, notwithstanding any state rules. Try it as a regulation: the worse that can happen is dragging through the courts.

Obviously, the best thing is to make it federal law. While at it, let’s adopt the Frank Lautenberg approach, used to strongarm recalcitrant states into increasing their drinking age. Any state that fails to enforce federal immigration law, at least with regard to detainees (and possibly if requested in conjunction with raids on illegals) should forfeit, say, 25% of federal law enforcement assistance money. Why should America’s taxpayers be paying full aid to states that don’t provide full legal enforcement aid?

“This will spike crime,” you say. Well, yes, it might. And perhaps that is the unfortunate cost of forcing otherwise myopic blue cities and states — which are often leaders in crime statistics anyway — to reckon with the costs of selective law enforcement. Either locals will pay more for law enforcement or they will face the consequences – and wake up to the consequences of retrograde criminal justice policies which subsidies from more responsible states are buffering.

Read More @ AllNewsPipeline.com

Originally Posted at https://www.sgtreport.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