Tag: scheme
Kristi Noem

Homeland Security Scheme Offers Migrants $1000 To 'Self-Deport'

The Trump administration is offering undocumented immigrants a paltry $1,000 if they choose to “self-deport” in a “dignified” way.

A Monday release from the Department of Homeland Security said immigrants would be paid the stipend “after their return to their home country has been confirmed” through Customs and Border Protection’s Home App.

“This is the safest option for our law enforcement, aliens and is a 70% savings for US taxpayers,” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem wrote in a post on X.

The announcement is a new focal point of President Donald Trump’s ongoing and chaotic policy of mass deportation, with the goal of purging the United States—a nation formed by immigrants—of immigrants. The Trump administration has already been executing that policy by abducting people, some in broad daylight, and forcibly transporting them to foreign nations and the notorious CECOT prison in El Salvador. Some, like Maryland man Kilmar Abrego Garcia, are legally qualified to be in the United States but have nonetheless been removed by Trump’s goons.

The notion that undocumented immigrants would go to such extraordinary lengths to come to the United States, only to upend the life they’ve built for a mere $1,000 is ridiculous on its face. Furthermore, immigration experts who have ridiculed such “self-deportation” policies in the past said migrants who take this offer would often be facing terrible financial straits, violence, or worse in their countries of origin.

Even nonexperts have said such policies are “crazy,” “maniacal,” and “mean-spirited”—at least, that’s how Trump himself described the idea when it was proposed by failed Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney in 2012.

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, said the DHS claim in its release that people opting to take the stipend could possibly return to the U.S. after self-deporting was “wildly deceptive.”

“For many people, this is a lie. Leaving will make their cases much worse,” he wrote. Reichlin-Melnick noted that if a person took the offer, a deportation order could then be handed down in court for failing to appear in court.

Even more concerning is Trump’s long history of lying and misleading on matters both big and small. There is little guarantee based on his track record in the presidency and in his private life that Trump’s administration would fulfill a promise to a migrant.

There are also signs that the policy announcement was intertwined with efforts to promote pro-Trump propaganda on the right-wing Fox News network.

Fox reporter Bill Melugin posted on Monday that he had been given “exclusive” early access to the announcement. He then promoted the announcement in an on-air segment on America’s Newsroom. DHS official Tricia McLaughlin did an interview with that program’s hosts to tout the idea as well.

Fox News also pushed the policy in an online story.

Noem has become notorious for engaging in laughable cosplay while doing public relations appearances pushing Trump’s anti-immigrant agenda. It looks like that hobby is a better use of time and taxpayer funds than the administration’s new and unworkable self-deportation plan.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

DOGE's Mass Deregulation Scheme Will Put Millions Of Lives 'At Risk'

DOGE's Mass Deregulation Scheme Will Put Millions Of Lives 'At Risk'

At over 400 federal agencies, officials appointed by President Donald Trump are reportedly collaborating with tech billionaire Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Their goal is to initiate a significant new phase in their effort to reduce the size of the federal government through "deregulation on a mass scale."

According to a New York Timesreport published Tuesday, the president has devised a way to reverse regulations "swiftly and permanently" without going through the lengthy legal process that usually takes place before deregulations.

Following Trump's instructions, agency officials are gathering the regulations they plan to discard. They are working quickly to meet a deadline next week, per the report. Once they finish the job, the White House will create a comprehensive list to direct what the president refers to as the "dismantling of the overbearing and burdensome administrative state."

The agencies being targeted govern "almost every aspect of American life," the report said.

“Many people don’t realize how high the American quality of life is because of the competent and stable enforcement of regulations, and if that goes away a lot of lives are at risk,” Steve Cicala, co-director of the National Bureau of Economic Research’s Project on the Economic Analysis of Regulation, told the Times.

“This affects airplane safety, baby formula safety, the safety of meat, vegetables and packaged foods, the water that you drink, how you get to work safely and whether you’re safe in your workplace," he added.

According to interviews conducted by the Times, Trump and his supporters regard the recent actions as the final blow in a comprehensive restructuring of the federal government that started with significant job cuts and attempts to close down certain agencies.

They think that swiftly eliminating various regulations, along with halting the enforcement of others, will dismantle a wide array of rules that others consider essential protections, but that they perceive as burdensome.

AlterNet reached out to DOGE for comment.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Judge Rejects Bid To Toss Trump University Lawsuit

Judge Rejects Bid To Toss Trump University Lawsuit

SAN DIEGO (Reuters) – A U.S. judge on Friday tentatively rejected Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s bid to dismiss a lawsuit by Trump University students who said they were defrauded through its real-estate seminars.

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel in San Diego told a hearing he would take under consideration arguments on both sides in the case and issue a written ruling in the coming weeks.

The 2013 lawsuit, one of three over the defunct Trump University venture, was filed on behalf of students who paid up to $35,000 to learn Trump’s real estate investing “secrets” from his “hand-picked” instructors. The plaintiffs have sought class-action status.

The cases against Trump University have regularly cropped up during the presidential campaign. Trump was roundly criticized in May when he accused Curiel, who is of Mexican descent, of being biased against him because of the candidate’s pledge to build a border wall between the United States and Mexico.

Curiel, who was born in Indiana, is presiding over two of the cases, with one set for trial in late November. A separate lawsuit by New York’s attorney general is pending in that state.

Trump’s lawyers say Curiel should toss the 2013 California lawsuit on the grounds that the New York real estate mogul, though personally involved in developing the concept and curriculum, relied on other executives to manage Trump University by the time the plaintiffs purchased their seminars.

“By 2007, his involvement was fairly minimal. He was not the person running this company. He founded it, he established it and he went off and let other people run it. It’s like any other celebrity endorsement,” Trump attorney Daniel Petrocelli said during the hearing.

Trump’s lawyers claim references in marketing materials to “secrets,” “hand-picked” instructors or “university” were mere sales “puffery.” According to the defense, there is no evidence Trump intended to defraud students.

Lawyers for the students say the wealthy developer conducted the marketing for Trump University more than anyone else, starring in and approving promotional materials.

They claim Trump University instructors were high-pressure sales people, not “professors and adjunct professors” as Trump touted, and that New York authorities told Trump back in 2005 to stop calling his unaccredited venture a university.

“Somehow, belligerence trumps substance,” plaintiff’s attorney Jason Forge said. “If we say it loud enough, forcefully enough, it becomes true. Well, it doesn’t.”

Trump owned 92 percent of Trump University and had control over all major decisions, plaintiffs’ court papers say.

 

(Additional reporting by Karen Freifeld and Dan Whitcomb; Editing by Tom Brown and Jonathan Oatis)

Photo: Republican U.S. presidential nominee Donald Trump formally accepts the nomination at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio, U.S. July 21, 2016.     REUTERS/Mario Anzuoni

This Isn’t New: Donald Trump Has Been Profiting Off His Campaign For Months

This Isn’t New: Donald Trump Has Been Profiting Off His Campaign For Months

Donald Trump’s spectacularly bad fundraising report for the month of May, published over the weekend, got a lot of attention. The press picked apart the document, reporting on the lavish amounts of money Trump has paid his own companies, his family’s companies, and his political allies.

“Trump’s campaign spends $6 million with Trump companies,” the Associated Press reported.

But if the media wanted to find evidence of possible wrongdoing, or at least of an extremely bizarre campaign finance regimen, they needn’t have waited until now: Trump, his family, and his associates have been profiting off of this campaign for months.

In February, the New York Timesreported that, of the 12.4 million the Trump campaign had spent in 2015,

About $2.7 million more was paid to at least seven companies Mr. Trump owns or to people who work for his real estate and branding empire, repaying them for services provided to his campaign. That total included more than $2 million for flights on his own planes and helicopter, a quarter of a million dollars to his Fifth Avenue office tower, and even $66,000 to Keith Schiller, his bodyguard and the head of security at the Trump Organization.

We reported back in March that, in January, Trump had spent around six percent of total campaign expenditures on Trump businesses, and the salaries of Trump employees.

In May, Forbesreported that, through the end of March, Trump had paid Trump-owned businesses $4.3 million, or 10 percent of total campaign expenditures through that date.

And now, through May, we know that of the $63 million the Trump campaign has spent this election cycle, 10 percent has been spent on Trump-owned organizations, in keeping with the trend this whole time.

Trump’s campaign expenses happen to be with businesses he owns or is affiliated with. A look at the list of top Trump campaign vendors is telling: Aside from Rick Reed media, a GOP advertising group, most are in some way Trump-related.

Tag Air is the Trump-owned company that operates his private jet. $4.3 million.

Ace Specialties, who manufacture the “Make America Great Again” hats, is owned by Christl Mahfouz, who the Wall Street Journal reported in October serves on the board of the Eric J. Trump foundation. $4 million.

WizBang solutions is run by the Mike Ciletti, the former head of the Make America Great Again PAC, which the Trump campaign disavowed after pressure from the media. They do “printing and design services,” according to the Washington Post. Mike Ciletti is a close business associate of Corey Lewandowski, Trump’s recently-fired campaign manager. $2 million.

And on and on and on: You get the point. When Trump isn’t funneling donor dollars and his own loans to Trump organizations or employees, he’s spending them on the companies of close associates and friends.

And he can pay those “loans” back to himself using donor dollars, as long as he does it before the Republican National Convention in July. Can Donald Trump afford to lose the $45 million he has loaned his campaign so far? We can’t know for sure, especially without seeing his tax returns… Trump did wonder aloud, in May: “Do I want to sell a couple of buildings and self-fund? I don’t know that I want to do that necessarily.”

So, we’ll see. Keep your eyes on the FEC filings.

But now that Trump has dropped all pretense of “self-funding” his general election campaign, this whole branding scheme may get a bit more complicated. Trump loaned his campaign $11.5 million in March, his largest one-month loan. After that, his monthly contributions started decreasing: $7.5 million in April, and just $2.2 million in May.

May was the first month the Trump campaign took in more from donations ($3.1 million) than it did from Trump’s loans.

That’s meaningful. As Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, an election law expert at the Brennan Center for Justice, noted in a New York Times article published yesterday, “as soon as you start using campaign money that has come in from donors, not just the money that he has loaned to himself, and he uses it for something that he will personally keep, or his family will personally keep, that is what crosses the line.”

 

Photo: Republican U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks at a campaign rally in Phoenix, Arizona, June 18, 2016. REUTERS/Nancy Wiechec

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World