Private Equity-backed Retailers That Source Their Products Offshore Oppose Border-adjustment Tax

January 31, 2017

Bloomberg - In Donald Trump's world, the long list of "losers" includes Cher, Rosie O'Donnell and Mark Cuban.

Now, as he proposes an overhaul of U.S. tax and trade policies, President Trump is poised to create a new list of losers -- for private equity.  

The introduction of a potential border-adjustment tax could erode profits at some of the businesses owned by buyout firms, enough to make them not worth hanging onto any longer. That may speed up the timetable for putting them on the auction block or on laying the groundwork for an IPO.

As firms review their portfolios, key considerations for determining which fall into this "loser" category include the percentage of a company's inputs that are originated outside of the U.S. and how truly flexible supply chains are if the concept of border adjustability becomes law.

So which companies could be culled? One possible "loser" is American Tire Distributors Holdings Inc., which imports and manufactures some of its tires in Asia and is backed by Ares Management LP and TPG. Another is NBG Home, which leans on Asian manufacturers for many of its products and is owned by Kohlberg & Co. Then there's also Isola Group, which has offshore manufacturing operations that make laminates for use in the production of printed circuit boards, which is backed by TPG and Oaktree Capital. These are just a few -- there are many more that fall into this bucket.

Private equity firms will likely have to reset their expectations around valuations and accept lower prices than they otherwise might. But in an industry where one's ability to raise new funds depends on past performance and decent returns, minimizing losses is crucial.

On the subject of losses, the border-adjustment tax could exacerbate problems for private equity-backed retailers that source their products offshore, including but not limited to J. Crew Group Inc., Claire's Stores Inc., Toys "R" Us Inc., Nine West Holdings Inc., Rue21 and True Religion Apparel Inc.

These companies are already operating at various levels of distress, mostly due to heavy debt burdens -- a feature that could crush them even more if interest deductibility is scrapped under the new tax code. Worse still, most of these companies carry deferred tax assets which will become less valuable if the corporate tax rate drops as planned. And unlike the potential "losers" mentioned above, these situations are even more difficult for private equity firms to extract themselves from.

Blackstone Group LP has already forecast that the collective impact of tax code changes, in their draft form, will be neutral to slightly positive on its private equity portfolio -- even if some rejiggering is in order. Publicly-traded peers Apollo Global Management LLC, Carlyle Group LP and KKR & Co. -- each set to report their own fourth-quarter results in coming weeks -- will likely echo the same message. It's about self-preservation, after all.

Another such company that was exploring sale options even before the election was Springs Window Fashions, a Golden Gate Capital-backed maker of blind, shade and other window coverings. The Middleton, Wisconsin-based company has sizable manufacturing operations in Mexico which could mean its profits are dented by the border-adjustment tax.

Private Equity Assets Under Management Approach $2.5 Trillion as the Industry Doubles in Size Over the Past Decade

The total assets under management for the private equity industry have grown to a record $2.49 trillion as of June 2016 (the latest figures available). Preqin’s 2017 Global Private Equity & Venture Capital Report finds that industry assets rose from $2.39 trillion as of the end of 2015, continuing eight consecutive years of expansion in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis. Strong fundraising has driven this latest growth in assets: the dry powder component of industry AUM increased by $117 billion in the first six months of 2016, while the total value of assets held by fund managers (the unrealized value component of AUM) fell slightly.

Christopher Elvin, Head of Private Equity Products said:

“2016 was another stellar year for the private equity industry, and total AUM now stands at a record $2.49 trillion as of June. The question on many people’s minds is ‘how much longer will it continue?’ While the reality is that only time will tell, the industry is well positioned for another strong year in 2017. In a low-interest-rate environment, the asset class continues to appeal to investors looking for high absolute returns and portfolio diversification.

“This is borne out in the state of the market going into 2017: investor sentiment is extremely high, and there are currently record numbers of funds seeking investment. Many investors are looking to redeploy the capital returned to them back into the asset class, which in turn is stoking an active fundraising market. While asset pricing remains a very real concern for both fund managers and investors, 2017 has the potential to match the successes seen in 2016.”

Key Facts from the 2017 Global Private Equity Report:

2016 U.S. Presidential Election Results by County

January 25, 2017

Yahoo News - President Trump signed a pair of executive orders on Wednesday stepping up immigration enforcement efforts and calling for “the immediate construction of a physical wall on the southern border.” Trump touted the actions in a speech at the Department of Homeland Security on Wednesday afternoon.

“As I’ve said repeatedly to the country, we are going to get the bad ones out, the criminals, and the drug deals, and gangs, and gang members, and cartel leaders. The day is over when they can stay in our country and wreak havoc. We are going to get them out. We are going to get them out fast,” Trump said.

In his speech, Trump argued that the U.S. is “in the middle of a crisis on our southern border” owing to “the unprecedented surge of illegal migrants from Central America” and drug cartel activity. He also stressed that his immigration reform measures would improve the U.S.’s relationship with Mexico and help both nations by “deterring illegal immigration from Central America and by disrupting violent cartel networks.”

“I believe the steps we will take starting right now will improve the safety in both our countries, going to be very, very good for Mexico,” Trump said. “A nation without borders is not a nation. Beginning today, the United States of America gets back control of its borders, gets back its borders.”

One of Trump’s executive orders called for the immediate construction of a “contiguous, physical wall or other similarly secure, contiguous, and impassable physical barrier” on the border with Mexico. The border wall — and having Mexico pay for it — was one of Trump’s signature campaign promises.

Trump’s executive orders also call for the defunding of so-called sanctuary cities, in which officials refuse to hand over undocumented immigrants for deportation. One of the orders granted the homeland security secretary and attorney general the power to ensure that those cities “are not eligible to receive federal grants, except as deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes.”

“The American people are no longer going to have to be forced to subsidize this disregard for our laws,” Spicer said.

January 25, 2017

People - President Donald Trump consistently griped about voter fraud during and after the election. And now that he’s taken office he is taking his assertions one step further as he calls for a “major investigation.”

“I will be asking for a major investigation into voter fraud,” he wrote in part Thursday morning on Twitter, and indicated that that illegal immigrants, those registered in two states and “those registered to vote who are dead” are to blame — without offering any evidence to back up his claims.

Although he won the Electoral College following the general election on Nov. 8, Trump lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes — which he claimed was due to “millions of people” voting “illegally” last November.

Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 2,864,974, which is 2.1 percent of the total vote. How dominant is California when it comes to driving Hillary Clinton’s popular vote lead over President-Elect Donald Trump? The overall numbers obscure the fact that one state gave Clinton her edge: Populous California. Clinton popular vote lead overall: At least 1.23 million. Clinton popular vote lead in California alone: At least 3.1 million. (The “at least” comes into play because California was still counting unprocessed ballots as of November 16 – more than 3.4 million of them – but since the state went so large for Clinton, it’s expected that California will just add to her margin even more.) California contributed more than 10% of Clinton’s overall popular vote tally. Without California in the popular vote totals, Trump leads the rest of the states combined by more than 1.87 million popular votes. [Source]

He reiterated that claim in a meeting on Monday, telling a group of Congressional leaders that he lost the popular vote because undocumented immigrants voted in the election.

In a press briefing on Tuesday, Press Secretary Sean Spicer said that Trump “does believe that” millions of undocumented immigrants voted in this election, though he didn’t name concrete evidence — just “studies” — to back up his point.

Related:

• It appears that California's voter registration is done on the honor system and they will mail ballots anywhere in the world. Is Soros behind this? 
• California Is America's Poverty State  
• Average Household Income By State 

DHS Spending Bill and Threat of Shutdown Just a Ruse to Remove Executive Amnesty Issue from Bill

Republican-controlled Congress sent legislation to President Barack Obama on March 2, 2015 that funds the Department of Homeland Security without any of the immigration-related concessions they demanded for months. The House voted 257-167 in favor of the $40 billion spending bill, which Obama was expected to sign promptly. All 182 Democrats present voted for the bill, while it received only 75 Republican “yes” votes. It was a major victory for Obama and the Democrats, and a wholesale retreat for Republicans, who have spent months railing against an “unconstitutional overreach” by Obama in extending deportation stays and work permits to millions of immigrants in this country illegally. [Source]

Despite fiery CPAC speech, is Ted Cruz changing course?

The Texas Republican dazzled conservative supporters at a conference outside Washington with tough anti-establishment talk, but inside the Capitol, he appears to be softening his approach

February 27, 2015

Yahoo! News - Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas used a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Thursday to rail against the party establishment, calling himself a “disruptive app” such as Uber that would upend the political system. Delighting the assembled conservative shock troops, Cruz castigated the Republican leadership for selling out its principles by separating a funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security from a measure that would roll back President Barack Obama’s executive action on immigration.

“Unfortunately, Republican leadership is cutting a deal with Harry Reid and the Democrats to give in on executive amnesty,” Cruz told the applauding CPAC crowd of the looming votes to fund the agency, which will shut down Saturday if there is no action from Congress.

And yet just the day before, Cruz took a little-remarked-on action that seemed to belie his combative rhetoric. Talking to reporters on Capitol Hill, Cruz indicated he would not stop an agreement between Democratic and Republican leaders to proceed with a clean bill to fund the DHS and avoid a shutdown — the same agreement he lambasted in his CPAC speech. For the firebrand legislator, best known for his role in the politically disastrous 2013 government shutdown, it was an intriguing signal that he may be softening his famously hard-line approach.

Cruz’s position on the underlying legislation — that it’s a bad deal for conservatives who want to stop President Obama’s executive actions on immigration — remains unchanged. But Cruz apparently was openly accepting that he could not permanently block passage of the bill. In a smashmouth political culture in which legislators use every parliamentary tactic to gain advantage and seize the spotlight, the simple act of bowing to reality was noticeable.

FBI is Developing a Biometric Identification Database Program Called 'Next Generation Identification' (NGI), Which Will Be the Largest Biometric Database in the World

Biometric technology is the science of identifying or verifying a person based on physiological or behavioral characteristics through automated analysis of the unique traits of an individual. Identification involves determining who a person is. Verification is determining if a person is who they say they are based on comparison to previously measured biometric data. Examples of the most commonly used physiological biometrics technology are facial recognition, fingerprint, hand geometry and iris recognition. Behavioral biometrics includes voice recognition and signature.

Next Generation Identification - FBI

Epic.org

• DHS Open Government Report Reveals Increased Backlog and Use of Law Enforcement Exemptions: The Department of Homeland Security has released the 2013 Freedom of Information Act Report detailing the agencies attempts to comply with the federal open government law. The FOIA requires each agency to provide the numbers of requests received and processed, the time taken to respond, the outcome of each request, and other statistics. In 2013, the DHS reported a significant increase in its FOIA backlog, which rose from 28,553 unanswered requests in 2012 to 53,598 unanswered requests in 2013. Of the nine exemptions that an agency can invoke to withhold documents, DHS relied most heavily on exemption 7(C) (law enforcement records that if released would constitute an invasion of personal privacy) and 7(E) (law enforcement records that if released would disclose law enforcement techniques or procedures, which is significant because the DHS is not a law enforcement agency. DHS reported granting about 7% of requests for expedited processing. EPIC has prevailed in several FOIA lawsuits against DHS, and has also worked to reform the agency's FOIA processing practices for other requesters. For more information, see EPIC v. DHS - Body Scanner FOIA Appeal, EPIC v. DHS - Social Media Monitoring, and EPIC v. DHS - SOP 303. (Feb. 21, 2014)

In Public Schools Data is Being Gathered and Transmitted on Your Child Without Your Knowledge and Consent

Tracking Your Child’s Data: Who Has it, Why is it Being Gathered, Where is it Going?

November 6, 2014

Missouri Education Watchdog - As you read the article below from techdirt.com on police departments data mining information on citizens, you can get a good idea on how data mining and transmission is occurring with your child’s data from public school.   Data is being gathered and transmitted on your child without your knowledge and probably without your consent.  Substitute the phrase ‘educational agencies’ for ‘law enforcement agencies’ and you will understand how the data grabbing and tracking game is played.

The article details:

• how the police department is inviting other departments to access this data (akin to Arne Duncan granting access to third party researchers/organizations with the rewriting of FERPA)
• how police data is gathered (how is YOUR child’s data gathered…active vs passive permission and expressed permission)
• the police database has no oversight regarding its use (who controls the access on your child’s data and do you even know what data is being gathered and why)
• how this information is being stored (ask your local school board questions about data gathering, usage and retention)

Local Law Enforcement Implementing Iris Scans as 'Another Tool for Public Safety'

Police departments across the United States are preparing to implement a controversial technology that scans the iris of the eye and the face in order to more effectively identify an individual or suspects. The device simply slides on over the screen of an iPhone in order to scan a person’s face or iris. It is being referred to as biometric technology and is being used in the hopes that it will improve the accuracy and speed that is necessary for police officers to do their jobs while they’re in the field. Though it may have significant benefits, this technology is also raising concerns among individuals who are worried over issues of privacy and civil liberties, which could potentially be violated through its use. They fear that officers may unnecessarily scan individuals, which can be intrusive to innocent people when it is intended for finding criminals. The manufacturer of the devices argues that this is unlikely as it would be difficult for police officers to accomplish. The scanner is called a Mobile Offender Recognition and Information System (MORIS), and was designed and manufactured by a Plymouth, Massachusetts-based company called BI2 Technologies, in order to be used with smartphones for use by police officers working in the field or at the station. Iris scans function by identifying a person’s unique eye patterns, similar to a fingerprint, and can minimize the time required for a suspect’s identification. In fact, this technology is considered to be more accurate than today’s fingerprinting abilities, which are one of the identification standards across the country. [Source]

Flashback: Germany Issues RFID National ID Cards to Its Citizens

Germany Gets Set to Issue RFID ID Cards and Readers to Its Citizens

The government hopes its new national ID cards will foster Internet-based commerce, by enabling citizens to use the cards and readers at home to carry out online transactions without putting their personal or financial data at risk.

October 6, 2010

RFID Journal - In an ambitious project designed to provide citizens with a more secure form of identification, as well as a secure method for conducting business via the Internet, Germany will begin issuing RFID-based national identity cards on Nov. 1, 2010.

With the rollout of the new ID cards, Germany will become the first country to outfit its national ID cards with the same technological features of a passport—such as biometric photos, RFID chips and optional digital fingerprints—according to Andreas Reisen, who heads the division of the German Ministry of the Interior responsible for introducing the cards.

Germany's new RFID-based national identity cards contain a passive 13.56 MHz SmartMX chip from NXP Semiconductors.

The RFID-based card, approximately the size of a credit card, will replace the nation's current national ID card, which is slightly larger than a credit card and lacks an RFID chip. It will be mandatory for all citizens receiving an ID card for the first time, or who are replacing older ID cards. Those who do not need to renew or replace their ID cards will continue to be able to use their non-RFID version until their cards expire—typically, within 10 years. Beginning in May 2011, foreigners living in Germany will have the opportunity to use similar cards, in the form of an electronic version of their residency permits.

In 2008, the German government passed a law paving the way for the new ID cards. One motivation for issuing the cards was to help reduce the misuse of personal data over the Internet. Many Germans are still reluctant to make online purchases, due to worries that their personal data or financial information could be misused.

By installing an RFID card reader on their home computer, citizens can use the card to positively identify themselves online, via a USB connection. This enables vendors and online organizations to know for certain whom they are dealing with. If a business wants to offer residents of a particular city a discount on a product or service, for instance, that company can verify an individual's address on his or her ID card.

As part of the project, each citizen will be able to download free software developed for the national ID cards, starting on Nov. 1. The software, formerly known as Buerger Client, is now called AusweisApp (which, translated to English, means ID App). AusweisApp was developed by OpenLimit on behalf of the Federal Office for Information Security (Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik, or BSI). According to Reisen, the software will allow citizens to identify themselves using their ID card at their PC, as well as execute an electronic signature, if they opt to have their electronic signature stored in the card's memory. If a citizen wants to employ the signature function, he or she must first obtain a signature certificate from an authorized certification-service provider (a list of such companies is available on the Web site of the Federal Network Agency for Electricity, Gas, Telecommunications, Post and Railway).

Before carrying out a transaction online, an ID cardholder must place his or her card on the RFID reader and input a PIN in order to authorize the transmission of specific data stored on that card. At the same time, only those organizations that have obtained a certificate from the government will be able to collect the information from the electronic ID cards, such as a person's name, address and birth date. This offers a cardholder the security of knowing he or she is dealing with a legitimate organization, and can speed and ease the process of registering for an account online, conducting online banking or filling out forms.

"Germans place high value on data self-determination," Reisen says. "This project is mainly about data security, and we involved citizens in developing the concept from the beginning."

Some citizens have rallied against the cards, claiming that anyone with an RFID reader could collect the data stored on them at any given time—but the government has been able to quell such fears by pointing out that only certified organizations can request such information and by citing proprietary security controls. If a person loses his card, he can call a government hotline and have the card blocked from network use. Officials will then list the card as blocked on a central server accessible to licensed participants—which will be required to update their own lists of blocked cards by retrieving the official government list. If a thief attempts to conduct a transaction using a blocked card, that transaction will be denied because the card will not be authenticated. What's more, a person can choose to have the RFID tag deactivated upon the card's issue.

Aaron Russo 2007 Interview - RFID Human Implant Chip


The ID cards were tested by the Technical University of Darmstadt, together with the Fraunhofer Institute for Information Security. Students utilized the cards to identify themselves for e-services offered by the school, such as downloading e-books, checking grades online or submitting homework. The card's designers hope citizens will use their own cards much in the same way for commercial services conducted via the Internet, or for certain government services, such as submitting tax returns. During the next 10 years, the German government expects to issue some 60 million ID cards.

Reisen declines to reveal how much the government is investing in the cards' production. He does indicate, however, that all development and production costs will be covered by the €28.80 ($40) fee each citizen will pay to receive the ID card; €22.70 ($32) of that amount will be forwarded to Bundesdruckerei, the private company producing the cards.

In addition, the government will distribute roughly 1.2 million ID card readers, with which citizens can positively identify themselves online. Citizens will not have to pay for these devices; instead, they will be made available for free, and paid for from €24 million ($33 million) provided to the government's ID division, as part of the country's economic stimulus package.
These devices, called "basic" readers, can be used only for reading the ID cards. Officially approved companies will distribute the free devices as part of their marketing efforts—that is, a move by these businesses to get citizens to use their online services via the new USB readers and ID cards. "Basic" readers not allotted for free distribution by an officially approved firm will be available for purchase at electronics stores, as well as other retail establishments.

Through an open tender, the government selected the following organizations to distribute the reader infrastructure, starting on Nov. 1, as part of promotional or commercial activities: CHIP Communications, Cosmos Lebensversicherungs, Deutscher Genossenschafts-Verlag, Impuls Systems, KKH-Allianz, Multicard, SCM Microsystems and T-Systems International. Reiner SCT Kartengeräte GmbH & Co. KG and SCM Microsystems will produce many of the interrogators used, but any company can do so if they comply with the technical guidelines (TR-03119) published by the Federal Office for Information Security.

In addition, the German government will distribute another 230,000 so-called "comfort" readers that can be used for signature applications—programs allowing individuals to provide authenticated digital signatures. These readers will be available at government-subsidized prices, in order to increase data security on the Internet, and to make sure the devices are available to a wide number of citizens.

"The idea of the stimulus package was to boost the economy by creating new infrastructure," Reisen says. "That's exactly what we're doing here, by subsidizing these RFID readers."

Each ID card will contain a SmartMX passive 13.56 MHz RFID chip manufactured by NXP Semiconductors. NXP reports that its SmartMX chip platform incorporates a number of unique security features to guard against reverse-engineering and attack scenarios with light and lasers, as well as a dedicated hardware firewall to protect specific sections on the chip. According to NXP, the version of the SmartMX chip being used was designed specifically for Germany's ID card, and is 100 percent compatible with the ISO 14443-A RFID standard.
Reisen says Germany is a technology leader with its electronic passports, and hopes to set technological and data-security standards with the new ID cards.

"I have many contacts in other countries who are looking closely at what we're doing," he states. "They'll surely adapt the concept for themselves after our launch."

According to press reports, France, Poland and Holland are also planning to introduce new national ID cards in the coming years. 

Proof RFID Microchip Is In Obama Health Care  

Stop Transferring Weapons of War to Civilian Police Departments Under the Guise of Fighting a War on Drugs, Which Has Evolved Into a Border War

Stop Arming the Police Like a Military

June 24, 2014

DefenseOne.com - If there’s anything I know after serving the Boston Police Department for 27 years, it’s this: Good policing is all about trust.

This isn’t a particularly novel insight, but my time as a beat cop hammered it into me time and again. Yet it’s incredible how many police departments across the nation have lost sight of this in their rush to transform into something more akin to a standing army rather than a civilian police force safeguarding a democratic people.

Have no doubt, police in the United States are militarizing, and in many communities, particularly those of color, the message is being received loud and clear: “You are the enemy.” Police officers are increasingly arming themselves with military-grade equipment such as assault rifles, flashbang grenades, and Mine Resistant Ambush Protected, or MRAP, vehicles and dressing up in commando gear before using battering rams to burst into the homes of people who have not been charged with a crime. Perhaps more alarming is the fact that the Pentagon has played a huge role in this militarization by transferring its weapons of war to civilian police departments through its so-called 1033 program.

Many communities now look upon police as an occupying army, their streets more reminiscent of Baghdad or Kabul than a city in America. This besieged mentality created by the militarization of police has driven a pernicious wedge into the significant gains made under community- and problem-oriented policing initiatives dating from the late 1980s. The trusting relationships so many police officers painstakingly built within their communities have been eroded by the mindset of the warrior cop.

One of the more alarming trends in the overall militarization of police, which has accelerated since 9/11, is the use of Special Weapons and Tactics, or SWAT, teams for routine police work. According to the ACLU’s new report, “War Comes Home,” the majority of the SWAT raids it examined was to execute search warrants, usually in low-level drug investigations. The ACLU also found that many of the SWAT raids it studied used unjustifiably “violent tactics and equipment,” often in homes where children were known to be present.

The ACLU also found something far more worrisome but unfortunately not surprising. The use of SWAT teams disproportionately impacts people of color, particularly when the teams were deployed to execute a search warrant for a drug investigation. Of the cases the ACLU studied, when SWAT raids affected blacks and Latinos, 68 percent were for drug searches. But when SWAT raids affected whites, only 38 percent were for drug searches, even though whites use drugs at roughly the same rates as blacks and Latinos.

This discriminatory and excessive use of SWAT teams turns the criminal justice system on its head and eviscerates the presumption of innocence, which is the hallmark of American justice. People who have been charged with no crime aren’t only treated like they’re guilty; they’re made to endure a violent intrusion into their home based on the mere suspicion of low-level crimes. To the victims of unnecessary SWAT raids and their communities, the idea that police are there to serve and protect them becomes a bad joke.

This isn’t to say that the use of SWAT teams is never justified. I know better than most. I participated in one of the very first SWAT deployments at the Boston Police Department when a man who shot a police superintendent barricaded himself in an apartment. But this is the precise type of situation that the SWAT program was created for, not breaking down the door of people in the middle of the night with guns drawn in pursuit of drugs.

Militarized policing undermines the very notion of law enforcement in a democratic society. Rather than reassuring us that we are safe and out of harm’s way, it creates a pervasive sense that we are unsafe and in danger, sometimes from the police themselves. It’s not surprising then that the ACLU also discovered that the militarization of domestic law enforcement occurred without any input, direction, or oversight from affected communities and that law enforcement agencies’ records on acquisitions of military weapons, vehicles, and equipment were “virtually nonexistent.”

The situation, however, is far from being beyond hope or possible resolution. Not all police practitioners — including policy makers, administrators, managers, supervisors and line officers — endorse and support the militarization of America’s law enforcement agencies. Progressive police chiefs in Madison, Wisconsin, and Salt Lake City, Utah, for example, have been publicly critical of police militarization practices and initiatives.
If we want to roll back the militarization of our police forces, the ACLU offers many common sense recommendations, but two stand out as critical first steps. The first is that the use of paramilitary tactics should be restricted solely to situations where there is a true and verifiable emergency, such as a hostage or barricade situation. The second would require that police record and report all uses of paramilitary tactics, including a justification for the use of SWAT, as well as all injuries and property damage caused by the use of SWAT teams.

Our streets and communities aren’t warzones, but the creeping militarization of our police forces and the warrior mindset it creates has the feel of a self-fulfilling prophecy on the part of our nation’s law enforcement agencies.

Dr. Tom Nolan is an associate professor and the chair of the Department of Criminal Justice at the State University of New York at Plattsburgh. He served 27 years in the Boston Police Department before retiring as a uniformed lieutenant.

Border War: Pentagon Program Sends Military Gear South

In Texas and elsewhere, law enforcement agents get weapons and more.

September 17, 2014

U.S. News - When unarmed black teenager Michael Brown was killed in Ferguson, Missouri, by a white police officer in August, images of cops in battle gear spraying protesters with tear gas circulated on television screens and splashed across magazine pages. Suddenly, concerns over the militarization of local police forces became a point of contention and national debate.

Data from 2006 to May 2014 show counties across the U.S. possess military-type weapons ranging from grenade launchers to bayonets. And as the Obama administration reviews the transfer of military equipment from the Pentagon to law enforcement and Department of Homeland Security agencies under what's known as the 1033 program, civil liberties activists along the southern border finally see an opportunity to address the rapid rise of border militarization in their own communities.

Before Ferguson-area authorities used military equipment against protesters, and before mine-resistant vehicles, riot gear, 8,909 bayonets and 228 grenade launchers flowed to local communities, surplus military equipment went to the border. The 1033 transfer program was authorized by Congress for the 1990-1991 fiscal year, but until 1997, only federal and state agencies could request equipment for “use in counter-drug activities.” From the early days of the program, counter-drug activities were mostly synonymous with “the border,” according to a U.S. News analysis of data from The New York Times and the Defense Department's Law Enforcement Support Office, which is part of the Defense Logistics Agency.

From 1991 to 1996, a whopping 80 percent of tactical equipment orders through the program went to Texas alone. The majority were for night-vision equipment in El Paso County, home of a Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection coordination center, which still accounts for a large amount of items distributed through the program.

Now, federal agencies along the border continue to strongly embrace the 1033 program. Records show agencies under the Department of Homeland Security have received at least 300,000 items from the program since 2009, although the actual number is almost certainly much higher, since that 300,000 figure only includes nonmilitary items such as survival gear, office supplies and tools. And since the data for military items like guns or armored vehicles are not released on an agency level, the total number received by DHS agencies is impossible to calculate.

It's “a matter of security,” says Michelle McCaskill, a spokeswoman for the Defense Logistics Agency, about why they do not detail which specific agencies receive military items.

While some counties along the southern border receive very few tactical items from the Defense Department through the 1033 program, there are major outliers. In El Paso County, agencies have received at least $38 million worth of items since 2006.

Obama Says He Will Unilaterally Legalize Illegal Aliens

Lacking congressional backing to provide a path to citizenship for the nations 7 to 20 million illegal immigrants, as well as the thousands flooding the Texas border, President Obama is imposing his policies directly on the people through the use of executive orders. Multiple news outlets are reporting of an Executive Order by President Obama that grants amnesty to illegal immigrants who enroll in Obamacare. In a desperate act to save the President’s signature piece of legislation and inflate the already exaggerated number of supposed enrollees, Obama pandered to the Latino community in order to secure what would potentially be a large voting block. Since a majority of Obamacare recipients receive state subsidies already, the result is essentially free health insurance for undocumented immigrants as well as a path to citizenship. [Source]

Obama Says He Will Unilaterally Legalize Illegal Aliens

September 6, 2014

CNSNews.com - President Barack Obama said in a press conference in Wales on Friday afternoon that although his "preference is to see Congress act," he intends to take unilateral action to give illegal aliens “some path” to “be legal” if Congress does not enact the sort immigration legislation he wants.

The Associated Press reported on Saturday that unnamed White House officials had told the news organization that Obama would wait until after the midterm elections to make his move on immigration.

The Constitution of the United States gives Congress—not the Executive--authority over immigration.  Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says: “Congress shall have power…to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.”

The president announced his intention to unilaterally grant immigration lawbreakers living illegally in the United States “some path…to be legal” in a wordy, multipronged answer to a reporter’s question.

Here is the verbatim transcript of the reporter’s question and the president’s answer, as posted by the White House:

Colleen Nelson, Wall Street Journal: “Thank you, Mr. President. Some say that Democrats who are facing tough races in November have asked you to delay action on immigration. How have the concerns of other Democrats influenced your thinking?  And do you see any downside at this point to delaying until after the election?”

President Obama: “I have to tell you that this week I’ve been pretty busy, focused on Ukraine and focused on ISIL and focused on making sure that NATO is boosting its commitments, and following through on what’s necessary to meet 21st century challenges.

“Jeh Johnson and Eric Holder have begun to provide me some of their proposals and recommendations.  I’ll be reviewing them.  And my expectation is that fairly soon I’ll be considering what the next steps are.

“What I’m unequivocal about is that we need immigration reform; that my overriding preference is to see Congress act. We had bipartisan action in the Senate. The House Republicans have sat on it for over a year. That has damaged the economy, it has held America back. It is a mistake. And in the absence of congressional action, I intend to take action to make sure that we’re putting more resources on the border, that we’re upgrading how we process these cases, and that we find a way to encourage legal immigration and give people some path so that they can start paying taxes and pay a fine and learn English and be able to not look over their shoulder but be legal, since they’ve been living here for quite some time.

“So I suspect that on my flight back this will be part of my reading, taking a look at some of the specifics that we’ve looked at.  And I’ll be making an announcement soon.

“But I want to be very clear: My intention is, in the absence of action by Congress, I’m going to do what I can do within the legal constraints of my office--because it’s the right thing to do for the country. Thank you very much, people of Wales. I had a wonderful time.”

On Saturday morning, the Associated Press published a story reporting that White House official were saying that Obama would delay unilateral action on immigration until after the midterm elections.

“Two White House officials said Obama concluded that circumventing Congress through executive actions on immigration during the campaign would politicize the issue and hurt future efforts to pass a broad overhaul,” the AP reported.

“The officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the president's decision before it was announced, said Obama made his decision Friday as he returned to Washington from a NATO summit in Wales,” said the AP.

“The officials said Obama had no specific timeline to act, but that he still would take his executive steps before the end of the year,” the AP said.

“White House officials said aides realized that if Obama's immigration action was deemed responsible for Democratic losses this year, it could hurt any attempt to pass a broad overhaul later on,” said the AP.

The Pew Research Center has estimated that there were 11.3 million illegal aliens in the United States as of March 2013.

U.S. Agents are Leaving Strategic Areas Along the Southern Border Unprotected and are Using Children as the Face of the Illegal Immigrant Surge to Elicit Public Sympathy as the Federal Government Engages in a Sophisticated Military Tactic Known as 'Asymmetrical Warfare' Against the American People

Former Border Agent: Gov’t Using Immigrant Children for ‘asymmetrical warfare’

“In other words [the government is] assisting in the downfall of America..” 

By leaving strategic areas along the southern U.S. border unprotected, and by using children as the face of the illegal immigrant surge to elicit public sympathy, the federal government is engaging in a sophisticated military tactic known as “asymmetrical warfare” against the American people, a former U.S. Border Patrol agent is warning. 

July 22, 2014

Infowars - As the government allocates resources to South Texas, it is systematically leaving areas within the U.S., as well as vast swaths of land along the border, unguarded, outspoken former Tucson Sector Border Patrol agent Zach Taylor says in an excerpted clip taken from an upcoming documentary entitled, “Back to the Border.”

“This gives people that are trying to get their infrastructure, their personnel, their drugs, their dirty bombs, their biological weapons, their chemical weapons into the United States without being noticed” the opportunity to do so, “because this part of the border is open, it is not being controlled,” the 26-year Border Patrol veteran outlines in the extensive interview.

Scroll to 11:44 for “asymmetrical warfare” reference (see transcript below). / Video courtesy of Little Bonanza Productions. For more information, please contact: lisa@littlebonanzaproductions.com.

 “If asymmetrical warfare is going to be successful, the first thing that has to be done is to compromise America’s defenses against invasion,” Taylor says, “because they have to have their personnel inside the United States to affect the infrastructure.. they have to affect the degeneration from inside the United States.”

The retired federal agent claims that by magnifying the mere ten percent of the influx that is actually apprehended, and by mostly centering on the one percent who are immigrant minors, the government is deliberately drawing attention away from the hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens who evade capture – who may or may not be harboring communicable diseases, or may or may not have gang affiliations.

In Central America, children as young as 10 join violent gangs, like MS-13, an intelligence report notes, and according to an FBI report, many are initiated by having to commit murder.

“What the people don’t realize is that it is putting their own children at risk, because these children are going to be put in schools with their children,” Taylor says.

Taylor, who also serves as Chairman of the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers, had previously made headlines for slamming the recent immigrant wave as an Obama administration-manufactured crisis.

“This is not a humanitarian crisis,” Taylor wrote in a press release last month. “It is a predictable, orchestrated and contrived assault on the compassionate side of Americans by her political leaders that knowingly puts minor Illegal Alien children at risk for purely political purposes. Certainly, we are not gullible enough to believe that thousands of unaccompanied minor Central American children came to America without the encouragement, aid and assistance of the United States Government.”

Below is a transcript of the portion of the video where Taylor explains how the immigration crisis is covert asymmetrical warfare aimed at the U.S. public.

The whole idea of asymmetrical warfare is to defeat your enemy from within. It is not to attack him from without. Of course the threat comes from without, but they have to be inside of the US to effect a successful warfare strategy.

If asymmetrical warfare is going to be successful, the first thing that has to be done is to compromise America’s defenses against invasion, because they have to have their personnel inside the United States to affect the infrastructure: our hospitals, our schools, our electric grid, our power supplies our water supply – basically what we call “infrastructure.” All of those things create our infrastructure – but they have to affect the degeneration from inside the United States.

The markers that we’re seeing that indicate this is “asymmetrical warfare” is because the reaction that the United States is taking is they’re taking the opportunity of inviting these illegal aliens to come here, they’re concentrating them in one place in the United States, the Rio Grande Valley, and they’re drawing the resources that are protecting the rest of the US border to care for the illegal alien children, to help with the overflow of the minors, to transport, to take care of the needs of these people while they’re in Homeland Security custody.

All this takes the resources that are protecting America at the border, off of the border. So now the borders are wide open. This gives people that are trying to get their infrastructure, their personnel, their drugs, their dirty bombs, their biological weapons, their chemical weapons into the United States without being noticed because this part of the border is open, it is not being controlled.

It is a perfect military strategy. It doesn’t raise any eyebrows because we’re focused on the children, but we need to focus on our children, because this is asymmetrical warfare. Everything says it is. And the way the United States government is responding to it is concealing that fact from the American people.
In other words they’re assisting in the downfall of America, and you need to understand that.

H/T: allenbwest.com

Healthcare Reform Law and 2009 Stimulus Bill Mandate Biometric Screening and Electronic Health Records by 2014

There would be profound changes in the practice of medicine. Overall, medicine would be much more tightly controlled. The observation that was made in 1969 that, "It is now abundantly evident that Congress is not going to go along with national health insurance. But it's not necessary — we have other ways to control health care". These would come about more gradually, but all health care delivery would come under tight control. Medical care would be closely connected to work. If you don't work or can't work, you won't have access to medical care. The days of hospitals giving away free care would gradually wind down, to where it was virtually non-existent. Costs would be forced up so that people won't be able to afford to go without insurance. People pay for it, you're entitled to it. Your medical care would be paid for by others. Therefore, you would gratefully accept, on bended knee, what was offered to you as a privilege. Your role being responsible for your own care would be diminished. Here's the way this works: everybody has made dependent on insurance, and if you don't have insurance then you pay directly; the cost of your care is enormous. Access to hospitals would be tightly controlled and identification would be needed to get into the building. Anybody moving about the hospital would be required to wear an identification badge with a photograph and telling why he was there, employee or lab technician or visitor or whatever. This is to be brought in gradually, getting everybody used to the idea of identifying themselves - until it was just accepted. This need for ID to move about would start in small ways: hospitals, some businesses, but gradually expand to include everybody in all places! [The New Order of the Barbarians: Planning the Control Over Medicine, Dr. Lawrence Dunegan, 1988]

Emanuel Requires City Workers Enrollment in Wellness Program or Pay Higher Premiums

September 16, 2011

NBC - Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel is giving city workers an important health choice: enroll in a new wellness plan, expected to be unveiled Friday, or pay a higher premium. The price if they don't enroll: $50 a month.

The program includes an initial screening that focuses on preventative care for asthma, heart disease and diabetes. City employees would then receive wellness training to achieve long-term health goals, including weight loss.

Smokers wouldn't be penalized, but they would be encouraged to quit. Advisers overseeing the program will monitor progress on a bimonthly basis, and those who reach their goals could see their health care premiums reduced.

"We will help you be a good steward for your health," Emanuel said Friday, "but if you choose not to, you'll pay that price and that is the price you'll have to pay."

The mayor believes the program will help cut the annual $500 million bill for health care for city employees.

"We are going to implement a citywide wellness plan for city employees," Emanuel confirmed at a recent press conference, "because health care costs for the city are being driven by 10 percent a year, and we're not seeing revenue grow that way."

Most city unions have signed on to the agreement, according to the Chicago Sun-Times, except the Fraternal Order of Police, which represents more than 10,000 city employees.

The FOP says its members have different health concerns and it doesn't want members to pay higher premiums if they decide not to enroll in the program.

But Emanuel says the program is a necessary step to getting healthcare costs under control.

"You can't ask the taxpayers to pay for a healthcare problem that you can manage and do a good job," Emanuel said. "You can do that with cholesterol, you can do that through diabetes, you can do that through smoking, through heart, blood pressure. Every one of those is manageable."

Can Your Company Require a Biometric Health Screening in Order to Continue Insurance Coverage?

March 2, 2011

Yahoo Answers - My spouse has worked for the same company for the past 15 years. The company seems to be forcing the issue of a biometric health screening. Under the heading of “Is this mandatory?” it says..

"For salaried employees, in order to participate in the 2010 Medical Plans you are required to go through the on-site biometric screen process, and the online Health Risk Assessment. If a salaried employee chooses not to participate in either the Biometric Screen, or the online Health Risk Assessment, they will not be eligible for 2010 Medical Insurance, and you will receive COBRA notification to your home if you were previously participating in the medical plans."

Is this crap legal? Can a company terminate your insurance for not completing this so called health assessment?

tonalc2

Yes. Welcome to the wonderful world of risk-based, profit-driven health coverage.

DAR

A company has no legal duty to give insurance at all, generally. In states where it does it MAY be illegal (for companies of a certain size) but I’m pretty sure you would have to take it to court, and the government wants EVERYONE’s private records online, 4th amendment or not (look at Obamacare); so I think you’d have a hard time with it. Is there an implication you won’t be covered if you have preexisting conditions? Because if that is the case, it may not satisfy legal standards IF there are legal standards. Note that there often are not, particularly for small companies.

Does Obamacare Require BMI Screening and Electronic Health Record by 2014?

July 19, 2010

Examiner.com - One of the latest rumors to circulate on the internet about the Obamacare nightmare is that it will require all Americans to undergo BMI (Body Mass Index) screening by 2014. Presumably, the BMI results will be used to ration health care in some manner as finite numbers of doctors, nurses, and hospitals struggle to cope with unlimited demand for their services.

To find the truth, I examined the full text of HR 3590, The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as well as its companion bill HR 4872, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act. This takes some time, even scanning with the search function on a browser, since the HR 3590 contains a whopping 906 pages and HR 4872 adds an additional 55 pages. That is quite a number of dead trees for a law that is supposed to simplify and lower the cost of health care.

I conducted my examination by searching both documents for “bmi.” This resulted in a large number of hits, but only two referred to “Body Mass Index.” The majority were some form the word “submit,” which says a lot about Obamacare in itself.

1. The first reference is in section 2703 State Option to Provide Health Homes for Enrollees with Chronic Conditions on page 203. BMI is mentioned here as one of the medical conditions that defines the term “chronic condition” (specifically a BMI over 25). There is no mention of mandatory screening for BMI.


2. The second reference to BMI was in section 4004 Education Outreach Campaign Regarding Preventive Benefits on page 428. In this section, BMI is mentioned as one of the factors that people will use to determine their disease risk on a website. Again, there is no mention of mandatory BMI screening.

The second bill, HR 4872, contained several references to “submit,” but no references to Body Mass Index.

At this point, I was ready to declare the mandatory BMI screening a hoax.

Just before I published this article, however, someone pointed me in the direction of a document called HIT (Health Information Technology) Standards 170.302. This document purports to show Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ new certification standards for electronic health records (EHRs). Further, a CNS News report (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/69436) refers to section 3001 Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the stimulus bill, rather than the Obamacare law itself. 

Section 3001 in Part C Duties of the National Coordinator Subpart 3 paragraph (a) (ii) states that the National Coordinator shall “update the Federal Health IT Strategic Plan” with “utilization of an electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014.” This constituted the basis for Sebelius’ new EHR standard.

On page 61 (of 228) in The Code of Federal Regulations Part 170 (http://www.ofr.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2010-17210_PI.pdf) it states that EHRs will calculate BMIs. An additional document (http://healthcare.nist.gov/docs/170.302.e.2_BMI_v0.2_fulldoc.pdf) refers to certification criteria for EHRs and specifically shows that BMI will be part of the vital signs included in EHRs. 

Therefore, it appears that the rumor is true as far as the claims that Obamacare will require an EHR for all Americans and that the EHR will be required to include a calculation for BMI. The speculative claim that the BMI will be used to ration health care is so far unsubstantiated. I will leave it up to the reader to decide whether and how much to be alarmed by the BMI requirement.

I will say that it is extremely likely that Obamacare will result in health care rationing. Massachusetts enacted what President Obama called an “essentially identical” plan in 2006 and the result has been skyrocketing costs (http://bit.ly/dvTxyU). Rapidly increasing demand with a static level of supply led to sharply increasing costs. To deal with these increasing costs, Governor Deval Patrick enacted price controls in the form of denying insurance companies to increase rates.

Jon Kingsdale, who directed in Massachusetts’ version of Obama’s health insurance exchanges, said recently,

"If you're going to do health-care cost containment, it has to be stealth. It has to be unsuspected by any of the key players to actually have an effect."

He further stated that:

The solution to the problem was finding a “significant systematic way of pushing back on the health-care system and saying, 'No, you have to do with less'” (http://bit.ly/dvTxyU).

In other words, the government will have to quietly ration care.

This shows the ultimate importance of efforts to defeat Obamacare. If you value your health care, vote for candidates who will repeal and defund the new law. Also support state and local candidates who will support efforts such as the lawsuit by Georgia and several other states against the law.

Reform the reform!

Onsite Employee Health Screening and Biometric Testing

October 26, 2008

CorporateWellnessIncentive.com - Onsite Employee Health Screening and Biometric Testing means better heath risk assessment baselines and better security.

“Onsite Employee Health Screening and Biometric Testing” is a hot phrase these days, but it can help your workers with health management, too. When the pundits talk about Onsite Employee Health Screening and Biometric Testing, they’re usually referring to retinal scanners, fingerprint readers, and other high-tech security measures. However, if you trace the phrase “Onsite Employee Health Screening and Biometric Testing” back to its roots, it refers to the measurement of unique human physical and behavioral characteristics.

Corporate Health Promotion Programs are of critical importance to the modern business. As a result, Onsite Employee Health Screening and Biometric Testing should be one of the tools in the arsenal of a forward-thinking organization. 

Onsite Health Screening and Biometric Testings aren’t just a “feel-good” measure for your employees. Assessments of employee health help your workers to prioritize their well-being, which results in happier, more productive employees.

Health risk assessments also build your database of employee biometric data.

Onsite Employee Health Screening and Biometric Testing, when handled worksite by our experienced professionals, is hassle-free and smoothly organized. The biometric data we collect then can be stored digitally for years or even decades, helping you and your workers build better health risk assessment baselines that you can use to analyze workers fitness and the efficacy of your corporation’s Health and Productivity Programs. Collected biometric data can even allow an employee’s doctor to assess that individual’s health over many years, helping him or her spot trends and diagnose disease.

Onsite Employee Health Screening and Biometric Testing extends to a wide variety of health risk tests, including measurements of blood pressure, blood type, body fat, substance abuse, and susceptibility to cardiovascular disease. Collecting biometric data for security purposes – like fingerprints, facial recognition imprints, or hand geometry – can be dovetailed with our health tests to minimize workflow disruption.

What Is a Biometric Screening?

March 28, 2011

eHow.com - A biometric screening is a short health examination that determines the risk level of a person for certain diseases and medical conditions. Many employers and universities encourage staff or students to complete this type of health screening so they can start thinking about their health and pursue treatment if needed.

Purpose

• A biometric screening is a general health check that can identify any significant cardiovascular or nervous system problems. This health check provides several biometric measures including: cholesterol levels for full lipid panel and glucose; blood pressure; blood glucose levels and also includes a measurement of height, weight and body mass index (BMI). Results are typically available within a few days after the screening, and are kept confidential.

Significance

• The biometric screening can be one of several components of a complete health and wellness check. Most doctors and clinics perform a biometric screening as part of a wellness program that includes the completion of a health risk assessment (HRA) questionnaire, and a consultation. Results of the biometric screening can help to identify various diseases or health problems, and allow the patient to work with their physician to lower their health risks for certain conditions.

Components

• The typical biometric screening test can take up to 15 minutes, and is performed at a physician's clinic, or on site at an employment facility or college campus. It can consist of all or some of the following screening tests: carotid artery ultrasound screening; blood pressure check; blood draw; diabetes screening; and cholesterol screening.

Types

• The blood pressure screening is completed with a standard blood pressure check. The blood test is conducted by drawing a vial of blood; patients are required to fast for a short period of time before having blood drawn. The diabetes screening is performed by measuring glucose levels in the blood from the blood test. The cholesterol screening is performed with a "finger-stick" test that measures full lipid and glucose levels. The carotid artery ultrasound test determines the risk factor of having a stroke. This test measures how much plaque has accumulated in the arteries.

Benefits

• Biometric screenings allow the patient to learn about her current health status, and determine her risk for common diseases including diabetes, heart disease, asthma and other medical conditions. The physician or nurse conducting the tests can review the results of the screening with patients and follow up to do further tests, or recommend a treatment plan or wellness program based on immediate needs.

Read More...

Private-prison Companies Benefit from Illegal Immigration

In 1984, the U.S. began its ongoing experiment with private prisons. Between 1990 and 2009, the inmate population of private prisons grew by 1,664%. Today approximately 130,000 people are incarcerated by for-profit companies. In 2010, annual revenues for two largest companies — Corrections Corporation of America and the GEO Group — were nearly $3 billion. [Source]

164 Anti-Immigration Laws Passed Since 2010? A MoJo Analysis

We crunched the data behind the self-deportation crowd's spate of state laws, the private-prison industry's campaign spending, and more.

March/April 2012 Issue

Mother Jones - To get a better sense of the legislative push that most famously included Arizona's draconian SB 1070, Mother Jones built a database of the 164 (often curiously similar) anti-immigration laws passed by state legislatures in 2010 and 2011.

As you can see below, the number of restrictive laws jumped last year, when five states—Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina, and Utah—passed Arizona-style bills. For a state-by-state look at these copycat laws, undocumented population demographics, political contributions from the private-prison industry, and more, scroll down the page. See our sources and dive into the full database below.

Just how wide-ranging has the recent anti-immigration push been? Only seven states (Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, New Hampshire, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) failed to pass anti-immigration laws in 2010 and 2011. Most states passed anywhere from 1 to 6 such bills—on everything from driver's license eligibility to the mandatory use of E-Verify—while a few (Arizona, Utah, and Virginia) passed 11 or more. Including Arizona's SB 1070, 36 states considered wide-ranging anti-immigration laws; 6 were successful.

STANDING TO BENEFIT?

Back in 2010, NPR reported on the financial stake private-prison companies like Corrections Corporation of America and the GEO Group have in the passage of state immigration laws. As former GEO Group president Wayne Calabrese said on a May 2010 call with investors,

"Those people coming across the border and getting caught are going to have to be detained, and that for me, at least I think, there's going to be enhanced opportunities for what we do."

Related:

• The Return of Debtors Prisons (After All, Prison Labor is Cheap Labor for Transnational Corporations and Private Prisons Get Paid More If There are More Inmates) 
• Human Trafficking in America's Private Prisons

20,000 New Federal Border Agents Toting Guns and Government Badges

Immigration Agreement Nears for Billions for Border Security

June 20, 2013

CNBC - White House-backed immigration legislation is gaining momentum in the Senate, where key lawmakers say they are closing in on a bipartisan compromise to spend tens of billions of dollars stiffening the bill's border security requirements without delaying legalization for millions living in the country unlawfully. 

"This is a key moment in the effort to pass this bill. This is sort of the defining 24 to 36 hours," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said Wednesday night after a day of private talks.

Under the emerging compromise, the government would grant legal status to immigrants living in the United States unlawfully at the same time the additional security was being put into place. Green cards, which signify permanent residency status, would be withheld until the security steps were complete.

Officials described a so-called border surge that envisions doubling the size of the Border Patrol with 20,000 new agents, constructing hundreds of miles of additional fencing along the border with Mexico and purchasing new surveillance drones to track would-be illegal border crossers. The cost of the additional agents alone was put at $30 billion over a decade.

Other details were not immediately available, although it was expected that modifications to the bill would range far beyond border security provisions. The changes under consideration were the result of negotiations involving the bipartisan Gang of Eight who drafted the bill and Republicans seeking alterations before they would commit to voting for it.

Is Immigration Pro-Growth?

Public opinion has shifted on the IRS scandal, and the Senate voted against an immigration proposal. CNBC's Seema Mody reports on tonight's headlines. George Gilder, The Discovery Institute, weighs in.

The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because the talks were private.

If agreed to, the changes could clear the way for a strong bipartisan vote within a few days to pass the measure that sits atop President Barack Obama's second-term domestic agenda.

The developments came as Democrats who met with House Speaker John Boehner on Wednesday quoted him as saying he expected the House to pass its own version of an immigration bill this summer and Congress to have a final compromise by year's end.

Boehner, R-Ohio, already has said the legislation that goes to the House in the next month or two will not include a pathway to citizenship for immigrants in the United States illegally.

Precise details of the pending agreement in the Senate were unavailable, but Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., said it involved a major increase of resources to the border, including more manpower, fencing and technology. The underlying legislation already envisions more border agents; additional fencing along the U.S-Mexico border; surveillance drones; a requirement for employers to verify the legal status of potential workers; and a biometric system to track foreigners who enter and leave the United States at air and seaports and by land.

It was unclear what other portions of the legislation might be changed. There is pressure from some Republicans to make sure no federal benefits go to immigrants who are in the country illegally, at least until they become citizens.

"Our whole effort has been to build a bipartisan group that will support the bill," said Hoeven, who has not yet stated a position on the legislation. "That's what this is all about, and it's focused on border security."

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., one of the bill's most prominent supporters, said discussions with Republicans "have been really productive. We've made a lot of progress in the last 24 hours. Now we have some vetting to do with our respective allies."

The potential compromise came into focus one day after the Congressional Budget Office jolted lawmakers with an estimate saying that as drafted, the legislation would fail to prevent a steady increase in the future in the number of residents living in the United States illegally.

The estimate appeared to give added credibility to Republicans who have been pressing Democrats to toughen the border security provisions already written into the bill. Schumer and Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., met at midday with Graham, Hoeven and Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn. The Democrats and Graham are part of Gang of Eight.

If ratified, the compromise would mark concessions on both sides.

Some Republicans have been unwilling to support a bill that grants legal status to immigrants in the country illegally until the government certifies that the border security steps have achieved 90 percent effectiveness in stopping would-be border crossers.

On the other hand, Democrats have opposed Republican proposals to make legalization contingent on success in closing the border to illegal crossings. Under the legislation as drafted, legalization could begin as soon as a security plan was drafted, but a 10-year wait is required for a green card.

One plan to change that was sidetracked on a vote of 61-37.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said his proposal would require Congress to vote annually for five years on whether the border is secure. If lawmakers decide it is not, "then the processing of undocumented workers stops until" it is, he said. The decision would be made based on numerous factors, including progress toward completion of a double-layered fence along the U.S.-Mexico border and toward a goal of 95 percent capture of illegal entrants. A system to track the border comings and goings of foreigners is also required.

While the public debate was taking place, lawmakers involved in the private talks expressed optimism.
Across the Capitol, House Republican leaders sought to present a friendlier face to Hispanics—a group that gave Obama more than 70 percent support in last year's presidential election.

Boehner met with the Democratic-dominated Congressional Hispanic Caucus, while rank-and-file members of his party reviewed areas of agreement with Latino religious leaders.

"It's a conversation Republicans want to have," Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., said later at a news conference outside the Capitol.

Separately, the House Judiciary Committee approved legislation creating a program allowing farm workers to come to the United States to take temporary jobs in the United States.

The measure is one of several that the panel is considering in the final weeks of June as part of a piece-by-piece approach to immigration rather than the all-in-one bill that Senate is considering.

Rand Paul threatens to support filibustering immigration bill

June 20, 2013

The Ticket - Sen. Rand Paul plans to support a filibuster of the Senate immigration bill unless it grants Congress more border security oversight, the Kentucky Republican said on Thursday.

Paul does not plan to stand on the Senate floor for 13 hours straight like he did in March to protest President Barack Obama's drone policy, but he will withhold support for a motion to end debate on the bill, a procedural tactic that effectively could block the bill from seeing a final vote.

"Unless they change the bill, I will vote on the side of not ending the debate, which is essentially like a filibuster, but it's not the filibuster people think of," Paul said during an interview on the "Andrea Tantaros Show."

On Wednesday, the Senate rejected an amendment to the immigration bill proposed by Paul that would require the Congress to vote on whether members deem the U.S. borders "secure" every year for five years and mandate the construction of a fence along the border with Mexico. All eight members of the bipartisan group of lawmakers who wrote the original bill voted against Paul's proposal. As the bill is currently written, agencies under the executive branch will determine border security, not Congress.

Paul said he "can't imagine" that proponents of the immigration bill will succeed in persuading him to support the final bill if more border security amendments are rejected.

"If it got stronger, I could consider it, but since they rejected my call to have Congress involved with determining whether the border is secure, I can't imagine how they can get me back unless they come back to me and say, 'We've changed our mind,'" he said. "We would like Congress to be involved in this."