It is more than three weeks into the partial government shutdown. Among the hundreds of thousands of federal employees affected by the political battle are military veterans. According to the latest government data, veterans make up about a third of the federal government’s civilian workforce.

Tyler Holmquist of Fredericksburg, Virginia, is a veteran and an employee of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He’s one of the federal workers furloughed in the government shutdown, unable to work or collect pay.

“You just start making adjustments. You start cutting eating out. You try to make less trips to town to save on gas,” Holmquist said.

Family legacy of service

Holmquist spent 24 years in the Marine Corps, continuing a family legacy of fighters that dates back to World War I.

And he views his job in the Department of Homeland Security as a continuation of his service.

“Support and defend the Constitution, support and defend the nation (is) something a Marine can easily get behind,” he said.

Carey Holmquist has been out of the workforce for years, opting to stay home to care for their children during her husband’s military deployments and the many family moves.

But that could change soon.

“Actually I may be applying for jobs because we don’t know how long this is going to last,” she said.

Border security, family security

Holmquist’s employer, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is at the center of the political impasse fueling the furloughs.

“A lot of people that we’re talking about in terms of pay, they agree with me,” President Donald Trump said during a visit to the border Thursday.

Are the Holmquists among the people the president is referring to?

“I very much support a wall or barrier and better security,” Carey Holmquist said. “On the other hand, I’m starting to wake up at night and be stressed because we’re not getting a paycheck.”

They’re hoping elected leaders will quickly do their jobs, so Tyler can get back to his.
…

U.S. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said Saturday he will force a vote soon on a resolution to disapprove the Trump administration’s decision to relax sanctions on three Russian companies connected to oligarch Oleg Deripaska.

“I have concluded that the Treasury Department’s proposal is flawed and fails to sufficiently limit Oleg Deripaska’s control and influence of these companies and the Senate should move to block this misguided effort by the Trump administration and keep these sanctions in place,” Schumer said in a news release.

The U.S. Treasury announced Dec. 20 that it would lift sanctions imposed in April on the core businesses of Deripaska, including aluminum giant Rusal its parent En+ and power firm EuroSibEnergo, watering down the toughest penalties imposed since Moscow’s 2014 annexation of Crimea.

After lobbying by European governments that followed the imposition of sanctions, Washington postponed enforcement of the sanctions and started talks with Deripaska’s team on removing Rusal and En+ from the blacklist if he ceded control of Rusal.

The businessman, who has close ties to the Kremlin, also had ties with Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign manager, documents have showed.

An FBI agent said in an affidavit attached to a 2017 search warrant unsealed earlier this year that he had reviewed tax returns for a company controlled by Manafort and his wife that showed a $10 million loan from a Russian lender identified as Deripaska.

On Thursday, U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin insisted that the Trump administration would keep tight control on companies linked to Deripaska, despite the decision to ease restrictions.

Mnuchin said the firms would face consequences including the reimposition of sanctions if they failed to comply with the terms.

Schumer said given Deripaska’s potential involvement with Manafort, and because of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Trump’s ties with Russia has not yet concluded, “It’s all the more reason these sanctions must remain in place.”

Passage of the resolution of disapproval of Treasury’s decision would require the approval of both the Democratic-majority house and the Senate, led by Trump’s fellow Republicans who are unlikely to break with his policy.
…

The government shutdown is wreaking havoc on many Americans: Hundreds of thousands of federal employees don’t know when they’ll see their next paycheck, and low-income people who rely on the federal safety net worry about whether they’ll make ends meet should the stalemate in Washington carry on another month.

But if you’re a sportsman looking to hunt game, a gas company planning to drill offshore or a taxpayer awaiting your refund, you’re in luck: This shutdown won’t affect your plans.

All administrations get some leeway to choose which services to freeze and which to maintain when a budget standoff in Washington forces some agencies to shutter. But in the selective reopening of offices, experts say they see a willingness to cut corners, scrap prior plans and wade into legally dubious territory to mitigate the pain. Some noted the choices seem targeted at shielding the Republican-leaning voters whom Trump and his party need to stick with them.

The cumulative effect is a government shutdown — now officially the longest in U.S. history — that some Americans may find financially destabilizing and others may hardly notice.

Russell T. Vought, deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, said the overarching message from Trump has been “to make this shutdown as painless as possible, consistent with the law.”

“We have built on past efforts within this administration not to have the shutdown be used to be weaponized against the American people,” he said.

Others say such a strategy suggests a lack of urgency and a willingness to let the political impasse in Washington drag on indefinitely.

“The strategy seems to be to keep the shutdown in place, not worry about the effect on employees and furloughed people and contractors, but where the public might be annoyed, give a little,” said Alice Rivlin, who led OMB during the 21-day shutdown in 1996, the previous recordholder for the longest in history.

That’s a clear difference between then and now, Rivlin said.

“We weren’t trying to make it better. We were trying to emphasize the pain so it would be over,” she said. “We wanted it to end. I’m not convinced the Trump administration does.”

The Trump administration earlier this week announced that the IRS will issue tax refunds during the shutdown, circumventing a 2011 decision barring the agency from distributing refunds until the Treasury Department is funded. The National Treasury Employees Union filed a lawsuit, arguing its workers are being unconstitutionally forced to return to work without pay.

Some agencies are finding creative ways to fund services they want to restore.

The administration has emphasized continued use of public lands in general, and particularly for hunters and oil and gas developers, angering environmental groups. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, using funds leftover from 2018, this week announced it will direct dozens of wildlife refuges to return staffers to work, ensuring planned activities on those lands, including organized hunts, continue.

Barbara Wainman, a spokeswoman for the agency, said most refuges have remained accessible to hunters throughout the shutdown, and the decision to staff them was made based on three criteria: resource management, high visitation and previously scheduled programming, which includes organized hunts and school field trips. Wainman said 17 of the 38 refuges have scheduled hunts that would have been canceled without the restaffing effort.

The IRS is using user fees to restore the income verification program, used by mortgage lenders to confirm the income of a borrower and considered a critical tool for the banking industry. After national parks were left open but unstaffed, causing damage to delicate ecosystems, the National Park Service announced it would take “an extraordinary step” and use visitation fees to staff some of the major parks. And despite the shutdown, the Bureau of Land Management is continuing work related to drilling efforts in Alaska.

Trump has refused to sign spending bills for nine of the 15 Cabinet-level departments until Congress approves his request for $5.7 billion in funding to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Democrats have refused. The president initially said he would be “proud” to own the partial shutdown, but he quickly shifted blame onto Democratic leaders and has flirted with taking some extraordinary measures to find money for the wall. Although most Republicans have stood by the president, others have expressed discomfort with the strategy.

The focus on services that reach rural voters, influential industries and voters’ pocketbooks is intended to protect Republicans from blowback, said Barry Anderson, who served as assistant director of the Office of Management and Budget from 1988 to 1998.

During the 1996 shutdown, Anderson said, he and others met each day to review which offices and services should be deemed essential. He said tax refunds never made the cut.

“A government agency may employ services in advance of appropriations only when there’s a reasonable connection between the functions being performed and the safety of human life or protection of property,” he said. “How does issuing tax refunds fall under either of those categories? It’s not a human life or property issue. I don’t know the proper word: surprised, aghast, flabbergasted.

“This,” he said, “is to keep Republican senators’ phones silent.”

OMB has held regular conference calls with agencies and is fielding a high volume of requests for services they’d like to resume. In addition, OMB officials are intentionally working to legally reopen as much of the government as possible, according to a senior administration official, adding that agencies are permitted to update their lapse plans as the shutdown progresses. The official was not authorized to discuss the internal discussions publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Across the government, agencies are scrambling. The Food and Drug Administration has scaled back on food inspections. The Department of Agriculture recently announced that the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which provides food aid to nearly 40 million low-income Americans, will continue to operate through February because of a loophole in the short-term spending bill, which expired Dec. 22. But should the shutdown stretch into March, the department’s reserves for the program, $3 billion, won’t cover a month of benefits for all who need them. Other feeding programs, such as school lunch, food distribution and WIC, which provides nutrition aid to pregnant women, mothers and babies, are also in jeopardy should the shutdown last until March.

Hundreds of federal contracts for low-income Americans receiving housing assistance are expiring. The Department of Housing and Urban Development is unable to renew them and has instead directed private owners to dip into their reserves to cover shortfalls.

As time goes on, more and more programs will become vital, said Linda Bilmes, a public policy professor at the Harvard Kennedy School, and the meaning of what’s essential will shift.

“Even apart from the fact that there may be particular instances of things that are being manipulated for political purposes,” she said, “there are also realities that government agencies are facing as they reassess what is absolutely essential to do now that we’re here, with no immediate end in sight.”
…

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham has all but given up efforts to negotiate a compromise to end the U.S. government shutdown that would fund a U.S.-Mexico border wall in exchange for extending legal protections for thousands of young undocumented immigrants and others who recently have lost legal status under the Temporary Protected Status program.

As late as Wednesday, Graham expressed hope that such a grand bargain could be reached.

“There is a deal to be had. It’s always been there. I think I have been boring you all for a month about how this movie ends. It’s got to be wall plus something else,” said Graham, the Republican senator from South Carolina and close ally to Trump.

But on Thursday, Graham admitted that a legislative resolution to this standoff is likely out of reach, and indicated that President Donald Trump may soon invoke emergency powers to build the wall without congressional approval.

“There’s no pathway forward that I can see. The president believes that’s his power, seems to me the only way left is for him to exercise that authority. I don’t see any action in the Congress,” Graham said.

DACA and TPS

Graham’s proposal would have given President Trump the $5.7 billion he wants to build the border wall at the U.S.-Mexico border, along with giving Democrats a significant concession by reaffirming former President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program that granted legal status to more than 700,000 undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as young children.

The Trump administration attempted to terminate DACA in 2017, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently blocked the presidential rescission order, saying it was “arbitrary and capricious under settled law.”

The administration has appealed the matter to the Supreme Court, which is expected to decide in the coming days whether it will take the case.

TPS is in similar limbo. The program, which grants temporary legal status and work permits to citizens of countries suffering from natural disasters or armed conflict, was canceled by the Trump administration for about 400,000 people.

But a federal court ruled in October the U.S. government violated the law when it ended TPS for people from El Salvador, Haiti, Nicaragua and Sudan. This case, too, may be taken up by the Supreme Court.

Last year, the Senate attempted to pass a similar bipartisan plan to extend the DACA population legal status and authorize $25 billion over the next decade for southern-border-security construction projects, including $18 billion for the wall. Various versions of proposed legislation ultimately were rejected, as some Democrats opposed the tough immigration restrictions included and many conservative Republicans objected to any form of amnesty being granted.

​Uncompromising Democrats

The sharp political divide in Washington has only deepened since Democrats took control of the House of Representatives this month, following the party’s gains in midterm elections. And neither the Democrats nor Trump seem willing to compromise to end the government shutdown.

Many Democrats don’t want to link support for legal status for young immigrants known as Dreamers, a position that most Americans support, to funding the border wall, which remains a highly controversial issue.

“That is not the negotiation we should be having. It doesn’t make any sense at all, to trade something that absolutely can and should be done for good policy and moral reasons, for something that actually should not be done for policy or moral reasons,” said Tom Jawetz, an immigration policy analyst at the Democratic leaning Center for American Progress policy institute.

The Democratic leadership, Jawetz says, does not trust Trump to support any deal, and believes the president wants to keep immigration and border security as divisive issues to energize his core supporters in the 2020 election.

Immigration opposition

Trump’s demand for border wall funding to end the government shutdown, after earlier indicating he would sign a short-term funding bill with no money for the wall, is seen by many as a reaction to conservative media criticism that he was capitulating on his central campaign promise to “build the wall.”

But some hard-line anti-immigration groups that support Trump, like the Center for Immigration Studies, view the wall as more symbolic than essential to significantly restrict illegal immigration. Granting a mass amnesty in exchange for the wall is a deal they would not support.

“A wall is not the most important enforcement procedure, and it’s also not the thing we want most in terms of immigration reform. So to give away something big like an amnesty for people who aren’t even supposed to be in the country, we would want some significant concession,” said Steven Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies.

Increasing the number of agents, judges and detention facilities at the border, reforming the immigrations system to quickly deport most asylum-seekers that critics say are actually economic migrants, and increasing enforcement efforts to ensure U.S. businesses do not hire undocumented immigrants, Camarota says, would more effectively deter illegal immigration.

But the Trump administration may not have liked the linkage either. Vice President Mike Pence told reporters Thursday that DACA is not up for negotiation until the Supreme Court weighs in.
…

President Trump’s plan to withdraw troops from Syria is underway, with the Pentagon confirming equipment has begun leaving the battlefield, but soldiers are staying for now. As White House correspondent Patsy Widakuswara reports, President Trump is finding it difficult to fulfill his pledge to cut back on foreign military interventions.
…

Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii has announced that she is running for president in 2020.

Gabbard said in a CNN interview slated to air Saturday night that she will be formally announcing her candidacy within the next week.

The 37-year-old Iraq War veteran is the first Hindu elected to Congress. She has visited New Hampshire and Iowa in recent months and has written a memoir that’s due to be published in May.

Gabbard was criticized in 2016 for traveling to Syria and meeting with President Bashar Assad, who has been accused of war crimes. She says it’s important to meet with adversaries if “you are serious about pursuing peace.”

Gabbard was one of the most prominent lawmakers to back Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Democratic primary. 
…

U.S. Rep. Steve King says he’s not a racist, but the Iowa Republican faced intensifying criticism Friday over his remarks about white supremacy, including from a black GOP senator who said such comments are a blight on the nation and the party. 

For the second time in two days, King insisted that he is an advocate for “Western civilization,” not white supremacy or white nationalism. But he didn’t deny remarks published a day earlier in The New York Times in which he was quoted saying: “White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive?”

Within hours Thursday, the House’s top three Republicans condemned his remarks, and on Friday, GOP Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina published his disapproval in an op-ed column.

King, who has denied being racist, appeared on the House floor after most lawmakers had left town.

‘My mistake’

“One phrase in that long article has created an unnecessary controversy. That was my mistake,” King told his colleagues. King said terms describing bigotry, such as racism, are unfairly applied to “otherwise innocent” people.

King, in his ninth House term, spoke as key members of his party publicly took issue with his remarks and as a Republican from back home lined up to challenge him in a GOP primary.

Scott, who is black, cast King’s remarks and those like them as a blemish on the country and the Republican Party, which has long had a frosty relationship with black voters.

“When people with opinions similar to King’s open their mouths, they damage not only the Republican Party and the conservative brand but also our nation as a whole,” Scott wrote.

King’s views, Scott added, are separate from the conservative movement and “should be ridiculed at every turn possible.”

“Some in our party wonder why Republicans are constantly accused of racism — it is because of our silence when things like this are said,” Scott wrote.

In fact, House Republican leaders swiftly condemned King’s remarks as racist. And on Wednesday, King drew a 2020 primary challenger: Randy Feenstra, a GOP state senator.

But King’s position in the GOP had been imperiled even before then.

In 2017, he tweeted: “We can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies.” Then he doubled down on CNN, telling the network, “I’d like to see an America that’s just so homogeneous that we look a lot the same.”

Shortly before the 2018 midterm elections, in which King was running, Rep. Steve Stivers, R-Ohio, then the head of the GOP campaign committee, issued an extraordinary public denunciation of him.

King on Friday suggested he’s been misunderstood. He said the foundation of the Times interview was partly a Sept. 12 tweet in which he wrote: ” ‘Nazi’ is injected into Leftist talking points because the worn out & exhausted ‘racist’ is over used & applied to everyone who lacks melanin & who fail to virtue signal at the requisite frequency & decibels. But…Nazis were socialists & Leftists are socialists.”

On Friday, King said on the House floor that the interview “also was discussion of other terms that have been used, almost always unjustly labeling otherwise innocent people. The word racist, the word Nazi, the word fascist, the phrase white nationalists, the phrase white supremacists.”

King said he was only wondering aloud: “How did that offensive language get injected into our political dialogue? Who does that, how does it get done, how do they get by with laying labels like this on people?” 
…

U.S. President Donald Trump is considering formally declaring the southern U.S. border a “national emergency,” likely clearing the way for him to authorize new funding for a permanent physical barrier.

The move could end a standoff with Congress over funding for the wall, but some legal analysts worry it will set a dangerous precedent for presidents trying to negotiate with Congress.

VOA spoke with John Hudak, Deputy Director of the Center for Effective Public Management at The Brooking Institute, about the legal issues around the president’s possible emergency declaration.

QUESTION: What powers does a president have to declare a national emergency? Could he simply order government funds to be used to build a border wall?

So there are really two questions here. First, under the National Emergencies Act, the president has a fairly broad power to declare a national emergency. Now the declaration of that emergency is simply that — a declaration. And according to a pretty firm reading of that law, it’s hard to see where there is an exception to the president’s ability to do it.

The next part of that, though, involves the powers that the president can exercise under that law and there are obvious limitations on that, constitutional limitations and other limitations within the law that the president can’t violate. And unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, we haven’t experienced serious questions about presidential power in this space. So it’s really left as an open question right now, in terms of the extent of presidential power that courts will need to sort out.

Q: Could Democrats block this in Congress? Is there any constitutional precedent for presidents simply going around Congress to fund a priority policy item?

So there is, within the law, the ability of Congress to stop a national emergency. It requires both houses of Congress to vote to say that the national emergency is over. Now Democrats can certainly do that alone, in the House. They cannot, however, do it alone in the Senate, it would require several Republican votes.

However, this is the type of exercise of executive power that leaves a lot of Republicans uneasy. And you’re already starting to see those conversations among Senate Republicans, saying that if we’re all right with President Trump doing this over a border wall, would we also be all right with a Democratic president doing this over climate change or other issues?

And so I think it remains to be seen whether Congress will have the votes to stop presidential action in this area, whether they’ll have the political will to do it. But they certainly have the power to stop this type of behavior.

To the second part of your question, you know, presidents have tried to go around Congress in terms of spending money in the past or even moving money around within or across budget lines or accounts in the past.

And frequently presidents are stopped because the spending power in the constitution rests with the Congress and so this creates a real challenge for President Trump if he wants to start moving funds or re-appropriating funds or using funds that are not even appropriated, pushing up against that constitutional protection against that power. So he might have the power to declare a national emergency, but he cannot usurp the Constitution in the exercise of powers during that emergency.

Q: On the politics of the current shutdown, is one side or the other winning? Which sides appears to have an advantage at the moment? How does it end?

Well, it’s clear one side is losing and that’s the American public, and particularly the hundreds of thousands of federal workers who are not being paid or who are not going to work. In terms of the political actors, you know, the polling that we have suggests that most Americans blame President Trump for the shutdown.

A smaller percentage of Americans blame congressional Democrats and smaller still blame congressional Republicans. I think a lot of Americans look at this skeptically and say, ‘What has changed between the beginning of the president’s term and now that makes this such a dire emergency?’ And I think it leaves a lot of Americans scratching their head. President Trump is playing to his base here, but unfortunately his base is a small percentage of the population. And most of the rest of the population is not with him on this issue of the wall.

Elizabeth Cherneff contributed to this report.
…

The 800,000 federal workers who are not being paid or are working without pay during the partial government shutdown were the first to feel its impact. But as Anna Kook reports, other segments of the economy are also being hurt, especially in Washington, home to the largest number of federal workers in the country.
…

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo sharply criticized former President Barack Obama’s policies in the Middle East, as he outlined the Trump administration’s vision for the region. Pompeo called on U.S. allies in the Middle East and elsewhere to do more to fight Islamic State terrorists and counter what he termed Iran’s “malign influence.” VOA’s diplomatic correspondent Cindy Saine reports from Washington.
…

U.S. President Donald Trump visited the border with Mexico to reiterate his demand for wall funding. Without opposition Democrat’s support, Trump signaled he could soon declare a national emergency. White House correspondent Patsy Widakuswara reports.
…

The former head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency said Thursday that what’s happening on the U.S. southern border is no emergency.

Craig Fugate, who ran the national disaster agency for nearly eight years under President Barack Obama and was head of Florida’s disaster agency under a Republican governor, said the push of refugees seeking asylum on the border with Mexico is not a national emergency.

President Donald Trump has called it a crisis and is weighing a national emergency declaration to bypass a reluctant Congress and fund his long-promised border wall. The issue has led to the extended partial government shutdown.

The Trump administration appointed Fugate, who ran recovery operations to numerous hurricanes and other disasters, to manage the issue of separated migrant children.

“And that was a crisis,” Fugate said in a phone interview with The Associated Press. It was an issue of mass care, he said.

More terrorists come into the United States through the northern border than the southern, said Fugate, who was part of the Department of Homeland Security.

“I’ve yet to see anything physically stop illegal immigration,” Fugate said. He said it would be cheaper and more effective to spend money to reduce crime and poverty in areas the refugees are fleeing from to stop illegal immigration that way.

“This is posturing, blustering,” Fugate said. He said Trump is essentially saying, “If I can’t get Congress to fund it, I’m going to use my authority to bypass Congress.”

Fugate said he worries that it continues a trend of presidents being more powerful than the legislative and judicial branches, something he traces back to Abraham Lincoln and, more recently, Franklin Roosevelt. The Supreme Court stopped President Harry Truman from using national emergency powers to nationalize the steel industry, but Fugate said he worries that won’t happen if Trump declares a national emergency to bypass Congress.

“What happens if they suspend the vote? What happens if they suspend the Congress?” Fugate asked. “That’s what happens in countries where the executive branch is greater than the legislative and judiciary.”
…

Three Russian companies have cut ties to a sanctioned oligarch and will no longer be under U.S. sanctions themselves, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said Thursday. 

Mnuchin appeared before the House of Representatives, where a number of Democrats want the Trump administration to postpone lifting sanctions against the three firms. 

In a statement issued before the meeting, Mnuchin said Oleg Deripaska would remain under U.S. sanctions, but the three companies he controlled — aluminum giant Rusal, its parent firm En+ and energy company EuroSIbEnergo — would not. 

“They have committed to provide Treasury with an unprecedented level of transparency into their dealings to ensure that Deripaska does not reassert control,” the statement read. 

Mnuchin assured lawmakers that the Trump administration would keep a close watch on the firms, promising that if they failed to comply with the terms to end the sanctions, they would face “very real and swift consequences, including the reimposition of sanctions.”  

Treasury placed sanctions on Deripaska in April 2018 for what it called Russian “malign activity,” including election meddling and crimes by Deripaska himself, which consisted of allegations of bribery, extortion, murder and links to organized crime.  

Deripaska has denied all the charges. 

“One of the goals of sanctions is to change behavior, and the proposed delisting of companies that Deripaska will no longer control shows that sanctions can result in positive change,” Mnuchin said. 
…

With the deceptive use of a video, President Donald Trump on Thursday heartily thanked his White House predecessor for supporting his policy at the Mexican border. Barack Obama has offered no such support; only criticism. 

Trump also denied that he ever expected Mexico to make a direct payment for his border wall, despite a call in a campaign policy paper for a “one-time payment” from Mexico of $5 billion to $10 billion, with options for Mexico to contribute in alternative ways. Mexico is refusing to contribute at all.

A look at Trump’s statements Thursday as he traveled to Texas to make his case for what he calls a security and humanitarian crisis, a possible precursor to declaring a national emergency at the border:

Obama video 

Trump: “President Obama, thank you for your great support — I have been saying this all along!’’— tweet, accompanied by video of Obama speaking as president in 2014.

Trump: “Obama used to call it a crisis at the border, too.” — remarks before departing the White House for Texas.

The facts: Obama’s remarks in the short video clip do not support Trump’s proposal for a border wall or endorse the path Trump is considering now: declaring a national emergency that might enable him to circumvent Congress and unilaterally spend money on the wall. Instead, Obama was asking Congress to approve an emergency appropriation to deal with a surge of tens of thousands of unaccompanied children and youth, mostly from Central American, trying to cross the border from Mexico.  

“We now have an actual humanitarian crisis on the border,” Obama said at the time, accompanied by Vice President Joe Biden. He was referring specifically to the surge of minors that year.

That crisis eventually eased as the U.S. stepped up border enforcement, surveillance and resources for the waves of unaccompanied children. Now, a sharp increase in the number of families at the border, coupled with the Trump administration’s hard-line stance, is overwhelming border resources, worsening a backlog in the asylum system and leaving migrants to live in abysmal conditions on the Mexican side. 

Trump, however, has been unable to convince Congress that the border poses a national security risk. He has made a series of statements falsely claiming that terrorists are pouring in from Mexico, that a wall would choke off shipments of illicit drugs, which actually come mainly through legal ports of entry, and that people who get in the country illegally commit a disproportionate share of violent crime.

Late in his presidency, Obama was repeatedly critical of Trump’s immigration stance and the wall specifically. In May 2016, for example, he said: “Suggesting that we can build an endless wall along our borders, and blame our challenges on immigrants — that doesn’t just run counter to our history as the world’s melting pot; it contradicts the evidence that our growth and our innovation and our dynamism has always been spurred by our ability to attract strivers from every corner of the globe.”

Mexico and the wall 

Trump. on Mexico paying for the wall: “I never meant they’re going to write out a check.” — remarks before departure to Texas.

Trump: `”Mexico is paying for the wall indirectly. And when I said Mexico will pay for the wall, in front of thousands and thousands of people, obviously they’re not going to write a check.”— remarks before departure.

Trump: “They’re paying for the wall in a great trade deal.” — remarks in Texas.

The facts: Actually, a Trump campaign policy paper envisaged an explicit payment from Mexico: “It’s an easy decision for Mexico: make a one-time payment of $5-10 billion,” the paper said.

The plan also outlined various ways for Trump to compel Mexico to pay for the wall, such as by Washington cutting off billions of dollars in remittances sent back to Mexico by immigrants living in the U.S., or by recouping the money through trade tariffs or higher visa fees. None of that has happened.

Instead, Trump is arguing that the updated trade agreement with Canada and Mexico will pay for the wall because of economic benefits he predicts will come from the deal. Nothing in the trade agreement would cover or refund the construction cost or require a payment from Mexico. Instead, he is assuming a wide variety of economic benefits will come from the agreement that can’t be quantified or counted on. For example, he has said the deal will dissuade some U.S. companies from moving operations to Mexico and he credits that possibility as a payment by Mexico.

The agreement preserves the existing liberalized environment of low or no tariffs among the U.S., Mexico and Canada, with certain improvements for each country. The deal has yet to be ratified in any member country and there is no assurance it will win legislative approval.  

Although his campaign left open the possibility that Mexico might somehow contribute to the cost indirectly, Trump roused his crowds with the straight-ahead promise: “I will have Mexico pay for that wall.”

Again and again at his rallies, Trump asked his crowds dramatically who would pay for the wall.

“Mexico,” they responded.

“Who?” he’s asked again.

“Mexico,” they roared.

Now he is saying his words were not meant to be taken literally.

 
…

The upcoming departure of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is raising questions about the future of a special counsel investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Rosenstein is seen as the protector of the probe, which has been vilified by U.S. President Donald Trump, whose nominee as attorney general, William Barr, has criticized the probe but said he has a high opinion of Mueller. VOA’s Zlatica Hoke reports Barr could be confirmed next month.
…

Efforts to end a 19-day partial government shutdown stalled Wednesday when President Trump walked out of White House talks with congressional Democrats. Trump’s request for nearly $6 billion in funding for a U.S.-Mexico border wall triggered what is now the second longest government shutdown in U.S. history. VOA’s congressional correspondent Katherine Gypson reports on what’s next on Capitol Hill.
…

U.S. airport security workers and air traffic controllers working without pay warned that security and safety could be compromised if a government shutdown continues beyond Friday, when some workers will miss their first paychecks.

On the 19th day of a partial government shutdown caused by a dispute over funding President Donald Trump wants for a border wall, the president stormed out of talks with Democratic congressional leaders, complaining the meeting was “a total waste of time.”

As the effects of the shutdown began to ripple out, the Trump administration insisted that air travel staffing was adequate and travelers had not faced unusual delays.

TSA workers quitting

But union officials said some Transport Security Administration (TSA) officers, who carry out security screening in airports, had quit because of the shutdown and others were considering quitting.

“The loss of (TSA) officers, while we’re already shorthanded, will create a massive security risk for American travelers since we don’t have enough trainees in the pipeline or the ability to process new hires,” American Federation of Government Employees TSA Council President Hydrick Thomas said.

“If this keeps up there are problems that will arise — least of which would be increased wait times for travelers.”

Aviation unions, airport and airline officials and lawmakers will hold a rally Thursday outside Congress urging an end to the shutdown.

TSA says delays within reason

TSA spokesman Michael Bilello said the organization was hiring officers and working on contingency plans in case the shutdown lasted beyond Friday, when officers would miss their first paycheck since the shutdown began Dec. 22.

“There has been no degradation in security effectiveness and average wait times are well within TSA standards,” he said.

He added that there had been no spike in employees quitting and that Tuesday 5 percent of officers took unscheduled leave, up just slightly from 3.9 percent the same day last year.

It screened 1.73 million passengers and 99.9 percent of passengers waited less than 30 minutes, the TSA said.

But U.S. Representative Bennie Thompson, chairman of the House Homeland Security committee, questioned how long adequate staffing at airports could continue.

“TSA officers are among the lowest paid federal employees, with many living paycheck-to-paycheck,” Thompson wrote. “It is only reasonable to expect officer call outs and resignations to increase the longer the shutdown lasts, since no employee can be expected to work indefinitely without pay.”

​Airports urge end to shutdown

Airports Council International-North America, which represents U.S. airports, urged Trump and congressional leaders in a letter to quickly reopen the government.

“TSA staffing shortages brought on by this shutdown are likely to further increase checkpoint wait times and may even lead to the complete closure of some checkpoints,” the group said.

The National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) noted that the number of controllers was already at a 30-year low, with 18 percent of controllers eligible to retire.

If a significant number of controllers missed work, the Federal Aviation Administration could be forced to extend the amount of time between takeoffs and landings, which could delay travel, it said.

NATCA President Paul Rinaldi said controllers often must work overtime and six-day weeks at short-staffed locations.

“If the staffing shortage gets worse, we will see reduced capacity in the National Airspace System, meaning more flight delays,” Rinaldi said.
…

Deputy U.S. Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who has overseen the Russian election meddling probe, is set to leave the U.S. Department of Justice in coming weeks as President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the department

is set to take over, several U.S. media outlets reported on Wednesday.

Rosenstein has had oversight of the U.S. Special Counsel’s probe into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and possible connections to Trump’s campaign.

Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, an early Trump supporter during the presidential campaign, had recused himself.

William Barr, Trump’s pick to replace Sessions who was fired soon after the November midterm congressional elections, is set to appear for a confirmation hearing next week before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which must weigh his nomination before the full Senate considers his approval.

ABC News, citing multiple sources familiar with Rosenstein’s plans, reported that he intended to leave in the coming weeks as Barr transitioned into the job. Fox News, citing unnamed Justice Department officials, also reported the planned departure in weeks. CNN also reported the move, citing an unnamed source.

Reuters was unable to immediately verify the reports and representatives for the Justice Department could not be immediately reached for comment.

If confirmed, Barr, who was U.S. Attorney General under the late President George H.W. Bush from 1991 to 1993, would oversee the investigation led by U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller, a fellow Republican chosen by Rosenstein.

Barr’s nomination is likely to meet heavy scrutiny regarding the ongoing investigation, particularly from Democrats, following reports he had written a memo in June questioning the probe. Rosenstein has said the memo had no impact on the department’s work.

Officials told ABC and Fox that Rosenstein had planned to serve as deputy for two years – a milestone that was approaching.

He also wanted to help ensure Barr, if confirmed by the Senate, had a smooth transition, ABC said, citing sources.

Rosenstein has stayed on under Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker, whose controversial appointment has sparked numerous legal challenges and raised questions about what role he would play regarding the investigation.

Rosenstein has been frequently criticized by Trump, who calls the Russia investigation a “witch hunt” and denies any collusion with Moscow. Russia has also denied any election interference.

U.S. intelligence agencies have found that Russia sought to sway the 2016 presidential vote to Trump over Democratic challenger Hillary Clinton.

 
…

President Donald Trump and Democratic leaders in Congress made clear Tuesday in nationally televised remarks that while each side supports border security efforts, they remain far apart on the scale and cost of what those measures should be.

The standoff has closed one quarter of the federal government since December 22.  

Watch President Trump’s address:

​

Trump said in his address from the White House Oval Office it is up to Democrats to “pass a spending bill that defends our borders and reopens the government.”  He suggested the issue could be resolved in a quick meeting, and that he has invited leaders in Congress to talks Wednesday.

In their joint response to Trump’s speech, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer pointed to a number of spending bills lawmakers have already passed that would reopen the government and provide money for border security.  They say the shutdown continues only because Trump refuses to drop his demand for $5.7 billion in funding for a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border that they say would be expensive and ineffective.

Watch the Democratic response:

​

Trump in his speech sought to make a case that not having a wall is putting Americans at risk of being victims of violence at the hands of people who enter the country illegally, and endangering them by allowing large amounts of illegal drugs to cross the border.

“Over the years, thousands of Americans have been brutally killed by those who illegally entered our country and thousands more lives will be lost if we don’t act right now,” Trump said.  “This is a humanitarian crisis, a crisis of the heart and a crisis of the soul.”

He said hundreds more people are killed each year by drugs, particularly heroin, most of which, he said, comes into the United States through the southwestern border.

An October 2018 report by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency detailed the prevalence and source of a number of drugs, including those Trump mentioned Tuesday — heroin, fentanyl, methamphetamine and cocaine.  In each case, the report said the vast majority of the drugs comes in through existing points of entry, most commonly in cars, which would not be stopped by a border wall.

Trump accused Democrats of not acknowledging what he calls the “crisis” at the border and says they refuse to support funding for border security and what he calls the “common sense” wall.

He said his administration’s proposal also includes technology upgrades to detect drugs and weapons, money to hire more border agents and to increase the number of beds available to house those detained trying to cross the border.

Democrats largely agree with those types of measures, and in their bills have backed spending $1.3 billion for scanning equipment and adding more border personnel.  Pelosi on Tuesday called those proposals “smart, effective border security solutions.”

WATCH: Trump demands a wall

But she said it is “just plain wrong” for Trump to keep the government shut down because of the wall funding dispute.

“The fact is, the women and children at the border are not a security threat, they are a humanitarian challenge — a challenge that President Trump’s own cruel and counterproductive policies have only deepened,” Pelosi said.  “And the fact is, President Trump must stop holding the American people hostage, must stop manufacturing a crisis, and must reopen the government.”

While the standoff continues, some 800,000 federal employees are furloughed or working without pay.
…

With a prime-time speech from the Oval Office Tuesday night, U.S. President Donald Trump made his case to build a wall at the U.S. border with Mexico, and addressed growing anxiety over the partial government shutdown resulting from his wall-funding fight with lawmakers. Democrats responded by urging the president to stop holding the American people hostage, and re-open the government. VOA White House Correspondent Patsy Widakuswara reports.
…

As President Donald Trump prepares to pressure Democrats on border wall funding with a nationally televised address Tuesday night, Senate Democrats are pushing back by pledging a blockade of legislation until the Republican-controlled chamber votes on a spending bill to reopen shuttered U.S. government agencies.

Minnesota Democrat Amy Klobuchar urged her colleagues in a tweet Tuesday to focus efforts on ending the shutdown.

Klobuchar joined a chorus of Senate Democrats pressuring Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky to allow votes on bills the Democratically-led House of Representatives passed last week to fund government agencies that saw their spending authority expire in December.

Virginia Democrat Mark Warner echoed the sentiment on Twitter.

With rare exception, Senate rules mandate three-fifths backing to advance any bill that fails to garner unanimous support. Republicans have a 53-47 majority in the chamber, well short of 60 votes that would be required to advance legislation on their own.

McConnell, who has broad authority to determine which bills come to the floor for a vote, repeatedly has stated that he will not allow the Senate to consider any funding bill Trump opposes.

“Democrats will have to get serious about border security so that a government funding agreement can pass the House, earn 60 votes in the Senate, and receive a presidential signature. All three of these things are needed,” the majority leader tweeted last week.

Trump is demanding billions of taxpayer dollars for wall construction along the U.S.-Mexico border. The House-passed spending bills would extend overall border security operations but set aside no money for a wall.

If Senate Democrats follow through on their legislative blockade pledge, the first casualty would be a bill covering security assistance for Israel, U.S.-Jordanian defense cooperation, and efforts to aid and protect Syrian civilians.
…

A federal grand jury has indicted a Kremlin-linked lawyer, who met U.S. President Donald Trump’s eldest son and other members of his campaign in 2016, on charges of obstruction of justice in a case that highlights her ties to the Russian government, despite her repeated denial.  

Natalia Veselnitskaya, who is believed to be in Russia, is accused of secretly working with a Russian government prosecutor to draft a false declaration in the course of her legal representation of a Russian firm that was sued by the U.S. government for money laundering, according to an indictment unsealed on Tuesday.

The 43-year-old Russian lawyer entered the spotlight in 2017 after it was disclosed that she had held a secret meeting with Donald Trump Jr., President Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and former campaign chairman Paul Manafort at Trump Tower in June of 2016.  

The president’s eldest son later released emails showing he agreed to the meeting after he was told by an intermediary that Veselnitskaya represented the Russian government and had damaging information about Trump’s rival, Democrat Hillary Clinton.

Donald Trump Jr. later said that the meeting instead focused on the repeal of the Magnitsky Act, a U.S. accountability law named after Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian lawyer who was allegedly beaten to death in prison in 2009 after accusing Russian officials of tax fraud.

The firm Veselnitskaya represented in New York, Prevezon Holdings, was at the heart of the $230 million tax fraud scheme uncovered by Magnitsky. In the case, U.S. prosecutors sought to prove that the company had laundered the proceeds of the scheme involving corrupt Russian officials.

Veselnitskaya’s 2015 declaration in the Prevezon case “presented supposed investigative findings by the Russian government” where in fact she had drafted those findings in secret cooperation with a senior Russian prosecutor, U.S. prosecutors said.

“Fabricating evidence  submitting false and deceptive declarations to a federal judge in an attempt to affect the outcome of pending litigation not only undermines the integrity of the judicial process, but it threatens the ability of our courts and our Government to ensure that justice is done,” U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman said in a statement.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller is investigating the circumstances leading up to the 2016 Trump Tower meeting and subsequent statements made by Trump and his son about the meeting.

The special counsel’s office declined to comment on the latest indictment,  

Trump has defended the meeting, tweeting last year it was “totally legal and done all the time in politics.”    

Veselnitskaya told CNN on Tuesday that she will “defend her professional honor.”

The Prevezon case was settled in 2017.
…

As she nears a decision on whether to seek the presidency, Sen. Kamala Harris is taking on what could be a hurdle in a Democratic primary: her past as a prosecutor.

In her memoir published Tuesday, the California Democrat describes herself as a “progressive prosecutor” and says it’s a “false choice” to decide between supporting the police and advocating for greater scrutiny of law enforcement. The argument is aimed at liberal critics of her record who argue she was sometimes too quick to side with the police and too slow to adopt sentencing reforms.

“I know that most police officers deserve to be proud of their public service and commended for the way they do their jobs,” Harris writes in “The Truths We Hold.” “I know how difficult and dangerous the job is, day in and day out, and I know how hard it is for the officers’ families, who have to wonder if the person they love will be coming home at the end of each shift.”

But, she continues, “I also know this: it is a false choice to suggest you must either be for the police or for police accountability. I am for both. Most people I know are for both. Let’s speak some truth about that, too.”

After high-profile fatal shootings involving police officers and unarmed people of color, the criminal justice system’s treatment of minorities is a top issue among Democratic voters. The passage suggests Harris is aware that her seven years as the district attorney in San Francisco, followed by six years as California’s attorney general, is something she will have to explain and signals how she may frame her law enforcement career if she decides to run for the White House.

“It’s a presidential campaign, and every aspect of a candidate’s record is going to be scrutinized and they’re going to have to answer for it,” said Mo Elleithee, a longtime Democratic operative who leads Georgetown University’s Institute of Politics and Public Service. “She knows that this is something that’s heading her way and a good candidate is one who doesn’t wait for it to hit them. A good candidate is someone who addresses it proactively, and she appears to be doing that.”

Beyond the book, Harris recently supported legislation that passed the Senate late last year and overhauls the criminal justice system, especially when it comes to sentencing rules.

In the book, Harris recounts an instance when she was an intern at the Alameda County district attorney’s office and an innocent bystander was one of many people arrested during a drug raid. Harris said she “begged” and “pleaded” on a late Friday afternoon for a judge to hear the case so the woman could avoid spending the weekend in jail.

Kate Chatfield, the policy director of the California-based criminal justice reform group Re:store Justice, said that Harris did do “some good” when she was in law enforcement but that it was “incumbent on the public to hold her accountable for the ways in which she either didn’t do enough or actually did some harm.”

“When the conversation shifts, one should be expected to be questioned about those choices,” Chatfield said, noting among other issues Harris’s advocacy for tougher truancy laws.

By addressing policing in the book, Harris is taking on an issue that confronted Democrats and some Republicans in 2016. Democrat Hillary Clinton was criticized for her husband’s role in passing the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which created stricter penalties for drug offenders and funneled billions of dollars toward more police and new prisons.

The issue is likely to be the subject of fierce debate in 2020 as well and could expose divisions among the wide field of candidates — presenting hurdles for some and opportunity for others.

Former Vice President Joe Biden was the head of the Senate’s Judiciary Committee when the 1994 crime bill — which is now criticized as having helped create an era of mass incarceration — was passed and signed into law, which could be an obstacle for him. New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker was central to the passage of the Senate’s criminal justice overhaul package and is certain to tout it if he decides to launch a presidential campaign. Meanwhile, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who is also considering a 2020 bid, often refers to her own prosecutorial past.

The memoir — and the publicity surrounding it — will shift the 2020 campaign spotlight to Harris this week after much of the focus has been on her Senate colleague, Elizabeth Warren. Last week, the Massachusetts Democrat became the most prominent person yet to take steps toward a presidential run by launching an exploratory committee. Her weekend trip to the leadoff caucus state of Iowa also generated largely flattering headlines.

Some criminal justice advocates said they were happy the issue would get more attention in 2020.

“When we had the 2016 elections, it was at the height of Ferguson and Baltimore, and we still didn’t have serious engagement with criminal justice reform,” said Phillip Goff, the director of the Center for Policing Equity, referring to the protests that followed the deaths of black men by police officers in Missouri and Maryland. “My hope is that we require candidates to demonstrate that they know more than the catchphrases of the activists in their bases.”

Surveys underscore the potency of criminal justice issues among Democrats. A February 2018 poll conducted by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that majorities of Democrats — but far fewer Republicans — think there’s been little progress for African-Americans on criminal justice or policing issues over the past 50 years. The poll showed that 45 percent of Americans, including 62 percent of Democrats and 19 percent of Republicans, thought there had been little to no progress on fair treatment for black Americans by the criminal justice system. Similarly, 46 percent of Americans, including 63 percent of Democrats and 23 percent of Republicans, said there’s been little to no progress for African-Americans on fair treatment by police.

While it’s not yet clear how Harris’ prosecutorial background could affect her primary bid, it could help her if she faces President Donald Trump in the 2020 general election.

“He ran as the law-and-order president,” Elleithee said of Trump. “Being able to go toe-to-toe with him on law and order in a smarter way, I think, is going to be important. Should she win the nomination and does it by navigating this topic well, then I think she would be a strong voice and a force to be reckoned with when it comes to issues of law and order, criminal justice and civil rights as they collide in a general election.”
…

Former San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro introduced himself to Iowa Democrats on Monday night as a champion for universal health care and affordable housing as he indicated he was close to launching a run for the presidency.

Castro spoke with party activists at a crowded house party in North Liberty after forming an exploratory committee last month. Castro said that he would announce his presidential campaign on Saturday in San Antonio and that he looked forward to meeting with Iowa voters before the first-in-the-nation caucuses next year.

Castro said that he would lay out his vision for making the United States “the smartest, the healthiest, the fairest and the most prosperous nation in the world.” He said that his plans will include expanding Medicare to allow access for all and addressing what he called a housing affordability crisis in which rising rents are squeezing the poor and middle class.

Castro, who served as the nation’s housing secretary during President Barack Obama’s second term, also promised that he will not accept money from political action committees tied to corporations and unions.

“What you’re going to hear from me is that I’m not taking that PAC money, that I support universal health care, and that I’ve shown in my time in public service an ability to stand with the people instead of the special interests, and I’ve taken action to do that,” said Castro, 44.

Castro shook hands, spoke and fielded questions for an hour as guests sipped wine from plastic cups. He received a warm welcome from the activists, who said they were eager for someone who could defeat President Donald Trump in the 2020 election. North Liberty is a fast-growing bedroom community that’s located near Iowa City in Johnson County, which has long been the state’s liberal stronghold.

Castro’s visit was the latest activity in Iowa as the field of candidates seeking the Democratic Party’s nomination begins to take shape. U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts visited the state over the weekend after forming her own exploratory committee, and several more candidates are expected to join the race soon.

Castro acknowledged that some Democrats will view his and other candidates’ decisions to not accept PAC money as tantamount to “bringing a knife to a gun fight.” But he said that the Democratic nominee will have no problem raising money from individuals who want change and that the decision sends an important message.

“I think it says something, that if a candidate doesn’t take that money, they’re going to work for you,” he said. “If I’m elected, that’s what I’m going to do.”
…