A deadlocked Washington on immigration matters is not new. Congress’ inability to address the legal status of undocumented newcomers and reform America’s oft-criticized immigration system spans several decades and multiple U.S. administrations. Protracted gridlock helped spur the creation of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, as an executive order that bypassed Congress. The current political impasse has blocked a permanent legislative solution benefiting immigrants — sometimes called Dreamers — who were brought to America as children.

Key dates in recent efforts to reform U.S. immigration laws:

June 23, 2007: Then-President George W. Bush renews a call for lawmakers to forge a comprehensive immigration reform package, declaring, “The status quo is unacceptable.” Neither house of Congress approves immigration reform during his two-term administration.

​December 8, 2010: Majority Democrats in the House of Representatives pass the DREAM Act, which would grant permanent legal status to qualifying undocumented minors in America. The bill was derailed when it failed to get three-fifths backing in the Senate.

May 10, 2011: Then-President Barack Obama calls for an overhaul of America’s immigration laws in a speech delivered in El Paso, Texas. Obama rejects calls from immigrant rights advocates to bypass Congress and unilaterally implement changes, saying, “That’s not how a democracy works.”

June 5, 2012: Obama unveils DACA, which allows undocumented immigrants who arrived in the United States before age 16 and have lived in the country for at least five years to obtain renewable two-year permits to work and study in America. Obama declares, “This is not amnesty, this is not immunity. This is not a path to citizenship. It’s not a permanent fix. This is a temporary stopgap measure.” Some 800,000 immigrant youth eventually enroll in the program.

​June 27, 2013: The U.S. Senate passes a bipartisan immigration reform bill that would give millions of undocumented immigrants a chance at U.S. citizenship, force employers to verify the legal status of their workers, adjust criteria for legal immigrants coming to America, and dramatically boost U.S. border security. The Republican-led House of Representatives does not vote on the bill, which supersedes many DACA provisions, and it never reaches Obama’s desk.

November 20, 2014: Obama expands on DACA with an executive order shielding many undocumented parents of U.S. citizens from deportation for renewable three-year periods.

November 25, 2014: Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio sues Obama over DACA and other executive orders. A federal judge dismisses the lawsuit a month later, as does a federal appeals court in 2015, saying Arpaio lacks legal standing. The U.S. Supreme Court declines to review the case in January 2016.

​September 5, 2017: The Trump administration rescinds Obama’s DACA executive order, effective March 5, 2018. President Donald Trump challenges Congress to enact a permanent legislative solution for young undocumented immigrants.

September 13, 2017: Trump discusses a DACA fix and enhanced border security measures with Democratic congressional leaders. A day later, Trump tweets: “Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military? … They have been in our country for many years through no fault of their own.”

October 8, 2017: The White House issues its blueprint for immigration reform, demanding border wall construction, changes to legal immigration, and an end of so-called “sanctuary cities” that do not cooperate with federal authorities in identifying and handing over undocumented immigrants. Most Democrats reject the blueprint but, in the weeks that follow, do not follow through on threats to hold up federal funding extensions that fail to address DACA.

January 9, 2018: A federal court freezes Trump’s order rescinding DACA, allowing existing beneficiaries to continue to renew work and study permits. On the same day, Trump holds an hourlong, televised bipartisan meeting with lawmakers on immigration. Trump expresses optimism a deal can pass Congress and pledges to sign it if one does.

January 11, 2018: Trump rejects an immigration compromise reached by six senators of both political parties. Some senators present at the meeting report the president used vulgar language to describe some impoverished nations.

January 19, 2018: On the eve of a federal funding deadline, Trump rejects a Democratic offer pairing a DACA fix with limited border wall funding. Hours later, most Democrats refuse to back a funding extension and the U.S. government partially shuts down at midnight. Federal operations resume three days later when a funding extension is approved after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell promises floor debate and votes on immigration proposals.

February 15, 2018: The Senate rejects four immigration proposals, three of which contained a DACA solution. Trump’s immigration blueprint and DACA fix receives the fewest votes of all.

February 26, 2018: The U.S. Supreme Court declines to immediately intervene on DACA, effectively keeping Trump’s rescinding of the program on hold.

March 22, 2018: Congress passes yearlong funding with no DACA fix.

April 1-2, 2018: In multiple tweets, Trump repeatedly rails against illegal immigration and blames Democrats for Washington’s failure to enact immigration reform.
…

A deadlocked Washington on immigration matters is not new. Congress’ inability to address the legal status of undocumented newcomers and reform America’s oft-criticized immigration system spans several decades and multiple U.S. administrations. Protracted gridlock helped spur the creation of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, as an executive order that bypassed Congress. The current political impasse has blocked a permanent legislative solution benefiting immigrants — sometimes called Dreamers — who were brought to America as children.

Key dates in recent efforts to reform U.S. immigration laws:

June 23, 2007: Then-President George W. Bush renews a call for lawmakers to forge a comprehensive immigration reform package, declaring, “The status quo is unacceptable.” Neither house of Congress approves immigration reform during his two-term administration.

​December 8, 2010: Majority Democrats in the House of Representatives pass the DREAM Act, which would grant permanent legal status to qualifying undocumented minors in America. The bill was derailed when it failed to get three-fifths backing in the Senate.

May 10, 2011: Then-President Barack Obama calls for an overhaul of America’s immigration laws in a speech delivered in El Paso, Texas. Obama rejects calls from immigrant rights advocates to bypass Congress and unilaterally implement changes, saying, “That’s not how a democracy works.”

June 5, 2012: Obama unveils DACA, which allows undocumented immigrants who arrived in the United States before age 16 and have lived in the country for at least five years to obtain renewable two-year permits to work and study in America. Obama declares, “This is not amnesty, this is not immunity. This is not a path to citizenship. It’s not a permanent fix. This is a temporary stopgap measure.” Some 800,000 immigrant youth eventually enroll in the program.

​June 27, 2013: The U.S. Senate passes a bipartisan immigration reform bill that would give millions of undocumented immigrants a chance at U.S. citizenship, force employers to verify the legal status of their workers, adjust criteria for legal immigrants coming to America, and dramatically boost U.S. border security. The Republican-led House of Representatives does not vote on the bill, which supersedes many DACA provisions, and it never reaches Obama’s desk.

November 20, 2014: Obama expands on DACA with an executive order shielding many undocumented parents of U.S. citizens from deportation for renewable three-year periods.

November 25, 2014: Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio sues Obama over DACA and other executive orders. A federal judge dismisses the lawsuit a month later, as does a federal appeals court in 2015, saying Arpaio lacks legal standing. The U.S. Supreme Court declines to review the case in January 2016.

​September 5, 2017: The Trump administration rescinds Obama’s DACA executive order, effective March 5, 2018. President Donald Trump challenges Congress to enact a permanent legislative solution for young undocumented immigrants.

September 13, 2017: Trump discusses a DACA fix and enhanced border security measures with Democratic congressional leaders. A day later, Trump tweets: “Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military? … They have been in our country for many years through no fault of their own.”

October 8, 2017: The White House issues its blueprint for immigration reform, demanding border wall construction, changes to legal immigration, and an end of so-called “sanctuary cities” that do not cooperate with federal authorities in identifying and handing over undocumented immigrants. Most Democrats reject the blueprint but, in the weeks that follow, do not follow through on threats to hold up federal funding extensions that fail to address DACA.

January 9, 2018: A federal court freezes Trump’s order rescinding DACA, allowing existing beneficiaries to continue to renew work and study permits. On the same day, Trump holds an hourlong, televised bipartisan meeting with lawmakers on immigration. Trump expresses optimism a deal can pass Congress and pledges to sign it if one does.

January 11, 2018: Trump rejects an immigration compromise reached by six senators of both political parties. Some senators present at the meeting report the president used vulgar language to describe some impoverished nations.

January 19, 2018: On the eve of a federal funding deadline, Trump rejects a Democratic offer pairing a DACA fix with limited border wall funding. Hours later, most Democrats refuse to back a funding extension and the U.S. government partially shuts down at midnight. Federal operations resume three days later when a funding extension is approved after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell promises floor debate and votes on immigration proposals.

February 15, 2018: The Senate rejects four immigration proposals, three of which contained a DACA solution. Trump’s immigration blueprint and DACA fix receives the fewest votes of all.

February 26, 2018: The U.S. Supreme Court declines to immediately intervene on DACA, effectively keeping Trump’s rescinding of the program on hold.

March 22, 2018: Congress passes yearlong funding with no DACA fix.

April 1-2, 2018: In multiple tweets, Trump repeatedly rails against illegal immigration and blames Democrats for Washington’s failure to enact immigration reform.
…

Amid criticism of his invitation by phone to Russian President Vladimir Putin to hold a meeting soon at the White House, President Donald Trump says no one is tougher on Russia than he is.  Some experts say Russia is likely seeking such a high-profile summit to dispel the perception that it is isolated internationally after the poisoning of a former Russian double agent and his daughter in Britain caused the West to expel Russian diplomats.  VOA’s Diplomatic Correspondent Cindy Saine has more.
…

New York Democratic gubernatorial candidate Cynthia Nixon has cited the exclusion of a black female legislative leader from the state’s budget negotiations as an example of where the Democratic Party needs to improve when it comes to promoting women leaders.

During the “Sex and the City” star’s first national television interview aired Wednesday on “The Wendy Williams Show,” Nixon called black women the “cornerstone” and “backbone” of the Democratic Party.

But Nixon added that black women will stop showing up for the Democratic Party “if the Democratic Party doesn’t start showing up for them.”

Her comment came after she mentioned that Andrea Stewart-Cousins wasn’t included in weeks of closed-door talks that led to last Sunday’s passage of the budget. Stewart-Cousins leads the state Senate’s mainstream Democrats.
…

New York Democratic gubernatorial candidate Cynthia Nixon has cited the exclusion of a black female legislative leader from the state’s budget negotiations as an example of where the Democratic Party needs to improve when it comes to promoting women leaders.

During the “Sex and the City” star’s first national television interview aired Wednesday on “The Wendy Williams Show,” Nixon called black women the “cornerstone” and “backbone” of the Democratic Party.

But Nixon added that black women will stop showing up for the Democratic Party “if the Democratic Party doesn’t start showing up for them.”

Her comment came after she mentioned that Andrea Stewart-Cousins wasn’t included in weeks of closed-door talks that led to last Sunday’s passage of the budget. Stewart-Cousins leads the state Senate’s mainstream Democrats.
…

Mexican officials on Tuesday screened a dwindling group of hundreds of largely Central American migrants who are moving through Mexico toward the United States, seeking to break up the “caravan” that has drawn the ire of U.S. President Donald Trump.

Trump, doubling down on his tough stance against illegal immigration, has railed against those making their way from the Guatemala-Mexico border in the past 10 days.

Trump repeated threats to torpedo the North American Free Trade Agreement, which underpins much of Mexico’s foreign trade, and said he wanted to send troops to the U.S. border to stop illegal immigrants until a long-promised border wall is built.

In response, the Mexican government has said the migrants are being vetted to determine whether they have a right to stay or will be returned to their countries of origin.

Stuck, waiting

Hundreds of men, women and children from Central America were stuck Tuesday in the town of Matias Romero in the poor southern Mexican state of Oaxaca, awaiting clarification of their legal status after officials began registering them.

Confused and frustrated by paperwork, many were uncertain about what lay in store, and desperate for information.

“What was the point of all this then if they don’t let us stay?” Elizabeth Avalos, 23, a migrant from El Salvador who was traveling with two children, said angrily. “There’s no food, my children haven’t eaten since yesterday.”

Hundreds of people camped out overnight in a park near the town’s train station, with shoes and bags strewn about.

Jaime Alexander Variega, 35, sat alone in a patch of shade and cupped his head in his hands, weeping or praying, his feet still bearing lacerations from walking for four or five days straight through Guatemala from El Salvador.

“We’re not safe in El Salvador,” said the former security guard, his hat smeared in dirt, explaining he had left his home because of the threats from local gangs. “I know it’s difficult to get into the United States. But it’s not impossible.”

Around them, Mexican migration officials with notepads and pens took basic information from the migrants, asking for names, nationalities, dates of birth and proof of identity.

The caravan was organized by U.S-based advocacy group Pueblo Sin Fronteras, which seeks to draw attention to the rights of migrants and provide them with aid. The Mexican government says the caravan, which like others travels by road, rail and on foot, has been organized every year since 2010.

Numbers dwindle

Honduran Carlos Ricardo Ellis Garcia clutched a handwritten list of names belonging to more than 100 people who joined the caravan in the southern border town of Tapachula, where it began on March 25, reaching a peak of around 1,500 people.

But by Tuesday the number was down to about 1,100, according to Pueblo Sin Fronteras spokeswoman Gina Garibo.

Many had broken off from the group, eager to move on more quickly, she said. Many others aimed to stay in Mexico because they had family ties there or planned to work, Garibo said.

“Now they’re separating these groups,” Ellis Garcia said, referring to an estimated 300 people who split from the caravan on Monday. “I don’t know what’s the deal. We have no answers.”

Advocacy groups told Reuters dozens of people left the caravan and traveled to the crime-ridden eastern state of Veracruz, where they were met by migration officials and police.

The government said on Monday evening that about 400 people in the caravan had already been sent back to their home countries.

Geronimo Gutierrez, Mexico’s ambassador to the United States, told CNN that Mexican authorities were “looking at the status of the individuals so we can proceed either with a repatriation process” or offer humanitarian relief. That could include granting asylum or humanitarian visas.

Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala are among the most violent and impoverished countries in the Americas, prompting many people to leave in search of a better life.

Trump, who ran for office in 2016 on a platform to stem the flow of illegal immigrants from Mexico, said he had “told Mexico” he hoped it would halt the caravan.

Political problem

The migrant caravan also poses a political problem for Mexico’s unpopular government in a presidential election year.

President Enrique Pena Nieto is barred by law from seeking re-election in the July 1 vote, but the ruling party candidate is running third, well behind the front-runner.

The government does not want to be seen as kowtowing to threats by Trump, who is deeply unpopular in Mexico.

In a country where millions of people have friends or relatives who have migrated legally or illegally to the United States, many Mexicans harbor sympathy for the Central Americans.
…

Mexican officials on Tuesday screened a dwindling group of hundreds of largely Central American migrants who are moving through Mexico toward the United States, seeking to break up the “caravan” that has drawn the ire of U.S. President Donald Trump.

Trump, doubling down on his tough stance against illegal immigration, has railed against those making their way from the Guatemala-Mexico border in the past 10 days.

Trump repeated threats to torpedo the North American Free Trade Agreement, which underpins much of Mexico’s foreign trade, and said he wanted to send troops to the U.S. border to stop illegal immigrants until a long-promised border wall is built.

In response, the Mexican government has said the migrants are being vetted to determine whether they have a right to stay or will be returned to their countries of origin.

Stuck, waiting

Hundreds of men, women and children from Central America were stuck Tuesday in the town of Matias Romero in the poor southern Mexican state of Oaxaca, awaiting clarification of their legal status after officials began registering them.

Confused and frustrated by paperwork, many were uncertain about what lay in store, and desperate for information.

“What was the point of all this then if they don’t let us stay?” Elizabeth Avalos, 23, a migrant from El Salvador who was traveling with two children, said angrily. “There’s no food, my children haven’t eaten since yesterday.”

Hundreds of people camped out overnight in a park near the town’s train station, with shoes and bags strewn about.

Jaime Alexander Variega, 35, sat alone in a patch of shade and cupped his head in his hands, weeping or praying, his feet still bearing lacerations from walking for four or five days straight through Guatemala from El Salvador.

“We’re not safe in El Salvador,” said the former security guard, his hat smeared in dirt, explaining he had left his home because of the threats from local gangs. “I know it’s difficult to get into the United States. But it’s not impossible.”

Around them, Mexican migration officials with notepads and pens took basic information from the migrants, asking for names, nationalities, dates of birth and proof of identity.

The caravan was organized by U.S-based advocacy group Pueblo Sin Fronteras, which seeks to draw attention to the rights of migrants and provide them with aid. The Mexican government says the caravan, which like others travels by road, rail and on foot, has been organized every year since 2010.

Numbers dwindle

Honduran Carlos Ricardo Ellis Garcia clutched a handwritten list of names belonging to more than 100 people who joined the caravan in the southern border town of Tapachula, where it began on March 25, reaching a peak of around 1,500 people.

But by Tuesday the number was down to about 1,100, according to Pueblo Sin Fronteras spokeswoman Gina Garibo.

Many had broken off from the group, eager to move on more quickly, she said. Many others aimed to stay in Mexico because they had family ties there or planned to work, Garibo said.

“Now they’re separating these groups,” Ellis Garcia said, referring to an estimated 300 people who split from the caravan on Monday. “I don’t know what’s the deal. We have no answers.”

Advocacy groups told Reuters dozens of people left the caravan and traveled to the crime-ridden eastern state of Veracruz, where they were met by migration officials and police.

The government said on Monday evening that about 400 people in the caravan had already been sent back to their home countries.

Geronimo Gutierrez, Mexico’s ambassador to the United States, told CNN that Mexican authorities were “looking at the status of the individuals so we can proceed either with a repatriation process” or offer humanitarian relief. That could include granting asylum or humanitarian visas.

Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala are among the most violent and impoverished countries in the Americas, prompting many people to leave in search of a better life.

Trump, who ran for office in 2016 on a platform to stem the flow of illegal immigrants from Mexico, said he had “told Mexico” he hoped it would halt the caravan.

Political problem

The migrant caravan also poses a political problem for Mexico’s unpopular government in a presidential election year.

President Enrique Pena Nieto is barred by law from seeking re-election in the July 1 vote, but the ruling party candidate is running third, well behind the front-runner.

The government does not want to be seen as kowtowing to threats by Trump, who is deeply unpopular in Mexico.

In a country where millions of people have friends or relatives who have migrated legally or illegally to the United States, many Mexicans harbor sympathy for the Central Americans.
…

As Republicans run into a buzz saw of conservative criticism over a deficit-expanding new budget, GOP leaders and the White House are looking for ways to undo the damage by allowing President Donald Trump to rescind some of the spending he signed into law just 10 days ago.

Rolling back the funds would be a highly unusual move and could put some lawmakers in the potentially uncomfortable position of having to vote for specific spending opposed by a president from their party. But it would also offer Republicans a way to save face amid the backlash over the bill that conservatives, and Trump himself, complain gives too much money for Democratic priorities.

Trump has been talking with House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, a California Republican, about the plan over the past couple of days, according to an aide to the House leader who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the private talks. It is not clear how widely the idea has been embraced by other top Republicans, including House Speaker Paul Ryan or Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, whose offices declined to discuss it.

“There are conversations right now,” said Matt Sparks, a spokesman for McCarthy. “The administration and Congress and McCarthy are talking about it.”

The idea emerged as lawmakers get hammered back home for the $1.3 trillion spending package that, while beefing up funds for the military, also increases spending on transportation, child care and other domestic programs in a compromise with Democrats that Trump derided as a “waste” and “giveaways.”

Trump’s decision to sign the bill into law, after openly toying with a veto, has not quelled the unrest and may have helped fuel it.

“People are mad as hell about it and mad as hell that they put the president in that situation — that he sign the bill or shut the government down,” said Amy Kremer, a founder of the tea party and co-chairman of Women for Trump.

Kremer said Republicans in Congress have lost sight of the voters who propelled them to the majority on an agenda of fiscal restraint. “They are no better than the Democrats,” she said.

Lawmakers home on spring recess are feeling the brunt of the criticism. Representative Mark Amodei, a Republican from Nevada, said he encountered a finger-wagging voter back home almost as soon as he stepped off the airplane.

Fox News host Sean Hannity asked, “What happened to the Republican Party?” after Trump signed the bill. “Republicans should be ashamed of themselves,” he added.

In some ways, the rescission proposal is as close as Trump can get to the line-item veto, which he called on Congress to enact even though the Supreme Court decided in 1998 that it would violate the authority the Constitution gives Congress on legislation.

The idea centers on a rarely used provision of the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impound Control Act. It allows the White House to propose rescinding funds and sets a 45-day clock for the House and Senate to vote.

Congress could simply ignore the president’s request and keep the funds in place.

Sparks didn’t specify how much spending could be rescinded or in what categories. But Trump would likely seek to focus on domestic spending he has attacked in recent tweets.

Trump has been particularly upset the package did not include $25 billion he sought for the border wall with Mexico, even after the bill burst through previously set budget caps for military and domestic spending.

Ryan and Trump have not yet talked this week, an aide to the speaker said, but likely will by week’s end.

Voting, though, could be difficult, even for fiscally conservative Republicans, since Trump’s targets may be popular projects or programs back home, said Gordon Gray, the director of Fiscal Policy at the center-right American Action Forum, who notes the rescission tool is not as popular as it was when introduced in the Nixon era more than 40 years ago.

Passage would not be certain, especially in the Senate, where Republicans hold a slim 51-49 majority.
…

As Republicans run into a buzz saw of conservative criticism over a deficit-expanding new budget, GOP leaders and the White House are looking for ways to undo the damage by allowing President Donald Trump to rescind some of the spending he signed into law just 10 days ago.

Rolling back the funds would be a highly unusual move and could put some lawmakers in the potentially uncomfortable position of having to vote for specific spending opposed by a president from their party. But it would also offer Republicans a way to save face amid the backlash over the bill that conservatives, and Trump himself, complain gives too much money for Democratic priorities.

Trump has been talking with House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, a California Republican, about the plan over the past couple of days, according to an aide to the House leader who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the private talks. It is not clear how widely the idea has been embraced by other top Republicans, including House Speaker Paul Ryan or Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, whose offices declined to discuss it.

“There are conversations right now,” said Matt Sparks, a spokesman for McCarthy. “The administration and Congress and McCarthy are talking about it.”

The idea emerged as lawmakers get hammered back home for the $1.3 trillion spending package that, while beefing up funds for the military, also increases spending on transportation, child care and other domestic programs in a compromise with Democrats that Trump derided as a “waste” and “giveaways.”

Trump’s decision to sign the bill into law, after openly toying with a veto, has not quelled the unrest and may have helped fuel it.

“People are mad as hell about it and mad as hell that they put the president in that situation — that he sign the bill or shut the government down,” said Amy Kremer, a founder of the tea party and co-chairman of Women for Trump.

Kremer said Republicans in Congress have lost sight of the voters who propelled them to the majority on an agenda of fiscal restraint. “They are no better than the Democrats,” she said.

Lawmakers home on spring recess are feeling the brunt of the criticism. Representative Mark Amodei, a Republican from Nevada, said he encountered a finger-wagging voter back home almost as soon as he stepped off the airplane.

Fox News host Sean Hannity asked, “What happened to the Republican Party?” after Trump signed the bill. “Republicans should be ashamed of themselves,” he added.

In some ways, the rescission proposal is as close as Trump can get to the line-item veto, which he called on Congress to enact even though the Supreme Court decided in 1998 that it would violate the authority the Constitution gives Congress on legislation.

The idea centers on a rarely used provision of the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impound Control Act. It allows the White House to propose rescinding funds and sets a 45-day clock for the House and Senate to vote.

Congress could simply ignore the president’s request and keep the funds in place.

Sparks didn’t specify how much spending could be rescinded or in what categories. But Trump would likely seek to focus on domestic spending he has attacked in recent tweets.

Trump has been particularly upset the package did not include $25 billion he sought for the border wall with Mexico, even after the bill burst through previously set budget caps for military and domestic spending.

Ryan and Trump have not yet talked this week, an aide to the speaker said, but likely will by week’s end.

Voting, though, could be difficult, even for fiscally conservative Republicans, since Trump’s targets may be popular projects or programs back home, said Gordon Gray, the director of Fiscal Policy at the center-right American Action Forum, who notes the rescission tool is not as popular as it was when introduced in the Nixon era more than 40 years ago.

Passage would not be certain, especially in the Senate, where Republicans hold a slim 51-49 majority.
…

The Trump administration on Tuesday raised the stakes in a growing trade showdown with China, announcing 25 percent tariffs on some 1,300 industrial technology, transport and medical products to try to force changes in Beijing’s intellectual property practices.

The U.S. Trade Representative’s office unveiled a list of mainly non-consumer products representing about $50 billion of annual imports that would nonetheless hit supply chains for many U.S. manufacturers. The list ranges from chemicals to light-emitting diodes, motorcycles and dental devices.

Publication of the tariff list starts a public comment and consultation period expected to last around two months, after which USTR said it would issue a “final determination” on the product list. It has scheduled a May 15 public hearing on the tariffs.

USTR said the tariffs were proposed “in response to China’s policies that coerce American companies into transferring their technology and intellectual property to domestic Chinese enterprises.”

The agency added that such policies “bolster China’s stated intention of seizing economic leadership in advanced technology as set forth in its industrial plans, such as ‘Made in China 2025.'”

China has denied that its laws require technology transfers and has threatened to retaliate against any U.S. tariffs with trade sanctions of its own, with potential targets such as U.S. soybeans, aircraft or heavy equipment. The dispute has raised fears about a possible trade war between the world’s two largest economies.

The U.S. list heavily targets advanced technology products that benefit from Beijing’s “Made in China 2025” program, which aims to replace advanced technology imports with domestic products and build a dominant position in future industries.

The state-led 2025 program targets 10 strategic industries: advanced information technology, robotics, aircraft, new energy vehicles, pharmaceuticals, electric power equipment, advanced materials, agricultural machinery, shipbuilding and marine engineering and advanced rail equipment.
…

The Trump administration on Tuesday raised the stakes in a growing trade showdown with China, announcing 25 percent tariffs on some 1,300 industrial technology, transport and medical products to try to force changes in Beijing’s intellectual property practices.

The U.S. Trade Representative’s office unveiled a list of mainly non-consumer products representing about $50 billion of annual imports that would nonetheless hit supply chains for many U.S. manufacturers. The list ranges from chemicals to light-emitting diodes, motorcycles and dental devices.

Publication of the tariff list starts a public comment and consultation period expected to last around two months, after which USTR said it would issue a “final determination” on the product list. It has scheduled a May 15 public hearing on the tariffs.

USTR said the tariffs were proposed “in response to China’s policies that coerce American companies into transferring their technology and intellectual property to domestic Chinese enterprises.”

The agency added that such policies “bolster China’s stated intention of seizing economic leadership in advanced technology as set forth in its industrial plans, such as ‘Made in China 2025.'”

China has denied that its laws require technology transfers and has threatened to retaliate against any U.S. tariffs with trade sanctions of its own, with potential targets such as U.S. soybeans, aircraft or heavy equipment. The dispute has raised fears about a possible trade war between the world’s two largest economies.

The U.S. list heavily targets advanced technology products that benefit from Beijing’s “Made in China 2025” program, which aims to replace advanced technology imports with domestic products and build a dominant position in future industries.

The state-led 2025 program targets 10 strategic industries: advanced information technology, robotics, aircraft, new energy vehicles, pharmaceuticals, electric power equipment, advanced materials, agricultural machinery, shipbuilding and marine engineering and advanced rail equipment.
…

While President Donald Trump has said illegal immigrants heading toward the United States are trying to take advantage of an Obama-era policy that shields certain people from deportation, the program known as DACA is actually not open to new entrants.

At issue is the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which the Republican president last September ordered rescinded. Under DACA, hundreds of thousands of young adults dubbed “Dreamers” who were brought into the United States illegally as children have been shielded from deportation and given work permits.

On Sunday, apparently in reference to a caravan of 1,500 Central Americans who are journeying through Mexico toward the United States, Trump wrote on Twitter: “These big flows of people are all trying to take advantage of DACA. They want in on the act!”

But there is no “act” to get in on. Newly arriving illegal immigrants cannot win protections under DACA, created in 2012 by Trump’s Democratic predecessor Barack Obama, for two reasons.

Anyone admitted into the program had to have been living continuously in the United States since June 15, 2007, along with other requirements. In addition, Trump himself ordered an end to the program, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is not accepting new applicants.

Under Trump’s action, DACA was supposed to have begun winding down last month. But courts have ruled that Trump acted improperly and that the hundreds of thousands of immigrants currently enrolled still qualified for protections while the legal fight over DACA unfolds.

When he announced he was ending DACA, Trump urged Congress to come up with a legislative fix. Referring to the Dreamers, Trump said, “I have a great heart for the folks we’re talking about, a great love for them.”

Seven months later, DACA participants are living with the uncertainty over whether they will be protected or targeted for deportation. 

Meanwhile, following a series of failed negotiations with Democrats and some Republicans in Congress, Trump has been fuming over the refusal of lawmakers to fully fund a $25 billion wall he wants to build on the U.S.-Mexican border. The wall became a bargaining chip in DACA replacement legislation.

“NO MORE DACA DEAL!,” Trump said on Twitter as he blamed Democrats for the situation. “DACA is dead.”

Matthew Wright, a government professor at American University in Washington, called Trump’s tweets “not connected to reality.” Wright noted that Trump rejected several Democratic offers to address DACA, including at one point a deal that would have provided $25 billion for his wall.

Last month, Senator Angus King, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, said Trump’s rejection of that offer was the “high-water mark” for the wall’s prospects in Congress, where support for it is tepid at best.
…

While President Donald Trump has said illegal immigrants heading toward the United States are trying to take advantage of an Obama-era policy that shields certain people from deportation, the program known as DACA is actually not open to new entrants.

At issue is the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which the Republican president last September ordered rescinded. Under DACA, hundreds of thousands of young adults dubbed “Dreamers” who were brought into the United States illegally as children have been shielded from deportation and given work permits.

On Sunday, apparently in reference to a caravan of 1,500 Central Americans who are journeying through Mexico toward the United States, Trump wrote on Twitter: “These big flows of people are all trying to take advantage of DACA. They want in on the act!”

But there is no “act” to get in on. Newly arriving illegal immigrants cannot win protections under DACA, created in 2012 by Trump’s Democratic predecessor Barack Obama, for two reasons.

Anyone admitted into the program had to have been living continuously in the United States since June 15, 2007, along with other requirements. In addition, Trump himself ordered an end to the program, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is not accepting new applicants.

Under Trump’s action, DACA was supposed to have begun winding down last month. But courts have ruled that Trump acted improperly and that the hundreds of thousands of immigrants currently enrolled still qualified for protections while the legal fight over DACA unfolds.

When he announced he was ending DACA, Trump urged Congress to come up with a legislative fix. Referring to the Dreamers, Trump said, “I have a great heart for the folks we’re talking about, a great love for them.”

Seven months later, DACA participants are living with the uncertainty over whether they will be protected or targeted for deportation. 

Meanwhile, following a series of failed negotiations with Democrats and some Republicans in Congress, Trump has been fuming over the refusal of lawmakers to fully fund a $25 billion wall he wants to build on the U.S.-Mexican border. The wall became a bargaining chip in DACA replacement legislation.

“NO MORE DACA DEAL!,” Trump said on Twitter as he blamed Democrats for the situation. “DACA is dead.”

Matthew Wright, a government professor at American University in Washington, called Trump’s tweets “not connected to reality.” Wright noted that Trump rejected several Democratic offers to address DACA, including at one point a deal that would have provided $25 billion for his wall.

Last month, Senator Angus King, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, said Trump’s rejection of that offer was the “high-water mark” for the wall’s prospects in Congress, where support for it is tepid at best.
…

A record number of women are running for governors’ offices in the U.S. this year.

The Center for American Women and Politics said Monday that 40 Democratic or Republican women have filed candidacy papers in 19 states where the deadline has passed. The number is likely to rise because filing remains open in 17 other states.

The center at Rutgers University in New Jersey says the previous high mark for major party female gubernatorial candidates was 34, set in 1994. This year’s field includes 24 Democrats and 16 Republicans.

At least one woman is running for governor in each state where filing has ended. Colorado and Maine have the most, with five female candidates.

The candidates include three incumbents, 15 challengers and 22 running for open seats in eight states.
…

A record number of women are running for governors’ offices in the U.S. this year.

The Center for American Women and Politics said Monday that 40 Democratic or Republican women have filed candidacy papers in 19 states where the deadline has passed. The number is likely to rise because filing remains open in 17 other states.

The center at Rutgers University in New Jersey says the previous high mark for major party female gubernatorial candidates was 34, set in 1994. This year’s field includes 24 Democrats and 16 Republicans.

At least one woman is running for governor in each state where filing has ended. Colorado and Maine have the most, with five female candidates.

The candidates include three incumbents, 15 challengers and 22 running for open seats in eight states.
…

While the U.S. federal government is working to detain and deport undocumented immigrants, some U.S. states and cities have started legal funds to defend them, opening up a new front in the conflict over immigration.

About 13 jurisdictions have joined a network to expand legal representation for immigrants facing detention and deportation — the ultimate line of defense, officials said.

The Safe Cities Network pledges to keep communities “safe and strong by protecting due process and providing legal representation to immigrants facing deportation.”

“We’re not just talking about one person going through. One person going to court. One in detention and going through the deportation process. You’re talking about families, entire families and communities being impacted,” Annie Chen, program director at the New York-based VERA Institute of Justice, a data center that partners with local and state government officials to change the U.S. justice system.

WATCH: Washington, US States at Odds Over Immigration Policy

“I would say with increased immigration enforcement, changes, harsher immigration enforcement policies, I think that city and county officials are more aware of this, and they see the impact in their communities,” Chen said.

The city of Baltimore in Maryland became one of the most recent jurisdictions to establish a legal defense fund in March when the city allocated $100,000 to help immigrants fight deportation.

The money was added to a pool of private money and was matched by funding from VERA.  

Catalina Rodriguez, director of the Baltimore Mayor’s Office of Immigrant and Multicultural Affairs, said following the increase in immigration enforcement that started in February 2017, the city received calls from residents.

“All of these individuals [arrested] were not necessarily criminals. Their ‘crime’ was they were here [in the U.S.] undocumented, and they had already a deportation order. However, they were members of our city, business owners, and contributors. So, there was a lot of panic in our city,” Rodriguez said.

Being in the U.S. unlawfully is a civil violation, not a criminal one. Rodriguez said Baltimore learned from New York, the first U.S. city to have a legal fund pilot program. The Baltimore fund is expected to help about 40 people going through removal proceedings.

Pros and cons

The immigration data tracker TRAC reports that out of 304,642 immigrants detained from 2002 to February 2018, only 62,697 had legal representation. 

According to immigration lawyers and advocates, access to legal representation “greatly” increases an immigrant’s chance of winning his/her case.

“In the criminal justice system, if you can’t afford an attorney, you get a public defender. In immigration court, you don’t. You have the right to pay for your own attorney. And if you can’t afford one, you do not have access to the same due process,” Chen told VOA.

Not everyone agrees with public money going into a legal defense fund.

Through a spokesman, Maryland’s Republican party chairman Dirk Haire told The Baltimore Sun that Maryland Republicans “questioned whether the money is being wisely spent, given funding shortfall issues in Baltimore, such as public schools without heat.”

“My hunch is that the vast majority of Baltimore residents would prefer to have that money spent on heat and air conditioning in Baltimore public schools instead of legal fees,” Haire said.

Baltimore city councilman Zeke Cohen told the Sun that in Southeast Baltimore, the area he represents, a small-business owner, a popular barber and a father dropping off a child at school were among the arrests.

“First, we lost a barber, then a small-business owner. Finally, a father was handcuffed and detained after dropping off his 9-year-old at school. The child’s mother is back in Honduras. What kind of a country do we live in that would orphan a child in order to enforce its broken immigration laws?” Cohen said.

Data from the New American Economy, a coalition of business leaders and mayors working toward immigration reform, shows that in the Baltimore metro area, there are 281,109 immigrant residents, or 10 percent of the population. In 2014, immigrants paid about $3.4 billion in taxes and had a spending power of $7.7 billion in the same region.

Feds vs. states

The legal fund network places some local jurisdictions at still greater odds with the federal government.

Governor Jerry Brown said in early March that the federal government was “basically going to war against the state of California” after U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions sued California over its so-called sanctuary state law.

On Saturday, President Donald Trump fired back via Twitter.

California is not the only state considered sanctuary, along with its numerous cities and counties. While the term “sanctuary” does not have a legal established meaning, it is generally applied to jurisdictions that choose not to participate with federal immigration agents.

“What happens is, if you don’t have someone complying with this and working with us, a criminal alien will be released from prison,” Tyler Q. Houlton, U.S. Department of Homeland Security press secretary, told reporters during an off-camera, on-the-record conversation.

Houlton said though cooperation is not a “mandatory thing,” immigration officers try to work with law enforcement to get undocumented immigrants off the street. He added that it is “much safer to pick up criminal aliens at the jail than it is on the streets.”

Many states and local jurisdictions support the federal government’s approach to immigration. Last week, the Orange County Board of Supervisors joined the U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) lawsuit that condemns California’s sanctuary law, calling it unconstitutional. 

Justice Department spokesman Devin O’Malley said in a statement that DOJ “welcomes” Orange County’s decision.

“Orange County’s residents have experienced firsthand the negative effects of SB 54 [California’s sanctuary law], which mandates releasing criminal aliens back into their communities instead of into the custody of federal immigration authorities,” O’Malley said.
…

U.S. President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump host the annual Easter Egg Roll Monday on the South Lawn of the White House. 

People attending the event won their tickets through a public lottery held in February. 

The White House says the day will be “filled with family activities.” 

As part of the festivities, children and families usually push wooden eggs across the White house lawn using oversized spoons. Military bands and games are also part of the customary trappings of the event.

The White House Easter Egg Roll has a long tradition, dating back to 1878 when President Rutherford B. Hayes hosted the first one. 

There were no egg rolls between 1917 to 1920 because of World War One. Similarly, during World War Two, no egg rolls were held from 1943 to 1945. 

Food conservation efforts and then construction on the White House also brought a halt to the celebrations from 1946 to 1952. 

However, President Dwight Eisenhower reinstated the White House Easter Egg Roll in 1953. 
…

U.S. President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump host the annual Easter Egg Roll Monday on the South Lawn of the White House. 

People attending the event won their tickets through a public lottery held in February. 

The White House says the day will be “filled with family activities.” 

As part of the festivities, children and families usually push wooden eggs across the White house lawn using oversized spoons. Military bands and games are also part of the customary trappings of the event.

The White House Easter Egg Roll has a long tradition, dating back to 1878 when President Rutherford B. Hayes hosted the first one. 

There were no egg rolls between 1917 to 1920 because of World War One. Similarly, during World War Two, no egg rolls were held from 1943 to 1945. 

Food conservation efforts and then construction on the White House also brought a halt to the celebrations from 1946 to 1952. 

However, President Dwight Eisenhower reinstated the White House Easter Egg Roll in 1953. 
…

U.S. President Donald Trump called for tougher immigration laws Sunday, vowing that there would be no deal for DACA recipients.

“Border Patrol Agents are not allowed to properly do their job at the Border because of ridiculous liberal (Democrat) laws like Catch & Release,” Trump wrote on Twitter Sunday morning.

“Getting more dangerous. “Caravans” coming. Republicans must go to Nuclear Option to pass tough laws NOW. NO MORE DACA DEAL!”

“These big flows of people are all trying to take advantage of DACA. They want in on the act!” he said in a follow-up tweet.

Commentary on the Fox news channel earlier Sunday had used a headline referring to “caravans” of illegal immigrants to the U.S.

The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, was enacted under the Obama administration and had allowed children brought illegally to the United States to remain here and legally study and work.

The Trump administration ended the program in September, but gave Congress six months to come up with a permanent plan for the program recipients.

Despite Democrats’ efforts, the recent spending $1.3 trillion spending bill, signed by Trump last week, made no mention of protections for these so-called Dreamers. Democrats had called on Republican leaders to bring to a vote on the House floor a range of proposals to fix DACA. Meanwhile, federal judges have ordered the Trump administration to keep in place certain parts of DACA while legal challenges make their way through the court system.

Trump had initially said that he would agree on protections for DACA recipients if Congress approved funding for a proposed wall along the U.S. southern border with Mexico.

In another tweet Sunday morning, Trump blamed Mexico for “doing very little, if not NOTHING” to stop the flow of migrants into the United States, threatening to “stop” the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Officials from the U.S., Canada and Mexico are supposed to meet in the United States next month for the eighth round of talks about NAFTA, although Washington has not announced dates yet.

 
…

U.S. President Donald Trump called for tougher immigration laws Sunday, vowing that there would be no deal for DACA recipients.

“Border Patrol Agents are not allowed to properly do their job at the Border because of ridiculous liberal (Democrat) laws like Catch & Release,” Trump wrote on Twitter Sunday morning.

“Getting more dangerous. “Caravans” coming. Republicans must go to Nuclear Option to pass tough laws NOW. NO MORE DACA DEAL!”

“These big flows of people are all trying to take advantage of DACA. They want in on the act!” he said in a follow-up tweet.

Commentary on the Fox news channel earlier Sunday had used a headline referring to “caravans” of illegal immigrants to the U.S.

The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, was enacted under the Obama administration and had allowed children brought illegally to the United States to remain here and legally study and work.

The Trump administration ended the program in September, but gave Congress six months to come up with a permanent plan for the program recipients.

Despite Democrats’ efforts, the recent spending $1.3 trillion spending bill, signed by Trump last week, made no mention of protections for these so-called Dreamers. Democrats had called on Republican leaders to bring to a vote on the House floor a range of proposals to fix DACA. Meanwhile, federal judges have ordered the Trump administration to keep in place certain parts of DACA while legal challenges make their way through the court system.

Trump had initially said that he would agree on protections for DACA recipients if Congress approved funding for a proposed wall along the U.S. southern border with Mexico.

In another tweet Sunday morning, Trump blamed Mexico for “doing very little, if not NOTHING” to stop the flow of migrants into the United States, threatening to “stop” the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Officials from the U.S., Canada and Mexico are supposed to meet in the United States next month for the eighth round of talks about NAFTA, although Washington has not announced dates yet.

 
…

President Donald Trump hailed the start of his long-sought U.S.-Mexico border wall this past week, proudly tweeting photos of the “WALL!” 

Actually, no new work got underway. The photos showed the continuation of an old project to replace 2 miles of existing barrier.

And Saturday, he ripped Amazon with a shaky claim that its contract with the post office is a “scam.”

Trump and his officials departed from reality on a variety of subjects in recent days: the census, Amazon’s practices and the makeup of the Supreme Court among them. Here’s a look at some statements and their veracity:

TRUMP: “Great briefing this afternoon on the start of our Southern Border WALL!” — tweet Wednesday, showing photos of workers building a fence.

TRUMP: “We’re going to be starting work, literally, on Monday, on not only some new wall — not enough, but we’re working that very quickly — but also fixing existing walls and existing acceptable fences.” — Trump, speaking the previous week after signing a bill financing the government.

THE FACTS: Trump’s wrong. No new work began Monday or any other time this past week. And the photos Trump tweeted were misleading. They showed work that’s been going on for more than a month on a small border wall replacement project in Calexico, California, that has nothing to do with the federal budget he signed into law last week.

The Calexico project began Feb. 21 to replace a little more than 2 miles (3.2 kilometers) of border wall was financed during the 2017 budget year. A barrier built in the 1990s mainly from recycled metal scraps is being torn down and replaced with bollard-style barriers that are 30 feet (9.1 meters) high.

Ronald D. Vitiello, acting deputy commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, defended the president’s statements, saying Friday “there’s construction” underway.

U.S. Post Service

TRUMP: “If the P.O. ‘increased its parcel rates, Amazon’s shipping costs would rise by $2.6 Billion.’ This Post Office scam must stop. Amazon must pay real costs (and taxes) now!” — tweet Saturday.

TRUMP: “I have stated my concerns with Amazon long before the Election. Unlike others, they pay little or no taxes to state & local governments, use our Postal System as their Delivery Boy (causing tremendous loss to the U.S.), and are putting many thousands of retailers out of business!” — tweet Thursday.

THE FACTS: Trump is misrepresenting Amazon’s record on taxes, the U.S. Postal Service’s financial situation and the contract that has the post office deliver some Amazon orders. Federal regulators have found that contract to be profitable for the Postal Service.

People who buy products sold by Amazon pay sales tax in all states that have a sales tax. Not all third-party vendors using Amazon collect it, however.

As for the post office, package delivery has been a bright spot for a service that’s lost money for 11 straight years. The losses are mostly because of pension and health care costs, not the business deal for the Postal Service to deliver packages for Amazon. 

Boosted by e-commerce, the Postal Service has enjoyed double-digit increases in revenue from delivering packages, but that hasn’t been enough to offset declines in first-class letters and marketing mail, which together make up more than two-thirds of postal revenue.

While the Postal Service’s losses can’t be attributed to its package business, Trump’s claim that it could get more bang for its buck may not be entirely far-fetched. A 2017 analysis by Citigroup concluded that the Postal Service was charging below-market rates as a whole for parcels. The post office does not use taxpayer money for its operations.

Trump is upset about Amazon because its owner, Jeff Bezos, owns The Washington Post, one of the targets of his “fake news” tweets.

Pentagon and the wall

TRUMP: “Because of the $700 & $716 Billion Dollars gotten to rebuild our Military, many jobs are created and our Military is again rich. Building a great Border Wall, with drugs (poison) and enemy combatants pouring into our Country, is all about National Defense. Build WALL through M!” — tweets Sunday and Monday.

THE FACTS: Trump is floating the idea of using “M” — the Pentagon’s military budget — to pay for his wall with Mexico. Such a move would almost certainly require approval from Congress and there’s plenty of reason to be skeptical about the notion of diverting military money for this purpose.

Only Congress has the power under the Constitution to determine federal appropriations, leaving the Trump administration little authority to shift money without lawmakers’ approval.

Pentagon spokesman Chris Sherwood referred all questions on the wall to the White House. Spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders declined to reveal specifics, but said Trump would work with the White House counsel to make sure any action taken was within his executive authority.

Veterans Affairs

DAVID SHULKIN, citing reasons Trump fired him as Veterans Affairs secretary: “I have been falsely accused of things by people who wanted me out of the way. But despite these politically based attacks on me and my family’s character, I am proud of my record and know that I acted with the utmost integrity.” — op-ed Thursday in The New York Times.

THE FACTS: His statement that he and his family were subjected to politically based attacks is disingenuous, though politics contributed to his dismissal.

White House support for Shulkin eroded after a blistering report in February by VA’s internal watchdog, a nonpartisan office. The inspector general’s office concluded that he had violated ethics rules by accepting free Wimbledon tennis tickets. The inspector general also said Shulkin’s chief of staff had doctored emails to justify bringing the secretary’s wife to Europe with him at taxpayer expense.

It is true that Shulkin encountered resistance from about a half-dozen political appointees at the VA and White House who rebelled against him. In an extraordinary telephone call, John Ullyot, a top communications aide, and VA spokesman Curt Cashour asked the Republican staff director of the House Veterans Affairs Committee to push for Shulkin’s removal after the release of the inspector general’s report. The staff director declined to do so. Those political appointees were not involved in drafting the inspector general’s report.

Shulkin expressed regret for the “distractions” caused by the report and agreed to pay more than $4,000 to cover the costs of his wife’s coach airfare and the Wimbledon tickets. He continues to insist he did nothing wrong and point to what his staff did in doctoring his emails as a “mistake.”

Second Amendment

TRUMP: “THE SECOND AMENDMENT WILL NEVER BE REPEALED! As much as Democrats would like to see this happen, and despite the words yesterday of former Supreme Court Justice Stevens, NO WAY. We need more Republicans in 2018 and must ALWAYS hold the Supreme Court!” — tweet Wednesday.

THE FACTS: As a basics civics lesson, Trump’s tweet falls short. The Supreme Court is the unelected branch of government and no party can “hold” it. That said, both parties try to win confirmation of justices who are considered likely to vote the way they want.

Republican-nominated justices have formed a majority of the Supreme Court for nearly 50 years. The five more conservative justices were appointed by Republicans while the four more liberal justices were Democratic nominees.

Republicans would have the opportunity to cement ideological balance in their favor if Justice Anthony Kennedy, the most moderate of the conservatives, or one of the older and more liberal justices were to retire with Trump in office and Republicans in control of the Senate.

Trump was citing retired Justice John Paul Stevens, who called in a New York Times article for repeal of the Second Amendment to allow for gun control legislation. Democratic leaders are not proposing repeal of the amendment, as Trump implies. Also noteworthy: Stevens was nominated by a Republican president, Gerald Ford.

Census and citizenship

WHITE HOUSE SPOKESWOMAN SARAH SANDERS, on the Trump administration’s decision to ask people about their citizenship in the 2020 census: “This is a question that’s been included in every census since 1965 with the exception of 2010, when it was removed. … And again, this is something that has been part of the census for decades and something that the Department of Commerce felt strongly needed to be included again.” — press briefing Tuesday.

COMMERCE DEPARTMENT: “Between 1820 and 1950, almost every decennial census asked a question on citizenship in some form.” — statement on Monday.

THE FACTS: Sanders is incorrect. The Commerce Department statement is also problematic. Both are trying to play down the risk of a severe undercount of the population if many immigrants, intimidated by the citizenship question, refuse to participate.

The Census Bureau hasn’t included a citizenship question in its once-a-decade survey sent to all U.S. households since 1950, before the Civil Rights era and passage of a 1965 law designed to help ensure minority groups in the count are fully represented.

The nation’s count is based on the total resident population, both citizens and noncitizens, and used to determine how many U.S. representatives each state gets in the U.S. House.

The citizenship question was not in the 1960 census, according to a copy of the form posted on the Census Bureau website, and no census was held in 1965.

From 1970 to 2000, the question was included only in the long-form section of the census survey, sent to a portion of U.S. households. After 2000, the question has been asked on the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, a separate poll designed to replace the census long form and sent only to a sample of U.S. households.

The Commerce Department’s assertion that the citizenship question was asked on “almost” every decennial census between 1820 and 1950 also pushes the limits of reality. According to the Census Bureau, the question wasn’t asked in four of those censuses —1840, 1850, 1860 or 1880.

Between 1820 and 1950, a total of 14 censuses were held. That means more than 1 in 4 surveys during that time period lacked the citizenship question.

Not exactly “almost.”
…

The cries for embattled U.S. Rep. Elizabeth Esty to step down for not protecting female staffers who said they experienced violence, death threats and sexual harassment by her former chief of staff intensified Saturday, with fellow Democrats saying the allegations were shocking and she needed to “do the right thing.”

Esty, an outspoken advocate for the #MeToo movement, was put in the awkward position of having to apologize for not protecting the staffers in her Washington office. But she has repeatedly dismissed calls for her to resign, and Saturday her office said she was standing by her statement from a day earlier: She’s not leaving.

Among those suggesting Esty leave office were former Connecticut Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz, who said the emerging story of “battery, harassment and threatening” from Esty’s ex-chief of staff and Esty’s handling of the response were “very troubling.”

​’Do the right thing and resign’

Bysiewicz, who has two daughters in their 20s, said employers should provide safe work environments and Congress should hold itself to an even higher standard but, “Sadly, this is clearly not the case, and this needs to change immediately.”

“I know Congresswoman Esty to be a woman of action rather than words, and in this case, words are not enough,” said Bysiewicz, who is exploring a run for the governor’s office. “I believe that under the circumstances, Congresswoman Esty must step down from her position.”

Connecticut Senate President Pro Tempore Martin M. Looney said Esty has long been a leader in the fight against workplace harassment and abuse but if recent news stories are true “Congresswoman Esty should do the right thing and resign.”

“The heartbreaking stories of so many victims only reinforce the need to ensure that we must do all within our power to protect those who depend on us and ensure safe work environments so that no one at her or his place of employment ever feels exposed to discrimination, harassment or retaliation of any kind,” Looney said in an emailed statement.

Esty has issued press releases calling for tougher harassment protections for congressional staffers and was among those demanding that then-U.S. Rep. John Conyers, of Michigan, resign amid allegations of misconduct. She issued her own public mea culpa Thursday following newspaper reports she didn’t suspend or fire her chief of staff until three months after learning about allegations against him in 2016.

Apology and regrets

She said she regrets not moving along an internal investigation, which revealed more widespread allegations of abuse, and regrets providing “even the slightest assistance to this individual as he sought a new job.”

In her apology, she said she was “horrified and angry” to learn of allegations that a former employee had been harassed and physically harmed by former chief of staff Tony Baker. She said she demanded Baker receive counseling and then conducted an internal review of her office practices, later learning “the threat of violence was not an isolated incident” but a pattern of behavior by Baker affecting many female staffers.

Baker went to work as the Ohio state director of Sandy Hook Promise, an anti-gun violence advocacy group created after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Esty’s district, but he no longer works there. A spokesman for Baker told Hearst Connecticut Media and the Washington Post that he denies some of the allegations. A phone number listed for a Tony Baker in Columbus, Ohio, was disconnected.

State Sens. Mae Flexer and Cathy Osten also said Esty should resign, as did several Republicans. The state’s Republican Party sent out emails accusing Esty of being “complicit in covering up assault.”

Esty’s Republican challenger in the 5th Congressional District, Manny Santos, said Esty had committed a “gross mishandling of abuse within her office.” He said she claimed to be “a champion of women’s rights” but “did everything possible to hide this terrible abuse perpetrated by her own chief of staff.”

Esty received mild criticism from fellow Democratic members of Connecticut’s congressional delegation, with nearly all noting that Esty acknowledged she had made mistakes.

“I’m deeply disappointed,” U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal said.

Asked whether Esty should resign, Blumenthal said it was “really a decision for her constituents.”
…

President Donald Trump blasted California Governor Jerry Brown on Saturday for his pardon of five ex-convicts facing deportation, including two who fled the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia with their families four decades ago.

In a tweet, Trump referred to Brown as “Moonbeam,” a nickname a newspaper columnist coined for him in the 1970s. Trump then listed the ex-convicts’ crimes; they included misdemeanor domestic violence, drug possession, and kidnapping and robbery.

Trump wrote: “Is this really what the great people of California want?”

A spokesman for Brown responded to a request for comment with more information about the five men but did not directly address Trump’s criticism.

In a news release about the pardons on Friday, the governor’s office said that “those granted pardons all completed their sentences years ago and the majority were convicted of drug-related or other nonviolent crimes.”

“Pardons are not granted unless they are earned,” the governor’s office said.

Brown’s pardons marked the third time the Democrat has intervened on behalf of immigrants who were deported or faced deportation over convictions. Brown has accused the Trump administration of “basically going to war” with California over immigration policy.

Brown’s pardons don’t automatically stop deportation proceedings, but eliminate the convictions on which authorities based their intentions.

​Pardon for Arpaio

Trump has been criticized for his own pardon, that of former Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who was convicted last year of a misdemeanor contempt charge for flouting the courts in carrying out his signature immigration patrols.

Trump’s pardon spared Arpaio from a possible jail sentence. The 85-year-old longtime lawman announced a run for Senate in January.

Those pardoned Friday by Brown included Sokha Chhan and Phann Pheach, who face deportation to Cambodia, a country ruled in the 1970s by the genocidal Khmer Rouge. Chhan was convicted of two counts of misdemeanor domestic violence in 2002 and served about a year in jail. Pheach was convicted of possessing drugs and obstructing a police officer in 2005 and served six months in jail. His wife said he is in federal custody.

Also pardoned was Daniel Maher, who served five years in prison stemming from the 1994 armed robbery of a San Jose auto parts store. He was convicted of kidnapping, robbery and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Maher is facing deportation to China, where he has never lived. Maher is from Macau, which became part of China after his family immigrated to California when he was 3.

Also pardoned while facing deportation were Daniel Mena and Francisco Acevedo Alaniz. Mena served three years of probation after being convicted of possessing illegal drugs in 2003. Alaniz served five months in prison for a 1997 car theft conviction.

The governor is a former Jesuit seminarian and traditionally issues pardons close to major Christian holidays. Easter falls on Sunday.

California’s longest-serving governor has now issued 1,519 pardons, including 404 during his first two terms as governor from 1975 to 1983.
…

President Donald Trump blasted California Governor Jerry Brown on Saturday for his pardon of five ex-convicts facing deportation, including two who fled the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia with their families four decades ago.

In a tweet, Trump referred to Brown as “Moonbeam,” a nickname a newspaper columnist coined for him in the 1970s. Trump then listed the ex-convicts’ crimes; they included misdemeanor domestic violence, drug possession, and kidnapping and robbery.

Trump wrote: “Is this really what the great people of California want?”

A spokesman for Brown responded to a request for comment with more information about the five men but did not directly address Trump’s criticism.

In a news release about the pardons on Friday, the governor’s office said that “those granted pardons all completed their sentences years ago and the majority were convicted of drug-related or other nonviolent crimes.”

“Pardons are not granted unless they are earned,” the governor’s office said.

Brown’s pardons marked the third time the Democrat has intervened on behalf of immigrants who were deported or faced deportation over convictions. Brown has accused the Trump administration of “basically going to war” with California over immigration policy.

Brown’s pardons don’t automatically stop deportation proceedings, but eliminate the convictions on which authorities based their intentions.

​Pardon for Arpaio

Trump has been criticized for his own pardon, that of former Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who was convicted last year of a misdemeanor contempt charge for flouting the courts in carrying out his signature immigration patrols.

Trump’s pardon spared Arpaio from a possible jail sentence. The 85-year-old longtime lawman announced a run for Senate in January.

Those pardoned Friday by Brown included Sokha Chhan and Phann Pheach, who face deportation to Cambodia, a country ruled in the 1970s by the genocidal Khmer Rouge. Chhan was convicted of two counts of misdemeanor domestic violence in 2002 and served about a year in jail. Pheach was convicted of possessing drugs and obstructing a police officer in 2005 and served six months in jail. His wife said he is in federal custody.

Also pardoned was Daniel Maher, who served five years in prison stemming from the 1994 armed robbery of a San Jose auto parts store. He was convicted of kidnapping, robbery and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Maher is facing deportation to China, where he has never lived. Maher is from Macau, which became part of China after his family immigrated to California when he was 3.

Also pardoned while facing deportation were Daniel Mena and Francisco Acevedo Alaniz. Mena served three years of probation after being convicted of possessing illegal drugs in 2003. Alaniz served five months in prison for a 1997 car theft conviction.

The governor is a former Jesuit seminarian and traditionally issues pardons close to major Christian holidays. Easter falls on Sunday.

California’s longest-serving governor has now issued 1,519 pardons, including 404 during his first two terms as governor from 1975 to 1983.
…