Also on today’s menu:
Trump Turned Down By 30 Lending Companies
Kushner Looks To ‘Waterfront Properties’ in Gaza
Until now, the federal government has been in charge of enforcing United States immigrations laws, but the US Supreme Court has declined to further delay a new Texas law that allows the state to enforce its tough new immigration law giving police the authority to arrest and prosecute anyone suspected of illegally crossing the Mexican border into the United States. Illegal border crossings already are federal crimes, but the immigration system usually treats them as violations. Texas’ law allows punishments ranging from misdemeanors to felonies, with the potential of imprisonment or fines as high as $2,000. Penalties for those who illegally re-enter Texas after having been deported could range as high as 20 years in prison.
The Biden administration has challenged the law as being unconstitutional. The Supreme Court delayed implementation twice, but on March 19 decided to allow Texas to begin enforcing the law on a temporary basis. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals had scheduled a hearing on its constitutionality for April, but after the Supreme Court’s action, it ordered arguments to begin today.
Supreme Court justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, saying the decision to allow Texans to implement the law before the appeal “invites further chaos and crisis in immigration enforcement”. They continued, “Texas passed a law that directly regulates the entry and removal of noncitizens and explicitly instructs its state courts to disregard any ongoing federal immigration proceedings. That law upends the federal state balance of power that has existed for over a century, in which the National Government has had exclusive authority over entry and removal of noncitizens.”
Discussion: The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals can settle the constitutionality issue, but the question of individual states’ ability to handle immigration ultimately will go to the US Supreme Court. Tuesday’s decision is an indication of how the court leans on the issue: allowing a potentially hodge-podge set of immigration laws to take effect which ultimately could make the border situation much worse.
Trump Turned Down By 30 Lending Companies
Donald Trump has until March 25 to post a bond to cover the $464 million civil judgment against him and the Trump Organization, plus fees, if he wants to continue his appeal in the New York fraud case. His lawyers are asking the court to give him a break, saying that, despite their “diligent efforts” to find a company willing to guarantee the full amount, 30 companies have turned him down. They asked the appeals court to hold off on the penalties during the appeal, saying, “This case has no victims, no damages, and no actual financial losses.”
Trump wants the court to overturn the judge’s finding that he owes millions of dollars in lost interest by the banks that loaned him money based on inflated values for his properties, and from the profits of his sale of his New York golf course and Washington, DC, hotel.
A bonding company would have to agree to pay the financial penalty if Trump loses his appeal and cannot pay the fine himself. For Trump to secure a bond, he would have to guarantee that he had enough cash, stocks, or securities that he could sell quickly to cover the amount.
Discussion: The law is closing in on Trump, but he has succeeded in many of his delaying tactics, making it likely that the final outcome of his trials will not occur before the November elections. He obviously would like to see the trial delayed long enough to win the presidency, which would allow him to avoid the consequences of any conviction.
Kushner Looks To ‘Waterfront Properties’ in Gaza
Jared Kushner, Donald Trump’s son-in-law, has a solution for Gaza, suggesting that Israel should remove the civilians to take advantage of the “very valuable” potential of Gaza’s “waterfront property”.
“It could be very valuable, if people would focus on building up livelihoods,” Kushner said in an interview dated Feb. 15 and posted this month on the Middle East Initiative’s YouTube channel. “It’s a little bit of an unfortunate situation there, but I think from Israel’s perspective, I would do my best to move the people out and then clean it up,” Kushner said.
After The Guardian reported on the video, Kushner defended his comment on X and posted that he believes “the Palestinian people’s lives will improve ONLY when the international community and their citizenry start demanding accountability from their leadership.”
Discussion: Kushner’s crass comments about the “little bit of an unfortunate situation” in Gaza reflect a mindset of exploitation, but he is not alone. Shortly after Maui was devastated by wildfires, investors looking to make a quick buck swooped in, offering to buy damaged properties from locals at cut-rate prices. Hawaii’s governor, Josh Green, called for a moratorium on damaged-land sales, concerned about predatory investors potentially taking advantage of vulnerable families.
Café Chatter
On ‘What I’d Like To See’: Sau 4 and the school board took appropriate action in the proposed “divorce” movement.
The SAU had just had a comprehensive study of school enrollment done through 2032. They were facing the need to make a decision on Danbury busting at the seams and other schools having declining enrollment as well as some environmental issues at Bristol Elementary. They had an engineering study done of existing buildings for deficiencies and created a building committee to look at possible school closures and/or building a new regional elementary school. They held public tours of the schools and hearings. They didn’t have time to be in limbo for 4 years. They supported an amendment that gave the three towns a year to come to a vote. They did not become the cheerleader or naysayer, but simply listened and provided what they were asked for. For example, the board scheduled a meeting with the selectmen of the 3 towns for a listening session. Not one came, saying it was a busy time of year. No one asked for a reschedule.
There was an in-depth study at the request of Bridgewater and Hebron done in 2014 to look at withdrawal over an intensive 3-month period and the decision of the committee (not the school board) was that it was not workable. All the facts and figures were explored. (A full copy is on the SAU website under archived committees called the RSA 195 withdrawal committee.)
All the facts and figures of the cost of BHVD and the taxes they pay were again looked at when Alexandria proposed a change in the funding formula. Most school districts use assessed value for school costs, not average daily membership or a blend. The study ended up not coming to any agreement and no change has been suggested since (though it was proven by the numbers that under ADM, Danbury, Alexandria, Bristol, and New Hampton carry a heavier burden). But Alexandria was made out to be a bad guy for asking. Fyi, the local school tax rates for ’23 are Alexandria $9.90, Bridgewater $1.85, Bristol $9.43, Danbury $9.61, Groton $5.99, Hebron 89 cents, and New Hampton $5.99. So for a $100,000 assessed home value, just do the math.
At no time did the Bridgewater Village District ever formally ask that the SAU school board consider Bridgewater-Hebron to become K-8. There was discussion back in 2014 about returning to K-6 in all the schools but that did not happen.
I am confident the new board will move forward with making the transition for students as least harmful as possible. SAU 4 has already given a non-binding letter of agreement on tuition and current students months ago (a copy is on the SAU website. I suspect this will be re-visited by the school board after the Hebron vote.) Plymouth has not. I confirmed with SAU 48 that there is nothing formal except informal discussion until after the Hebron vote.
I am pleased to see much discussion happening on the Newfound Residence facebook page in recent days, but somewhat late. All along I have advocated that the voters in those three towns be given hard facts before voting. I believe the rest of the board from the 4 towns will deal with the aftermath with the kids’ interest our top priority.
— Written by Fran Wendelboe as a personal response and not as a board statement.