Fed agency now serves 'Americans,' not 'nation of immigrants': report

America a "nation of immigrants"? Not anymore. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service has eliminated the phrase from its mission statement, according to an internal memo.

The document, obtained by the Washington Post, also says that those seeking immigration benefits will no longer be called “customers.”

The new mission statement reads:
“U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services administers the nation’s lawful immigration system, safeguarding its integrity and promise by efficiently and fairly adjudicating requests for immigration benefits while protecting Americans, securing the homeland, and honoring our values.”
By contrast, the old statement claimed that “USCIS secures America’s promise as a nation of immigrants by providing accurate and useful information to our customers, granting immigration and citizenship benefits, promoting an awareness and understanding of citizenship, and ensuring the integrity of our immigration system.”
The memo’s contents were confirmed by a USCIS spokesman who said the new mission statement is effective immediately, but denied the move was directed by the Trump administration.
"The White House did not direct USCIS to change its mission statement. It was developed and debuted within the agency by USCIS Director [Lee] Cissna during his first senior leadership conference with USCIS staff, and reflects the director’s guiding principles for the agency,” the spokesperson told the Washington Examiner.
“The new mission statement also has the support of the secretary of Homeland Security,” it added.
Cissna, 51, who started in the job in October, told the agency’s employees that the new statement is “simple, straightforward” and “clearly defines the agency’s role.”
“The American people, through Congress, have entrusted USCIS with the stewardship of our legal immigration programs that allow foreign nationals to visit, work, live, and seek refuge in the United States,” Cissna wrote in the memo. “We are also responsible for ensuring that those who naturalize are dedicated to this country, share our values, assimilate into our communities, and understand their responsibility to help preserve our freedom and liberty.”
According to Cissna, the term “customers” was scrubbed because it promotes the view that the agency’s purpose was to provide “the ultimate satisfaction of applicants and petitioners, rather than the correct adjudication of such applications and petitions according to the law.”
He added: “Use of the term leads to the erroneous belief that applicants and petitioners, rather than the American people, are whom we ultimately serve.
“All applicants and petitioners should, of course, always be treated with the greatest respect and courtesy, but we can’t forget that we serve the American people.”

Trump: Without ICE, California would be 'crime nest'

President Donald Trump criticized California's immigration policies during a White House meeting Thursday.

President Trump on Thursday threatened to pull U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers from California if state officials continue to refuse to assist federal agents in immigration initiatives.

Trump, during a White House meeting, said that if he followed through with the threat, the state “would have a crime nest like you’ve never seen in California.

"All I’d have to do is say, ‘ICE and Border Patrol, let California learn,'" the president said.
Trump added that California state officials were doing a “lousy management job,” and criticized them for supposedly harboring “criminals,” the San Diego Union-Tribune reported.
“Frankly, it’s a disgrace, the sanctuary city situation, the protection of these horrible criminals in California and other places,” Trump said.
“If we ever pulled our ICE out and we ever said, ‘Hey, let California learn and let them figure it out for themselves,’ in two months, they’d be begging for us to come back. They would be begging,” he added.
Since Trump took office in January 2017, his administration has ratcheted up enforcement of immigration laws -- clashing with the liberal policies of California.

Thomas Homan, ICE's acting director  (Associated Press)

Last month, U.S. Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris, both California Democrats, sent a joint letter to ICE Acting Director Thomas Homan, requesting detailed information on rumored upcoming raids in California, the Sacramento Bee reported.
“Diverting resources in an effort to punish California and score political points is an abhorrent abuse of power, not to mention a terrible misuse of scarce resources,” the letter read in part.
"We don't conduct raids,” Homan said during an interview with Fox News. “We conduct targeted enforcement operations. We don't go into neighborhoods, knocking on a bunch of doors, looking for people that are different than us.”
Trump did not elaborate on his remarks, but his comments made the rounds on social media. Opinion was divided.
Feinstein tweeted: “The president’s obsession with California is growing more outrageous by the day. His attacks are not only mean-spirited, they’re patently false.”
Fox News’ Todd Starnes tweeted: “Trump says he’s thinking about pulling ICE agents from California. That’s actually a great idea. Let the Democrats take care of all the illegals.”

Pro Trump Cartoons

Trump on preventing mass shootings: 'We're going to get it done'

President Donald Trump said Wednesday the administration is going to strengthen background checks for gun purchases and “put a strong emphasis on mental health,” as he promised students and families “we are going to get it done.”

The president, Vice President Mike Pence and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos hosted students, teachers and families affected by the Parkland, Fla., high school shooting for a "listening session" at the White House on Wednesday, which lasted close to two hours. 

Exactly one week ago, 19-year-old Nikolas Cruz, whom the president described as "a sick guy," opened fire at the high school and now is charged with killing 17 teachers and students with an AR-15 rifle.
“We are going to be very strong on background checks, and put a very strong emphasis on the mental health of somebody,” Trump said at the beginning of the listening session. “We’re going to talk and get it done. It’s been going on too long, too many instances and we’re going to get it done.”
Students and parents from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, along with Parkland city Mayor Christine Hunschofsky, attended the White House session, along with members of Sandy Hook Promise, a national non-profit organization based in Newtown, Conn., and led by several family members whose loved ones were killed in the tragic Dec. 14, 2012, mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Students from Friendship Public Charter School, Parkmont, and Thurgood Marshall Academy in Washington, D.C., also attended.
Parkland Student Body President Julia Cordover opened the session with emotional remarks for the group.
“I’m a survivor. I want you all to emphasize the point that I survived,” Cordover said. “I was lucky enough to come home from school and it is very scary to know that a lot of people did not have the opportunity to be here.”
Cordover thanked the president for addressing bump stocks earlier in the week.
The president directed Attorney General Jeff Sessions to create new regulations to ban firearm modifiers, including the “bump stock” used in the Las Vegas massacre in October 2017.
A memo released by the White House earlier this week directed the DOJ to propose a rule “banning all devices that turn legal weapons into machineguns.”
The president asked for suggestions to prevent school shootings, leaving the floor open to parents and teachers.
A parent from Parkland High School suggested that a select few teachers, administrators, or other school employees volunteer to become a designated “undercover police officer,” to manage a potential tragedy prior to the arrival of first responders.
“If a tragedy strikes, can we wait for first responders to get to the campus minutes later?” the parent said. “The challenge becomes, once it starts, to end it as quickly as possible.”
The president said the administration would look “very strongly” at the option for “concealed carry” at schools, but acknowledged that “a lot of people will be opposed to it.”
“Concealed carry only works for people that are very adept at carrying a gun,” Trump said. “Where a teacher would have a concealed gun on them, go for special training and they would be there and you would no longer have a gun free zone.”
Trump added: “A gun-free zone to a maniac, they’re all cowards, it’s ‘let’s go in and attack because bullets aren’t coming at us.’”
The president said that an attack lasts, on average “three minutes.”
“It takes five to eight minutes for first responders. So the attack is over. If you had a teacher who was adept at firearms, they could very well end [the attack],” Trump said. “We are looking at that very strongly. A lot of people will be opposed to it. A lot of people are gonna like it.”
Trump suggested having “20 percent of your teaching force” representing the “type of talent” capable of concealed carry. Trump also floated the idea to add security, like former “marines, people who left the Air Force” to be “spread evenly throughout the school.”
The president has also signaled a willingness to raise the minimum age for purchasing certain firearms in the wake of last week’s school shooting in Parkland.
A White House source told Fox News on Wednesday that Trump is open to a number of measures to address mass shootings, including a rise in the minimum age for buying firearms.
Under current federal law, licensed firearm dealers cannot sell handguns to people under 21 and cannot sell long guns to people under 18, according to the Giffords Law Center, which tracks gun laws and advocates for more restrictions. Some states already impose laws with tighter minimum age requirements.
The National Rifle Association quickly rejected any talk of raising the age for buying long guns to 21.

"Legislative proposals that prevent law-abiding adults aged 18-20 years old from acquiring rifles and shotguns effectively prohibits them for purchasing any firearm, thus depriving them of their constitutional right to self-protection," the group said in a statement.

It is unclear, however, whether Trump will push for a change in federal law, or encourage a change at the state level.
The president has expressed support for the Second Amendment and said he’s against reflexive gun control measures that wouldn’t stop tragedies. The NRA endorsed Trump in the 2016 presidential election, and has yet to comment on the president’s current stance on gun control.
“Whether we are Republican or Democrat, we must now focus on strengthening Background Checks!” Trump tweeted Tuesday.
The listening session, Trump’s openness to tightening age restrictions, and the directive to the Justice Department reflect a different response from the White House than in the aftermath of previous tragedies.
Following the Las Vegas massacre, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said that it was “premature to discuss policy when we don’t know all the facts,” and added, “we can have those policy conversations, but today is not the day.”
Republican Florida Gov. Rick Scott also is slated to meet with students from Parkland Wednesday evening.
"In addition to what we’re going to with background checks, we’re going to go very strong into age of purchase, and very strongly into the mental health aspect of what’s going on," Trump said. "This person, who was very sick, and people knew he was very sick. We’re also going to look at the institutions, what you do when you find someone like this."
He added: "All I can say is we’re fighting hard for you and we will not stop. I grieve for you. There can be nothing worse than what you’ve gone through. Thank you for pouring out your hearts because the world is watching and we’re going to come up with a solution."

Unions sound alarm as Supreme Court takes up fees fight; Gorsuch seen as pivotal vote

Mark Janus has worked for years as an Illinois state employee, and pays about $550 annually to the powerful public-sector union known as AFSCME.

While not a member of the union, he is required under state law to hand over a weekly portion of his paycheck – which he says is a violation of his constitutional rights.

"I work for Health and Family Services, and I'm forced to pay money to a union that then supports political causes that I don't agree with," Janus told Fox News.
Now, Janus' free-speech fight is before the Supreme Court, which holds arguments in the appeal on Monday. And the political and financial stakes are huge for the broader American labor union movement, which already has begun sounding the alarm about the consequences should the justices rule for Janus.

'I just look at it as an average guy just standing up for his own rights of free speech.'

"Unions would lose resources, contracts would become weaker, and the membership would become divided," said John Scearcy, secretary-treasurer of Teamsters Local 117, representing 16,000 workers in Washington state. "There is a strong likelihood that your voice as a public sector union member could be significantly weakened."
The high court is being asked to overturn its four-decade-old ruling over so-called "fair share" fees, allowing states to require government employees to pay money supporting collective bargaining and other union activities – whether they join the union or not.
While the current case applies only to state employees, the repercussions could affect unions nationwide.
The Supreme Court had deadlocked when the issue was revisited two years ago, just after Justice Antonin Scalia died suddenly.
His Trump-picked replacement, however, is expected to be the deciding vote this time around.
Justice Neil Gorsuch faced strong labor union opposition at his confirmation hearings last spring, but told senators his record backing workers was strong.
"If we're going to pick and choose cases out of 2,700, I can point you to so many in which I have found for the plaintiff in an employment action, or affirmed the finding of an agency of some sort -- for the worker," he told Democratic Sen. Richard Durbin, who is from Janus’ home state and supports the unions in this case.
While Gorsuch seeks to keep court watchers guessing, Trump's Justice Department has been clear on its position – announcing in December it was reversing course from the previous administration and supporting Janus.
"The [Obama-led] government's previous briefs gave insufficient weight to the First Amendment interest of public employees in declining to fund speech on contested matters of public policy," said U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco, in a note to the high court.
Janus, 65, says he does not want to destroy the unions and thinks workers have a right to organize. But he opposes having to pay for a union's lobbying efforts at a time when Illinois is facing a crippling financial crisis.
He is being represented by the Chicago-based Liberty Justice Center.
"In many states, workers are forced to give money to a union whether they want to or not. And when they do that they're funding union politics," said Jacob Huebert, the group's director of litigation. "Not all workers want to support that union agenda, just because they've taken a government job."
Labor leaders oppose so-called "free riding" by workers like Janus, and say they have a legal duty to advocate for all employees:
"Everybody deserves the power to win better wages and benefits and retirement security whether you're in a union or not in a union. That's how we build an economy that works for everyone," said Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO.
About 28 states have so-called "right-to-work laws" that prohibit or limit union security agreements between companies and workers' unions.
States that do allow "fair share" fees say they go to a variety of activities that benefit all workers, whether are in the union or not. That includes collective bargaining for wage and benefit increases, grievance procedures, and workplace safety.
Employees who do not join a union also do not have to pay for a union's "political" activities, but both sides of the issue are at odds over when that would occur.
Court watchers say the legal and political stakes in the Janus case could well determine the future of the union movement.
"I think people who are in public sector unions are very concerned about their viability going forward. Certainly opponents of unions see this case as something that they hope will substantially diminish the power of labor," said Elizabeth Wydra, president of The Constitutional Accountability Center. "But make no mistake, this case is a very serious potential blow to the union movement."
As for Janus, he downplays his role as a potential constitutional gamechanger.
"I just look at it as an average guy just standing up for his own rights of free speech," he said. "I'd kind of like my money instead of going to the union and their causes go toward more civic health such as Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts. There are so many causes that need help and assistance."
The case is Janus v. AFSCME and Madigan (16-1466). A ruling is expected by late June.

South Korean speed skaters pressured to leave after alleged bullying

Two speed skaters blamed their loss on a third teammate who had fallen behind during the 500M team pursuit heats during Monday's race. Viewers demanded they be removed from the team for their treatment of their team member.  (AP)

Two speed skaters blamed their loss on a third teammate who had fallen behind during the 500M team pursuit heats during Monday's race. Viewers demanded they be removed from the team for their treatment of their teammember.  (AP)

Almost half a million people in South Korea have signed a petition demanding the removal of two speed skaters from their country's national team for their supposed bullying of a fellow teammate, The San Francisco Chronicle reported.

South Korean speed skaters Kim Bo-reum and Park Ji-woo were participating in the 500M team pursuit heats Monday with their teammate Noh Seon-yeong. They finished seventh, with Noh trailing four seconds behind her other teammates.

Speaking to a reporter after the heat, Kim blamed their loss and failure to qualify for the semifinals on Noh.
“We were skating well,” she said. “But the last skater [Noh] couldn’t keep up and we had a disappointing score.”
Park said she was “shocked” when she crossed the finish line because that’s when she realized Noh was not with them.
Noh was reportedly seen crying after the race, being comforted by her coach while Kim and Park didn’t acknowledge her.
A petition was signed on the president’s website demanding Kim and Park’s removal from the national team, saying it was "a clear national disgrace that such people with a personality problem are representing a country in the Olympics.”
Kim’s sponsorship with a sportswear company declined to renew her contract in the wake of the unfolding drama. On Tuesday Kim and Park held a press conference in which Kim issued a tearful apology to “those who have been affected by what I said during the TV interview yesterday.” Noh did not attend.
Noh was reportedly added to the Olympic team because of a “mix-up” by the Korea Skating Union, despite not meeting the requirements to be included, The Chronicle reported. She was officially added after Kim and Park were dropped.

US Embassy in Montenegro attacked with grenade, prompting security scare

The U.S. Embassy in the Balkan state of Montenegro was attacked Thursday by an individual armed with a hand grenade, who hurled the explosive at the compound before blowing himself up.

The area was sealed off by the police and the embassy warned Americans to avoid the area because of “an active security situation.”

“The U.S. embassy in Podgorica advises U.S. citizens there is an active security situation at the U.S. embassy in Podgorica,” it said. “Avoid the embassy until further notice.”
The government of Montenegro said an unknown assailant threw the grenade into the embassy compound in the evening and then blew himself up with another explosive device.
There are no reported deaths except of the attacker.
The New York Times reported that a witness saw the man throw the object over the wall at around midnight. The embassy was closed at the time of the attack.
Security officials swept the grounds and found no other threats. Employees were told to stay home on Thursday, the paper reported.

Police block off the area around the U.S. Embassy in Montenegro’s capital Podgorica, Thursday, Feb. 22, 2018.  (AP)

The European Union 2016 report claimed that roughly 20 Montenegro nationals went on to fight in Syria and Iraq since 2012. It remains unclear how many of them returned to the country.
The report urged the government of Montenegro to improve government agencies to “monitor possible terrorist threats, including radicalized Montenegrin nationals returning from battlefields.”
Last month, a court sentenced one Montenegro national for fighting for the Islamic State. He was given a six-month jail term.
Several other people, including two Russian secret service operatives, meanwhile, are on trial on charges that they wanted to overthrow the government in 2016 over its pro-Western policies.
Montenegro borders the Adriatic Sea in southeastern Europe and its capital is Podgorica. It joined NATO last year.
The U.S. established diplomatic ties with the tiny Balkan state in 2006 after it split from much larger Serbia.

NYC Pension Cartoons

Retired NYC sanitation worker makes $285K a year from pension

A retired New York City sanitation worker cashes in on a $285,047-a-year pension, The New York Post reported.  (Reuters)
A former Sanitation Department honcho is pulling in an astonishing $285,047-a-year pension — more than twice what he was making on the job, according to newly released data.
And that’s just one of dozens of huge pension payouts revealed in records published Tuesday by the Empire Center for Public Policy— data that lay bare the city’s insanely generous pension system, the government watchdog said.
“Pensions like these are unheard of in the private sector — and deserve the close scrutiny of taxpayers,” said Tim Hoefer, executive director of the Empire Center.
“The long list of six-figure pensioners in the New York City Employees’ Retirement System shows just how great a burden the city has placed on its finances,” Hoefer added.
Eugene Egan, the garbage-hauling agency’s longtime director of labor relations, was earning $128,189 a year when he retired in 2015, public records show.
But because the 86-year-old Bronx man started working for the department before July 1973, he was enrolled in the city’s most lavish pension plan — known as Tier 1 — and was able to continue growing his retirement pot throughout a lengthy career.
Asked about his lifetime golden handshake on Tuesday, the golden oldie became defensive and called the figures “fake news.”
“You’ll go ahead and say I’m ripping off the city ’cause I got a pension,” Egan said at the door of his two-story home in the Bronx, saying he didn’t want to look “like a bum.”
“The fact is that I worked almost 60 years for it,” he added.
While he was still working for the Sanitation Department, Egan didn’t like other workers at the agency knowing how long he’d been there, a department insider who worked with him told the Post — but said he was known as a good and knowledgeable guy.
The source said Egan kicked in his own contributions over the years to help fatten his final pension check.
Egan wouldn’t break down the details of his sweet Tier 1 deal, which is no longer available to today’s city workers. The average Department of Sanitation pension is $49,405, according to the Empire Center.
“You retire. That’s it,” he snapped, before shutting the door on a Post reporter, instructing him to “get an honest job.”

Dems fume as Trump pushes low-cost, ObamaCare alternative health plans

The Trump administration moved Tuesday to allow health insurers to sell lower-cost, less-comprehensive medical plans as an alternative to those required under ObamaCare – in a plan that drew swift protest from congressional Democrats.

The proposed regulations would allow insurers to sell individual consumers "short-term" policies that can last up to 12 months, have fewer benefits, and come with lower premiums.

The plans also would come with a disclaimer that they don't meet the Affordable Care Act's consumer protection requirements, such as guaranteed coverage. Insurers could also charge consumers more if an individual's medical history discloses health problems.
But at a time of rising premiums, Trump administration officials touted the option as a boost for those who need coverage but don’t qualify for the Affordable Care Act’s subsidies and would otherwise face paying the full premium cost.
"We need to be opening up more affordable alternatives," Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar told reporters. "It's one step in the direction of providing Americans with alternatives that are both more affordable and more suited to individual and family circumstances."
Wary of any effort to undermine ObamaCare, however, Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill accused the administration of trying to green-light the sale of “junk” policies.
“Since day one, the Trump administration playbook on health care has been to sabotage the marketplaces, jack up costs and premiums for millions of middle-class Americans. Then – as a supposed life-line to a self-inflicted crisis – offering junk insurance that fails to offer protections for those with pre-existing conditions or coverage of essential health benefits and more,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a statement.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a statement, “Americans purchasing these shoddy, misleading short-term Trumpcare plans will be one diagnosis away from disaster, discovering they have been paying for coverage that may not cover basic care such as cancer treatment, preventative care or maternity care.”
She claimed the move would, in turn, drive up premiums for those with pre-existing conditions.
The proposal comes after congressional Republicans failed to pass legislation to repeal and replace the ACA, though did repeal the individual requirement to buy health insurance.
Critics of Trump's approach say that making such short-term policies more attractive to consumers will undermine the health care law's insurance markets, because healthy customers will have an incentive to stay away from HealthCare.gov and its state-run counterparts.
Democrats say the solution is to increase government subsidies, so that more middle-class people will be eligible for taxpayer assistance to buy comprehensive coverage. Under Obama, short-term plans were limited to periods of no longer than three months.
Trump administration officials reject the notion that they're trying to undermine the ACA. One major health insurance company, United Healthcare, is already positioning itself to market short-term plans.
The administration's proposal will be open for public comment for 60 days. However, for 2018, short-term coverage won't count as qualifying coverage under the Obama health law, which means consumers with such plans would legally be considered uninsured, putting them at risk of fines.
The repeal of the individual mandate does not take effect until next year.