Campaign News

Raul Reyes is the 34-year-old mayor of El Cenizo, Texas, a sweltering border town of 3,200 that sits beside the Rio Grande, where nearly all the residents are Latino, many are immigrants, and quite a few are undocumented too. It’s a sanctuary of sorts, a town that, since 1999, has had a policy prohibiting local police officers from asking about someone’s immigration status. It’s the town where Reyes was born and raised and a town whose residents he cares for fiercely.

Read the full article here.

DENVER - President-Elect Donald Trump has threatened to pull federal funding from cities that don’t tow-the-line on immigration.

 “We will end sanctuary cities that have resulted in so many needless deaths,” he said on August 31. “Cities that refuse to cooperate with federal authorities will not receive taxpayers’ dollars.”

 That threat has raised concerns in cities like Denver and Aurora, where police departments have said they won’t enforce federal immigration law, because they don’t have the resources and because that's the federal government’s job.

 Denver Mayor Michael Hancock says that doesn’t mean the cities don’t cooperate.

 “We follow the law,” he told Denver7. “We still cooperate with agencies and ICE (Immigration and Custom’s Enforcement) but we won’t do anything unlawful or unconstitutional.”

 That means Denver won’t detain someone for ICE officials once their adjudicated sentence has been served.

 When federal courts began to rule in 2014 that cities lack the authority to hold inmates in local jails beyond the term of their sentence, Denver modified its policies in regard to detainers, to conform to constitutional standards, as did numerous state and local agencies throughout the United States.

 When asked if Denver is a sanctuary city, the mayor replied, “Denver never adopted a formal policy to be a sanctuary city.  What we are is a very welcoming and inclusive city.”

 The inclusive city of Denver received $175-million from the federal government in 2015.  Much of it was spent on transportation, affordable housing and other forms of public assistance.

 Hancock said he doesn’t think the federal government will withhold money from Denver and other big cities, but Denver City Councilwoman Robin Kniech, who chairs the Finance Committee, said, “We accept the possibility of that risk.”

 Kniech said federal funds are important but not more important than people.

 “We, as a city council, discussed that yesterday, how strongly we support our residents and our obligations to those residents.  If that’s the risk, we will face that risk.”

 Kniech said Denver has seen the federal government turn its back on financial obligations for many reasons.

 “Whether it’s due to government shutdowns or other political shenanigans in Congress, we have to have contingency plans in place,” she said.  “We work to mitigate the impact on our residents.”

 Kniech said if they have to face that challenge, “I’m confident we would use all the tools in our toolbox to help protect our residents.”

 The councilwoman said she is interested in collaborating with other cities and towns.

Kniech is a member of the Board of Local Progress, which includes people who serve on city councils and county commissioners, who are committed to the values of inclusiveness and a stronger economy for their most vulnerable constituents.

 “I have been working with colleagues in Austin, Texas, New York City, Los Angeles and other cities all across the country who are standing up to these threats just as Denver is,”  she said.  “I’m confident we have a national movement.”

 The mayor’s staff pointed out that between 2006 and 2013, the State of Colorado adopted and enforced a law (SB 06-90) which required the state to withhold certain grants from any city that had adopted “sanctuary” policies, and defined the term to mean: “Local government ordinances or policies that prohibit local officials, including peace officers, from communicating or cooperating with federal officials with regard to the immigration status of any person within the state.”

 During that time, no state grants were ever withheld from the city, because Denver was not deemed to have adopted a “sanctuary” policy within the meaning of that statute.

 Other Colorado cities concerned

 Aurora received $11-million from the feds last year.

 When asked if they’re concerned about a loss of federal funds, Lori MacKenzie, a spokeswoman for the city, said, “We don’t want to speculate because it’s simply too early to know what will take shape at the federal level.”

 Trump’s threats are also a concern to the city of Boulder.

 In an emailed statement, Boulder Communications Director Patrick von Keyserling told Denver7 that Boulder’s City Council asked staff to conduct research into the impacts of declaring Boulder a sanctuary city.

 He said no decision has been made, but acknowledged that the issue of declaring sanctuary is one that has legal and financial implications.

 “The city’s research will take into account the potential loss of federal dollars, impact on existing city services and programs and staff’s ability to serve Boulder residents, as well as our community’s strong commitment to social justice,” he said.

By Lance Hernandez

Source

At noon, members of the Hedge Clippers campaign, New York Communities for Change and The Center for Popular Democracy protest Blackstone, a company behind foreclosures in Puerto Rico, 345 Park Ave., Manhattan.

Read the full article here.

Members of Congress involved in overseeing the country’s financial regulators agree that changes to the Federal Reserve’s governance model are overdue. But a Wednesday panel hearing revealed that lawmakers differ on what elements of the status quo need to be preserved.

Republicans on the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade argued that the Fed’s existing structure, which was enshrined in the 103-year-old Federal Reserve Act, is adequately representative when it comes to racial or gender makeup.

Wednesday’s hearing was the first chance Republican lawmakers had to discuss Fed reform proposals since both parties’ election platforms were adopted at their respective nominating conventions in July, when Democrats called for more diversity.

What the Fed needs instead, according to subcommittee chairman Bill Huizenga (R-Mich), is a new rules-based approach to monetary policymaking that’s outlined in the Financial CHOICE Act, the centerpiece of House GOP’s deregulatory agenda.

Those changes should not extend to major changes at the Fed that would, in effect, eliminate the representation of the banking industry on regional boards or take extraordinary measures to ensure greater diversity, as Democrats suggested in their 2016 election platform, Huizenga said.

He characterized Democratic proposals to overhaul the Fed’s governance structure as a “hostile takeover” of the central bank that’s only being undertaken to ensure high levels of inflation. “Democrats have constantly resisted reforms that would modernize the Federal Reserve, bringing much needed transparency to what most Americans consider an impossibly opaque institution,” Huizenga said.

He then referred to a bill he sponsors that would give Congress oversight responsibilities regarding monetary policy. “The Democrats on the other side of the aisle would like to double down on what Dodd-Frank started, co-opting the Federal Reserve district banks by subjecting them to the same politics that has kicked economic opportunity to the sidelines in the name of reinflating asset prices,” Huizenga said.

He had backup from Kansas City Fed President Esther George and Richmond Fed President Jeffrey Lacker, both of whom testified at today’s hearing and said the central bank’s current governance structure facilitates adequate regional, commercial, ethnic and gender diversity.

“I remain convinced this is a question of accountability, and not of structure, of the Federal Reserve,” George told the panel, referencing the Fed’s overall efforts to be a representative body.

Lacker said he agreed with George, and added that there are “multiple dimensions” officials look at when selecting a regional Fed board.

Regional Fed boards are divided into three alphabetically organized classes. Member banks of each regional Fed select Class A directors to represent the banking industry and Class B directors to serve the public or other commercial interests. The Fed’s Board of Governors selects Class C directors, who are appointed to represent the public interest.

Democrats had their position supported by William Spriggs, chief economist at the AFL-CIO, along with activists in the “Fed Up” coalition who attended the hearing wearing green t-shirts as a form of silent protest about the current Fed structure.

Spriggs and representatives from Fed Up argued that the lack of adequate racial representation on regional boards has prevented the bank from addressing higher rates of unemployment in African-American and Latino communities through monetary policy.

“We believe that when our voices our excluded from the conversation, then our interests are excluded,” said Ruben Lucio, a field organizer for the Fed Up Coalition, which is led by the left-leaning Center for Popular Democracy. Members of the coalition met with George during the Fed’s retreat in Jackson Hole, Wyo., last month.

Lucio indicated that the Fed’s method for determining full employment — part of its dual mandate, along with price stability — might be due for a reevaluation.

“Whose unemployment are they looking at? Are they looking at overall unemployment? Are they talking about black and brown unemployment?” Lucio asked. “When you raise those interest rates because certain communities have recovered, and it’s fine because you’re scared about some threat of inflation, who are you impacting when those interest rates go up?”

Some lawmakers questioned the lopsided nature of the Fed’s regional districts. Reps. Denny Heck of Washington and Bill Foster of Illinois, both members of the business-friendly New Democrat Coalition, were joined by Rep. Mia Love (R-Utah) in floating the possibility of taking a new look at the geographic makeup of the regional boards.

Despite members having stated such clear positions on the issue of Fed governance, the likelihood of movement on any statutory changes to Fed governance is slim at this point. Rep. Gwen Moore of Wisconsin, the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, said she’s interested in taking an “objective” look at what changes might be needed, but she didn’t say what laws or regulations are needed to implement the changes sought by Democrats.

Huizenga, who reiterated to reporters afterward that he thinks the Fed’s regional directors should be selected as a “meritocracy,” struck a similar tone. “I don’t know that there’s any kind of consensus, as of yet, on that,” he said.

By Ryan Rainey

Source