Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

CA Gov. Gavin Newsom Creates New Fund For Illegal Immigrants, Also Demands More Federal Money

CA Gov. Gavin Newsom Creates New Fund For Illegal Immigrants, Also Demands More Federal Money

“Every Californian, including our undocumented neighbors and friends, should know that California is here to support them during this crisis.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZSxmyjKGEY

When it comes to spending in California, Governor Gavin Newsom seems to want to have it both ways. He is demanding more federal funds to pay for essential workers, while handing out cash to people in the country illegally.

This sounds like a dire warning, doesn’t it?

From Rebecca Klar of The Hill:

Newsom, along with governors across the country, have said they need the federal aid to help fund many of the frontline workers amid the coronavirus pandemic including healthcare workers and police.

“I hope they’ll consider this next time they want to salute and celebrate our first responders … consider the fact that they will be the first ones laid off by cities and counties,” Newsom said.

“This is not a red issue or a blue issue. This is impacting every state in America,” Newsom added.

Here’s the clip of Newsom talking about this with CNN’s Jake Tapper:

The obvious question here is this. Why is Newsom talking about laying off first responders if the state has money to give to illegal immigrants?

From Harmeet Kaur of CNN:

California is now offering support to undocumented immigrants, in the first relief fund of its kind

Starting today, undocumented immigrants in California can begin applying for financial assistance to support them during the coronavirus pandemic — in the first relief fund of its kind.

Gov. Gavin Newsom announced the $125 million coronavirus disaster relief fund last month to support undocumented immigrants who were ineligible for federal stimulus checks and unemployment benefits due to their immigration status.

It’s the first state funding effort directed at helping undocumented immigrants as the coronavirus pandemic causes financial hardships and spurs unemployment across the nation.

“Every Californian, including our undocumented neighbors and friends, should know that California is here to support them during this crisis,” Newsom said in a statement in April. “We are all in this together.”

The one-time benefit will provide $500 of support per adult, with a cap of $1,000 per household, Newsom’s office said. The fund combines $75 million in state donations with $50 million from private philanthropists, and is expected to benefit about 150,000 undocumented adults, according to the state’s website.

No one wants anyone to suffer, but it seems dishonest to talk about laying off essential workers while providing for people who are in the country illegally.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

2smartforlibs | May 19, 2020 at 9:15 am

I always love it when the left-wing loser claim they are not being irresponsible with the money but you are going to be forced to pay taxes in their states.

I can see that Newsom either doesn’t remember or doesn’t care about his oath of office. (I rather suspect it’s the latter), It is a good thing California has a constitutional provision allowing for the recall of the Governor.

That type of threat should be an automatic trigger for the citizens to initiate a recall! In the civilian world and the legal world there is a name for that. (BLACKMAIL)

    barnesto in reply to Shadow5. | May 19, 2020 at 10:21 am

    We’ve already tried and failed to recall Newsom. Two campaigns – one a false flag that siphoned signatures from the other. That false flag campaign shutdown before the election taking all its signatures with it. The other campaign had more than enough signatures to get on the ballot, but our SoS Padilla invalidated enough to keep it from going to the people.

    The petition process in our state isn’t transparent and by all accounts is rigged. All signatures must fit in a column with three inches on each side – go over the line and it’s invalid. You must write out the words “street” or “avenue” or it’s invalid. There are a host of other nitpicks that just lead to petitions being crushed. And if it actually gets on the ballot, our fine Ag Becerra creates easy to misunderstand titles, like he did with recalling the gas tax. He made it sound like you were voting yes when, in fact, unless you read the fine print you were actually voting no.

    Stuff like that is rampant here in the Communist Collective known as California. Reason 4,598,771 why this native is moving ASAP.

      Another Voice in reply to barnesto. | May 19, 2020 at 12:25 pm

      “The other campaign had more than enough signatures to get on the ballot,”

      How fortunate for you in Calif. to even have a process.
      In New York per the State Constitution the power to remove an any elected official rests solely with the Governor. There is no avenue for recall for the Governor but through the election process of not re-electing him. There is a “Recall Bill” in the Assembly Judicial Committee for many years which stays active by committee review but goes no where. The only hope to change would be to have a State Constitutional Convention and amend the power to the Governor or add a process for for removal. The last convention was in 1938. A proposal made by a joint Assembly and Senate Amendment in 1965 was defeated to go forward. With this much concentrated power at the Executive it explains why NY is such a kiss ass state for corruption and kickbacks.

a little black mail, guess he comes by it naturally from his aunt

This guy lives in a cocoon of SF royal family (Brown, Getty, Pelosi etal) with a tunnel to Hollywood. He feels he is riding an express train to the Oval Office as his fixed destiny. It is written in the stars. A lot of us will be leaving the state with our businesses as more and more of their Silicon Valley base do the same. Completely tone-deaf.

He has no “undocumented neighbors and friends.” Neither do I. I’m done with millionaire leftists and their pretend compassion for the s(&& they create and then don’t have to live in. That’s why I left Kali. I hear they want a bail out. F*** em. I left Kali so I wouldn’t have to pay state taxes. Not doing the bail out. Suck it.

Connivin Caniff | May 19, 2020 at 10:35 am

He must think that somehow illegal aliens will be able to vote. How silly of him; they aren’t allowed to vote.

cloudbuster1 | May 19, 2020 at 10:38 am

Well, I live in Florida, If I read this right,I could
just be passing through California, and be eligible for
this handout. I could hide my “documents”, not understand
english, get my cash and leave??? How is this not a crime??
Being compassionate with OPM is easy.What am I missing??

Eff Newscum and his aunt Nancy.

Mexifornians voted for this dooshbag, they can live with him … just not on the American Taxpayers dime. Newscum is the personification of a slimy LIEberal DemoKKKRAT politician … buying votes with other peoples money, acting like a Napoleon wannabee, acting totally arbitrarily based on his mood or motivation that day, disliking the police, scorning the productive and lionizing the useless … yep, a typical bleeding heart LIEberal.

We need to kick Mexifornia out of the Union. They’re an anchor on the Ship of State.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to oldscribe. | May 19, 2020 at 11:13 am

    He’s related to Pelosi several ways you know…….

      Several ways? He’s her brother-in-law’s ex-nephew. How else is he related to her?

      Tangentially at best. Pelosi’s brother-in-law was married to Newsom’s aunt. I think they divorced.

        Another Voice in reply to zennyfan. | May 19, 2020 at 2:36 pm

        You have both answered wrongly.
        As the facts you present make Pelosi’s current Brother-in-Law’s First Wife an ex- wife, when lost a husband but still retained status as the Aunt of Newsom, irregardless of a divorce. Aunt status is retained by kinship via the Aunts standing as a sister with the Mother or Father of Newsom. Means of any connection are not in the leaves on the tree (Pelosi’s B-in-L) but the roots in ground. There is no direct genealogy of kinship; Hence no relationship. Friends Maybe!

          Another Voice in reply to Another Voice. | May 19, 2020 at 2:39 pm

          More briefly put..There is no shared DNA, even at 1/24th.

          Ol' Jim hisself in reply to Another Voice. | May 19, 2020 at 2:54 pm

          There MUST be DNA shared between them – they are both AHs, genetically predisposed to lie and act in tyrannical ways!
          They are democrats, but I repeat myself.

          How about 1/1024th?

          Milhouse in reply to Another Voice. | May 19, 2020 at 4:01 pm

          Shared DNA is not required to be related. While the marriage lasted, Pelosi’s brother-in-law was Newsom’s uncle. The divorce made him Newsom’s ex-uncle.

          But Nancy was never Newsom’s aunt. He may well have called her aunt, but only as a courtesy title.

He really says he’ll lay off the first responders and keep the bureaucrats and pay pensions in full? Did he really say that??

    Milhouse in reply to artichoke. | May 19, 2020 at 1:39 pm

    Paying pensions is a legal obligation. The federal courts won’t allow the state not to pay. They’ll order the money seized from the treasury, if necessary, or order assets to be seized and sold. And states can’t declare bankruptcy.

      Another Voice in reply to Milhouse. | May 19, 2020 at 3:22 pm

      It may be a legal obligation but one that can only be met if Sacramento stops building trains to nowhere and funding retirements at the same rate as full employment wages. Calif. Pension debt in 2019 stood at <$1 Trillion with Assets of $700 Million and $5.7 Billion due to be paid out to pensioners. If all pensioners were to file in mass, the payout obligation would be $.50 on the $1.00. One area that New York can claim being in top best 5 is in State Pension Funding as Calif. struggles to stay out of the worse 5 category with the honor of being no.6. They are now meeting their day of reckoning.

        Milhouse in reply to Another Voice. | May 19, 2020 at 4:02 pm

        That may well be, but it’s irrelevant to the pensioners and the courts. The money for the pensions comes off the top, and if that means there’s nothing left in the kitty for trains to nowhere, that’s none of their concern.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | May 19, 2020 at 11:10 am

That’s rich considering this.

Pigs at the trough: California Assembly wants more for itself at Asian-Americans’ expense

By Monica Showalter

California’s far-left state Legislature has found the coronavirus a useful crisis indeed and isn’t letting it go to waste.

Now the legislators have decided that the coronavirus merits repealing a 1996 popular-will law, Proposition 209, which prohibits affirmative action in college admissions, state hiring, and state contracts. Way back in 1996, California’s voters of all colors had decided the idea had run its course and passed Proposition 209 to get rid of it.

Today, the legislative elites claim that disparate COVID-19 caseloads among black and Latino groups compared to others is proof that the practice needs to be brought back. State assembly bill ACA-5 is a bid to bring back strict racial bean-counting in contracting, public hiring, and college admissions by altering the state’s constitution. To heck with what the voters thought.

Asian-Americans are seeing right through it, and as with other measures, they know who’s really targeted.

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/05/pigs_at_the_trough_california_assembly_wants_more_for_itself_at_asianamericanss_expense.html#ixzz6MtuKwoY4
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

ScottTheEngineer | May 19, 2020 at 11:17 am

Didnt the supreme court just rule that it was in fact illegal to provide support to illegal aliens. Something about aiding and abbeting a crime?

If they’re illegally in the country, then they are NOT Californians. If they are Californians, then you’ve just declared your secession. Good luck with that.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | May 19, 2020 at 11:28 am

Just wait until China does something like this to CA.

China’s Xi Extoled The Virtues Of Globalization On The Same Day He Slapped An 80% Tariff On Australian Barley

ZeroHedgeFund

But their labral residents always claim to have the third largest economy in the world?? Of course they always skip their unfunded future obligations.

So now they want the rest of the country’s taxpayers to pay their tab?

Another Voice | May 19, 2020 at 11:46 am

As a New York’er I start each day reading the news drops in my regional area and move on to our state and end up at my favorite L.I.. Ya’all know the hypocrites who govern New York as is Cuomo and de Blasio headlined herein yesterday and today. The similarities between Calif. and New York is but a cat’s whiskers difference. Is there a competitive race on by these two states for Governor and Mayors (L.A. & S.F.) for Most Ignorant Stupid Award?

If California is “here to support them,” meaning the illegal aliens, then let it happen on the California dime.
.

I’m not sure “dishonest” is the right word here. Irresponsible, maybe corrupt. How about not a single federal dime unless and until CA adopts major budget cuts, including public sector pay/benefit cuts?

“I hope they’ll consider this next time they want to salute and celebrate our first responders … consider the fact that they will be the first ones laid off by cities and counties,” Newsom said.

I don’t think this President responds well to threats.

President Trump could be sending US Marshals to arrest Newsom should he go down this path.
US Supreme Court Rules with President Trump – Reinstates Law Making It a Felony to Encourage or Help People to Come or Stay in US Illegally. The May 7th ruling was a dramatic victory for the Trump administration, which had urged the high court to reverse a 2018 ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. It’s time to use the law and start arresting individuals and punish entities, including states, counties, cities and localities, for enabling illegal immigration to go unchecked in the US today. The liberal Left coast and East coast governors/mayors better get their act together!

    Milhouse in reply to jrcowboy49. | May 19, 2020 at 1:44 pm

    Um, no. That is not what the court ruled at all. It’s a complete misrepresentation of the ruling.

      CommoChief in reply to Milhouse. | May 19, 2020 at 2:49 pm

      Milhouse,

      Since it seems you have the ruling and it’s actual impact at this time to hand, would you please go ahead and list out what the ruling did and did not due and if it was remanded where and for what?

      That would probably help with the misconceptions on the ruling.

        Milhouse in reply to CommoChief. | May 19, 2020 at 4:08 pm

        The case involved someone who was not just encouraging aliens to cross the border, but actively assisting them to do so and committing all kinds of other crimes as well. He (I think it was a he, though in CA one can never tell) appealed his conviction on various grounds. But rather than consider his arguments on their merits, the 9th circuit said wait a minute, the statute under which he was convicted is unconstitutional, because mere advocacy, even of a crime, is protected by the first amendment. Which is 100% true, and those words in the statute are indeed unconstitutional, but the appellant never raised the issue and it was not the 9th circuit’s business to do so on its own.

        And that is what the Supreme Court said, unanimously. Not that it’s illegal to advocate illegal immigration, let alone to assist people who have immigrated illegally(!), but that appeals courts can’t go around ruling on questions that are not before them. The Court agreed that there is some latitude there, but said that this went way beyond that.

          CommoChief in reply to Milhouse. | May 19, 2020 at 4:39 pm

          Milhouse,

          Thanks that’s a pretty good summary. Though I don’t believe your argument that the 1st Amendment provides protection/immunity for speech which is, by statute, a necessary element of a crime such as ‘enticing’ an unlawful person to come to or remain in the USA. I am not convinced that has been decided. Otherwise very good summary of why the 9th circuit was reversed.

          I think some folks are confusing this ruling related to the actions of the 9th circuit with the earlier administration victory at SCOTUS regarding injunction against implementation of a more expensive ‘public charge’ rule as that rule applies to issuance or refusal to issue green card.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | May 19, 2020 at 7:23 pm

          Actually it was a she. Evelyn Sineneng Smith. And she was defrauding immigrants by charging them money to file applications for a legal status that no longer even existed.

          The law, on its face, is clearly unconstitutional. Mere advocacy — even of a crime — is protected speech.

          Incitement is not protected, but incitement is defined as speech that is both subjectively intended and objectively likely to cause the listener to imminently break the law. In other words it’s speech that turns its listeners temporarily into zombies who do the speaker’s will without thinking for themselves. Or in plain English, whipping up a lynch mob. Merely telling someone why the law is wrong, and why they ought to break it, is protected, because the decision to act on this advice, if that decision is made at all, is the listener’s own.

          But none of that was relevant to the case in front of the 9th circuit, because Ms Sinseneng Smith’s crime was not mere advocacy. That’s just the general title of the statute under which she was charged. Her actual crime was actively filing fraudulent documents, and falsely telling her clients that these documents allowed them to remain in the USA. And there’s no question that that’s not protected speech, so the 9th had no business examining the statute’s validity in the general case, without being asked to.

          CommoChief in reply to Milhouse. | May 19, 2020 at 9:22 pm

          Milhouse,

          Yeah, no argument from me that speech alone is not simply that; speech. Add an overt act however and the situation changes. The three people discussing and planning and agreeing to commit a crime are just talking.

          When any one of those three adds an overt act….now there is a conspiracy. The other two, who did no more than speak have had that speech criminalized. No 1st Amendment protection. That’s all I was trying to express.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | May 19, 2020 at 10:21 pm

          CommoChief, you are discussing conspiracy, where the speech is not merely advocacy of crime, or encouragement to commit a crime, but an agreement to actually commit it. Once that’s combined with an overt act it’s illegal. But merely telling someone that they ought to commit a crime is advocacy, and that is protected speech. Even if the person not only does an overt act towards committing it, but actually does commit it, the advocacy remains protected.

          CommoChief in reply to Milhouse. | May 20, 2020 at 1:22 am

          Milhouse,

          Speech is protected. Speech + overt act = crime.

          Example: I advocate for the proposition that dirty Joe Gangster needs to ‘not be in the neighborhood to cause more problems’. Ten people hear and understand this advocacy, let’s call these people my captains. One of these captains relates this advocacy to his younger, more junior associate. That associate is a real go getter and dirty Joe Gangster is removed from the neighborhood, but found dead, floating in the river with multiple gunshot wounds. The young go getter hasn’t learned to weigh down the bodies.

          Unfortunately for me the FBI has an authorized audio surveillance warrant in the location where I made my advocacy. They have a complete transcript of my advocacy.

          In that scenario, I am going to be indicted under RICO. All I did was advocacy, just speech. I didn’t even advocate a crime. How can I be blamed for my subordinates misunderstanding my innocent remarks?

          I am going to jail under this scenario, for a long time. Assuming of course that one of my former captains doesn’t put me in the river with dirty Joe.

          My point is maybe don’t be so quick to take up absolutist positions. You have a tendency to push the 1st Amendment beyond it’s exceptions. Not all speech is protected.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | May 20, 2020 at 11:44 am

          I disagree. I think in that scenario you would have a perfect first amendment defense — so long as the prosecution can’t prove that your speech was both intended and likely to produce the crime imminently. So in part it would depend how long it took for the crime to happen.

          For a RICO prosecution they’d have to prove that there was an actual organization, which has a pattern (at least two cases) of committing the specific crimes that are listed in the statute. RICO is just a fancy conspiracy; it has the same requirements as normal conspiracy, i.e. agreement to commit the crime, not just advocating that it ought to be done.

          See Popehat’s Lawsplainer on RICO, though it concentrates on civil RICO rather than criminal.

          Why not just charge a conspiracy?

          Good question. A RICO claim is really just an elaborate over-complicated conspiracy claim. The answer, in part, was that it was 1970, crime was way up, Nixonian “law and order” was popular, and everyone wanted to be seen as doing something.

          CommoChief in reply to Milhouse. | May 20, 2020 at 12:25 pm

          Milhouse,

          Perhaps I didn’t make that clear.
          In that scenario, I am the head of the organization: I have captains, the captains have subordinates.
          The audio surveillance is longstanding and on going. I believe that webcam infer that the FBI has obtained evidence of other criminal activities.
          RICO has a ten year period as I recall.

          My real point is that none of the freedoms and rights within our constitution are absolute. None of them can be used as some magic talisman to ward off prosecution.

          I agree with you on your 1st Amendment contention for 99% of your proposed application. The other 1% of the time, adding in certain specific circumstances and acts I believe it can be overcome.

          Good discussion.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | May 21, 2020 at 6:38 pm

          I hear what you’re saying but I still don’t agree. I think that in your scenario, where your words alone on this specific crime did not rise to conspiracy or incitement, they could not be held against you. You might still be convicted of the murder because it was committed by the general conspiracy of which you are a part — that’s what RICO is about — but not because of what you said about it.

          On the other hand the context of your position in the organization, as evidenced by all the rest of the FBI footage of you talking with your captains, might be enough to incline the jury to see your words in this case as more than what you literally said. They might see them an actual agreement to commit the murder, even though the literal meaning doesn’t support that and in any other context it would not be enough.

Why do we even have an Oath of Office. When some oaths are broken it’s called perjury and the violator ends up in jail. When the most important Oaths are broken by governors/mayors/AG’s etc., we shrug our shoulders and say “meh.” It’s called “swearing” in, the premise being to faithfully discharge one’s duties to the Constitution and People, but this clown newsome did nothing but swear to resist PDJT. newsome is flying double barrel middle fingers at legal California and US citizens, and should be removed from office.

    Milhouse in reply to CKYoung. | May 19, 2020 at 1:46 pm

    When some oaths are broken it’s called perjury and the violator ends up in jail.

    No, violating an oath isn’t perjury at all, and you can’t be arrested for it.

      CKYoung in reply to Milhouse. | May 19, 2020 at 4:14 pm

      Hank Hill: Bobby, you can’t make an omelette without breakin’ eggs, and you can’t get on base without takin’ a swing.

      Bobby Hill: The pitcher could walk me, couldn’t he?

      Hank Hill: Don’t play lawyer-ball, son.

      -King of The Hill

        Milhouse in reply to CKYoung. | May 19, 2020 at 7:25 pm

        If you’re calling for criminal charges to be brought, you’re playing lawyer-ball.

          CKYoung in reply to Milhouse. | May 20, 2020 at 4:21 am

          https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/118

          Guess we can rip this page out of the California Penal Code (sarcasm).

          Not sure you read my original post carefully, or maybe I wasn’t clear enough (not sarcasm, I accept that criticism with no hard feelings).

          Let me try again. Every day Karens and Richard’s of the world can show up to testify in court, swear an oath, and go to PRISON for intentionally lying. Let’s go back to gavin.

          https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CONS&sectionNum=SEC.%203.&article=XX

          gavin swore this oath:

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=20X9GEGLBK4

          gavin flat out lied throughout that entire charade. Karen and Richard go to jail for lying under oath. gavin gets cheered by the NPC’s and immediately gives illegal aliens taxpayer money, encourages them to break our laws to come here, file for benefits, and (wink-wink) don’t you rascals even try voting in our elections even though we have a free for all motor-votor law!

          That is a two-tiered justice system, whether by design or happenstance, it doesn’t matter. If gavin’s oath amounts to a steaming pile of DS, then Richard and Karen’s should be treated equally, let ’em lie.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | May 21, 2020 at 6:42 pm

          Sorry, CKYoung, you don’t seem to understand what perjury is and isn’t. Violating an oath is NOT perjury. Not in California or in any other state. Perjury is lying while under oath, and Newsom didn’t do that. A lie is a factual statement that is false. An oath does not contain any factual statements, and therefore cannot be perjury.

This guy is another sick bastard, in the vein of di blasio, LA mayor garcetti and the like.

Creates New Fund For Illegal Immigrants, Also Demands More Federal Money

Sorry, Gav, you can do one of those things, not both.

Bruce Hayden | May 19, 2020 at 2:11 pm

I think that this may have bee a strategic mistake on his part. There might be some residual sympathy for the deep Blue States whose economies are collapsing due to the pandemic (and coincidentally the counterproductive, even brain deaf at times, policies of their governors). But that sympathy dissipates very quickly when it becomes evident to the rest of the country that his cry for financial help from the feds is really just a ploy to get the rest of us to support illegal aliens financially. Remember, money is fungible when it comes to government spending. No matter how he restructures it, some of the money that he is demanding would be going to people who shouldn’t be here in the first place, and were only imported to give Democrats a permanent electoral majority. That isn’t going to sell very well in much of the country.

I am not convinced that this scheme to provide fund exclusively for those persons present unlawfully would survive a challenge. I certainly wouldn’t want to be the one trying to justify this in front of a court.

“undocumented neighbors and friends”? He means illegal phucking aliens, right?

He is demanding more federal funds to pay for essential workers, while handing out cash to people in the country illegally

Since money is fungible, he is actually asking for federal funds to pay illegal immigrants.

ICE needs to raid the phone banks and get the addresses of the illegal aliens so they can arrest them and pitch them out of our country.
And I don’t care if they raid the phone banks illegally to get those addresses. Do like dems, do it, fight it in court and then ignore any court order against you.

“Illegal immigrant” is a contradiction in terms. An immigrant arrives and remains legally.
“Illegal alien” is the accurate term for the invaders.

    Milhouse in reply to MTED. | May 20, 2020 at 11:50 am

    Nope. An immigrant is simply someone who has immigrated. It makes no difference whether they had any right to. An unlicensed driver is still a driver, and unlicensed plumber is still a plumber; and an unlicensed immigrant is still an immigrant. Of course all illegal immigrants are aliens, because if they weren’t their immigration would automatically be legal. Most legal immigrants are also aliens at first; some eventually change that and some choose not to. (Not all immigrants are aliens; citizens living abroad can also immigrate.)

henrybowman | May 21, 2020 at 11:01 pm

Dear Firefighter:
Congratulations on your new status as California’s own Washington Monument!

Give this jerk’o more money when hell freezes over. Not before. Kalifornia’s going to fall into the ocean anyhow so what difference does it make? No amount of money is going to help them then. You might as well give it to ariz. and nev.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend