Illegal immigration goes to the front of the line with a big new offer to illegal aliens by the Trump administration.
President Trump makes Mexico an offer that they soundly reject. This might force the hand of the United States.
And California sucks really bad.
She May Not Have A Choice
According to multiple reports, President Donald Trump confirmed he proposed sending U.S. troops into Mexico to combat drug cartels, a plan that Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum firmly rejected, stating that “sovereignty is not for sale” and Mexico would “never accept the presence of the United States Army” on its territory.
During a tense phone call in April 2025, Trump asked Sheinbaum, “How can we help you fight drug trafficking? I propose that the United States military come in and help you.”12
After her rejection, Trump claimed the Mexican president was “so afraid of the cartels that she can’t even think straight,” telling reporters aboard Air Force One that “she is so terrified of the cartels that she can’t even walk.”34
Despite these characterizations, Sheinbaum maintained her position that Mexico would collaborate with the U.S. through information sharing but insisted that each country must operate within its own territory.56
The proposal comes amid Trump’s broader strategy against cartels, which has included designating drug cartels as “foreign terrorist organizations” in February 2025, increasing military presence along the U.S.-Mexico border, expanding surveillance flights to monitor fentanyl trafficking, and seeking greater authority for U.S. Special Forces to work with Mexican forces.728 This aggressive approach represents a significant shift from previous administrations’ policies, which emphasized strengthening the rule of law in Mexico rather than direct military intervention.
https://www.perplexity.ai/page/trump-pressed-mexico-to-allow-jQjcowJVR2GAcGcJmlEgRA
Always Be Thinking
According to Fox News:
The Department of Homeland Security will front the cost of commercial flights and provide a $1,000 stipend to illegal aliens who opt to self-deport from the United States in a move DHS says will save thousands of dollars.
The department says this will be 70% cheaper for American taxpayers, as it currently costs DHS, on average, over $17,000 to arrest, detain, and deport someone. DHS told Fox News that paying for aliens to remove themselves, even with the stipend, is anticipated to cost only around $4,500 on average.
The stipend would not be paid until it was verified that an individual self-deported. Aliens will use the CBP Home self-deportation app to access this assistance, and DHS expects self-removals, already in the thousands, to ramp up significantly with this announcement.
DHS says that self-deportation allows individuals a chance to come back into the country legally one day.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dhs-unleashes-possible-money-saving-measure-illegal-aliens-self-deport
Why Did They Leave That Part Out?
Charlie Kirk’s post highlights the arrest of Felix Rojas, a 44-year-old illegal immigrant, for allegedly robbing and raping a corpse on an NYC subway, using the incident to criticize U.S. immigration policies and argue that Rojas embodies the left’s agenda to import “criminal trash” from the Third World.
The incident, reported by The New York Times on April 28, 2025, occurred on an R train in Manhattan, with Rojas charged with first-degree rape; however, Kirk and others criticize media outlets like the NYT for omitting Rojas’s immigration status, fueling a broader debate on media bias and transparency.
Public records show Rojas had no prior criminal history or sex offender status, and a neighbor described him as a churchgoing family man, contrasting sharply with the heinous nature of the crime and complicating narratives around immigration and crime statistics.
https://twitter.com/i/grok/share/26O65kP7NMYz71iA5nt065HUS
It’s About Time
Israel’s security cabinet has approved a plan to capture the entire Gaza Strip and maintain a military presence there for an unspecified period, as reported by multiple sources, marking a significant escalation in the ongoing conflict that would likely displace hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and draw fierce international opposition.
Israel’s security cabinet unanimously approved a comprehensive strategy to expand military operations in Gaza after a seven-hour deliberation that concluded early Monday morning. The approved plan marks a significant shift in Israel’s approach, transitioning “from conducting raids to occupying territories and maintaining a presence there,” according to a senior Israeli political source who spoke to ABC News.1
The strategy encompasses several key components:
- Complete territorial control of Gaza, including areas not currently under Israeli control
- Relocation of Palestinian civilians to southern Gaza “for their protection”23
- Prevention of Hamas from distributing humanitarian aid14
- Implementation of “powerful strikes against Hamas” targets23
- Continued promotion of Trump’s voluntary relocation proposal for Gazans to neighboring countries23
The cabinet also approved the “possibility of humanitarian distribution” in Gaza through an international fund designed to ensure aid doesn’t reach Hamas, despite National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir’s objections.56 According to Israeli media reports, the execution of this military plan may be delayed until after President Trump’s upcoming visit to the region, scheduled in approximately ten days.
https://www.perplexity.ai/page/israel-approves-plan-to-captur-ECBvGNRcRC6cTdxBODSeRg
This Seems Bad
Overview of the Legislative Debate
California lawmakers recently blocked a proposal that would have made it a felony to pay for sex with 16- and 17-year-olds, sparking heated debate in the Legislature and highlighting divisions among Democrats, Republicans, and state leadership1234567.
Current Law
- Under California law, soliciting sex from a minor under 16 can be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony, with heightened penalties including jail time and fines16.
- For minors aged 16 and 17, the penalty for soliciting sex remains a misdemeanor under current law16.
- Sex trafficking of minors under 18 is already treated as a serious felony, with severe sentences under California’s “three strikes law”1.
The Proposed Change
- Assemblymember Maggy Krell introduced AB 379, which aimed to make it a felony to purchase sex from any minor under 18, including 16- and 17-year-olds23567.
- The bill also sought to criminalize loitering with intent to purchase commercial sex and to create a fund supporting human trafficking victims26.
- Last year, a similar law (SB 1414) increased penalties for buying sex from minors but excluded 16- and 17-year-olds25.
Legislative Action and Debate
- The Assembly Public Safety Committee, led by Democrats, amended AB 379 to remove the provision making it a felony to solicit 16- and 17-year-olds for sex12367.
- This decision was made despite support from Gov. Gavin Newsom, Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis, and other high-profile Democrats, who argued that all minors should be equally protected by felony penalties45.
- Opponents of the felony provision, including some Democrats and advocacy groups, expressed concerns that the law could be misused to target consensual relationships between older teens, particularly in cases involving interracial or LGBTQ+ couples, if disapproved by parents15.
- Democrats in the Assembly argued for prosecutorial discretion and warned of unintended consequences, while Republicans and moderate Democrats pushed for harsher penalties to close what they see as a loophole in the law1357.
Political Fallout and Next Steps
- The removal of the felony provision led to public criticism from Republicans, some moderate Democrats, and state leaders, who accused the majority of failing to protect vulnerable teens3457.
- Assemblymember Krell, the bill’s original author, was stripped of her authorship after refusing to support the amended version but stated she would continue to fight for protections for 16- and 17-year-olds367.
- The Assembly has committed to further hearings and discussions, with a promise to revisit the issue and work toward a legislative solution by the end of the summer7.
https://nypost.com/2025/04/29/us-news/calif-lawmakers-block-bid-to-make-paying-for-sex-with-16-and-17-year-olds-a-felony/?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=nypost&utm_source=twitter
What Is to Prevent Fraud
Overview of the California Welfare Fraud Decriminalization Proposal
California lawmakers are currently considering Senate Bill 560 (SB 560), introduced by Democratic State Senator Lola Smallwood-Cuevas, which aims to decriminalize certain types of welfare fraud involving amounts under $25,0001245. The bill specifically targets cases where overpayments or fraudulent claims are the result of administrative errors or minor infractions, shifting the resolution of such cases from the criminal justice system to local welfare departments1245.
Key Provisions of SB 560
- Decriminalization Threshold: The bill removes criminal penalties for welfare fraud cases where the total amount involved is less than $25,0001245.
- Administrative Handling: Cases under this threshold would be managed administratively by county human services agencies, rather than being referred for criminal prosecution1245.
- Attempted Fraud: SB 560 also eliminates criminal penalties for attempted welfare fraud involving amounts under $950245.
- Error-Based Overpayments: If overpayments are determined to be due to administrative errors (such as mistakes in the Statewide Automated Welfare System, CalSAWS), the individual would not face criminal charges1245.
- Repayment Status: Individuals in repayment or benefit reduction status for overpayments would not be subject to prosecution, provided certain conditions are met25.
- Perjury Charges: The bill would prohibit additional perjury charges based solely on statements made to county welfare departments if the individual is already being prosecuted for overpayments under these provisions25.
Rationale and Support
Proponents of the bill, including Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, argue that many accusations of welfare fraud stem from honest mistakes or administrative oversights, not intentional deceit145. They contend that criminalizing such errors disproportionately harms low-income families and that a more compassionate, administrative approach would ensure accountability without “criminalizing poverty”145.
“This bill is about preventing families from entering the criminal justice system due to administrative mistakes,” said Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. “It presents a more intelligent and compassionate approach by permitting counties to handle most overpayment cases administratively, ensuring accountability without criminalizing poverty.”145
Criticism and Concerns
Opponents, including some Republican lawmakers and critics, argue that SB 560 could weaken deterrents against welfare fraud, potentially increasing abuse of public assistance programs and undermining public trust1356. They note that California already faces a significant budget deficit and warn that the bill could lead to more uncollected overpayments and repeat offenses56.
Assemblyman Carl DeMaio, a vocal critic, stated:
“Democrat politicians are advancing legislation to LEGALIZE welfare fraud in California. SB 560 by Senator Smallwood-Cuevas illustrates exactly what’s wrong with California: Democrats yet again jeopardize the solvency of programs designed to support the most vulnerable in California in order to protect and reward those who break our laws and game the system.”36
Legislative Status
- SB 560 was introduced in February 2025 and has passed the Senate Human Services and Public Safety Committees on party-line votes25.
- The bill is scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Appropriations Committee on May 5, 20255.
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/california-democrat-wants-to-d-RrnERSm2QrCRk9hCmanh.A
These Guys Don’t Get It
Overview of Hochul’s Payroll Tax Hike for the MTA
Governor Kathy Hochul and New York state lawmakers have approved a plan to increase payroll taxes on large businesses in New York City and surrounding counties to help fund the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (MTA) massive $68 billion capital plan. This plan aims to modernize aging transit infrastructure, including trains, stations, and accessibility improvements125.
Details of the Tax Increase
- Who is affected: The tax hike targets companies with annual payrolls of $10 million or more.
- New rates:
- For New York City businesses, the payroll mobility tax rises from 0.6% to 0.895%.
- For companies in Long Island, Westchester, Dutchess, Orange, Putnam, and Rockland counties, the rate increases from 0.34% to 0.635%23.
- Smaller businesses: Those with payrolls under $1.75 million will see their payroll tax rate cut in half23.
- Expected impact: The increase could affect between 5,000 and 10,000 companies in New York23.
Business Backlash and Exodus Warnings
Many New York City business leaders have reacted angrily, warning that the new tax burden could accelerate an exodus of large employers from the city and state:
- John Catsimatidis (owner of Gristedes and D’Agostino’s grocery chains) predicted a greater exit from New York, fewer investments, tighter operations, and fewer hires as a result of the tax hike23.
- Heather Mulligan (Business Council of New York State) argued that businesses cannot continue to shoulder more tax increases and suggested that regular transit riders should also contribute more to MTA funding23.
- Other critics (including former Sen. Al D’Amato and Rep. Mike Lawler) called the tax “ridiculous” and warned it would hurt economic development, put jobs at risk, and burden the region’s employers2.
Support and Mitigating Factors
Not all business groups oppose the plan. The Partnership for the City of New York noted that the budget agreement also reduces the payroll tax on smaller companies by 50% and requires contributions from the state, city, and the MTA itself. Some local business associations expressed cautious optimism about the relief for small businesses, though they remain concerned about the impact on larger firms23.
Fiscal Impact and Remaining Shortfall
- The payroll tax increase is expected to generate about $1.4 billion annually, covering most of the MTA’s capital plan funding gap4.
- The deal will raise approximately $65 billion, leaving a $3 billion shortfall from the MTA’s original $68 billion request235.
- MTA officials, including Chairman Janno Lieber, have stated that the agency will find the remaining $3 billion through internal savings and efficiencies, rather than cutting projects5.
Broader Context
The payroll tax hike is part of a broader state budget deal that also includes contributions from the state, city, and MTA, as well as measures to address fare evasion and subway safety. Lawmakers and MTA officials argue these steps are necessary to ensure the long-term health and modernization of New York’s transit system, though the business community remains sharply divided over the approach25.
In summary: The payroll tax hike for large businesses is a controversial but central element of Governor Hochul’s plan to fund the MTA’s $68 billion capital program. While it provides crucial funding for transit improvements, it has sparked warnings from business leaders about potential job losses and an exodus of companies from New York, reflecting ongoing tensions over how best to pay for the city’s vital infrastructure23.
https://nypost.com/2025/04/29/us-news/fuming-nyc-businesses-warn-of-exodus-over-hochuls-plan-to-hike-taxes-to-fund-mta/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=nypost
