As usual, we started the week in the Sunday School classrooms, where I focused on immigration. Here's a bit of Margaret Brennan's conversation with Sen. Jim Lankford (R-OK), who helped negotiate the immigration bill we heard so much about last week.
Lankford said they've been working on the bill for "about four months" and they're trying to get it wrapped up so they can get into people's hands and put false rumors to bed.
So people want to be able to just see it, read it and go through it, and to be able to see the dramatic change that this really makes in how we handle our immigration system and how we work to be able to secure our border completely. That's been the simple request of Americans, whether you're Republican, Democrat, or Independent. People just want a secure border, where we have legal immigration, but we're not promoting illegal immigration. And that's what we've seen in the last three years.
He said some of the language is similar to our pandemic-era Title 42, which allowed the border to be closed when we couldn't process the number of people who were crossing. Right now, he said, when we can't process them, they're just being released into the country.
That's what's driving the mayors in Denver, in Chicago, in New York City, and other places around the country crazy to say, when the border gets crowded, you just release them to our cities, and it causes all the chaos...
It was interesting that Lankford mentioned some of the country's mayors; so did Bakari Sellers. Here's a highlight in this snip from your Extra Credit.
He chastised the Ds who "have refused to pay attention to immigration and crime in this country, saying it really didn't exist, it wasn't a problem." What's needed now is the folks who have complained,
we need our good mayors, like Frank Scott from Little Rock, like Chokwe from Jackson, Mississippi, we need Randall Woodfin from Birmingham, Alabama, and we even need mayors who don't know what they're doing, like Eric Adams in New York City, to now simply stand up for this piece of legislation and say, 'this is what we need done.'
This has to be the messaging and the messengers who can get this done for the country. This is not a problem that you kick down the road... This is something you fix right now. This is a problem. Fix it.
That sure beats merely complaining about the other side, doesn't it?
Lankford was mentioned again in a Sidebar post, in which we learned that he had been censured by Oklahoma's State Republican Party... at least, that's what it looked like in the beginning. Here's a snip.
According to the censure resolution,
Senator Lankford playing fast and loose with Democrats on our border policy not only disenfranchises legal immigrants seeking citizenship but it also puts the safety and security of Americans in great danger.
I'm not sure he's "playing fast and loose" with the Dems; I mean, leading the bipartisan negotiations doesn't sound like he was behaving in a clever and dishonest way with them, does it?
After news of the censure broke, things started to unravel for what we all thought was the OKGOP.
Interestingly, there are complaints that the Committee's vote to censure Lankford may not have been legitimate, as some members with voting rights weren't invited to the meeting.
More interestingly, or perhaps comically is the better word, the OKGOP released a new statement today:
The meeting held by certain Republicans on January 27th was an illegitimate meeting. Proper notice was not provided to all members of the State Committee meeting. None of the actions done at the meeting are the official position of the OKGOP and the media is advised to refrain from reporting or suggesting that this was an official action of the 'OKGOP' or 'Oklahoma Republican party' regarding the motions, resolutions, or procedures done at this illegitimate meeting.
Someone's got some 'splaining to do.
Three immigration-related posts in three days - and by then, I was more than ready for some Wondering on Wednesday. I won't lie - the Lankford censure popped up there, too, as did the Florida legislature. That group seems a bit unsettled by what's happening on the book-banning front.
Most of us are aware of the penchant for book banning in Florida. This article by Judd Legum reminds us that the whole mess started when the Rs in FLA attacked alleged "grooming" by school librarians pushing "pornographic" materials in their bookshelves.
Florida's Republican legislature passed — and Ron DeSantis signed — several pieces of legislation that made it easier to take books off the shelves of the state's public schools. This was all seen as smart politics, appealing to parents seeking to protect their children from inappropriate content.
Some of the Rs are getting tired of taking the heat for the ridiculous bans; even noted conservative Bill O'Reilly's books were pulled from the shelves. Legislation is moving along that would "make it more difficult for people to challenge books en masse." That's happened in at least one Florida county, where every book in the library was pulled for review. Legum says the legislation
is an implicit acknowledgment that book banning in Florida schools has gone too far. It also suggests that the enormous number of books being taken off the shelves of Florida schools has become a political problem for Florida Republicans.
Check the post to see what had me scratching my head on these topics, and a few others.
I wrapped the week with a Meanwhile, Back in Albany entry on one of my favorite subjects, NY politicians and their gambling revenue addiction.
And now, it's online casino gaming; here's some info from a Spectrum News report from October 2023.
Lawmakers are working to amend legislation to legalize a new form of online gambling in the state officials say could bring upwards of $1 billion in revenue to New York and help close budget gaps expected over the next few years...
In addition to the revenue, it's flat-out altruistic, too, especially for the New Yorkers who are forced to do their online gambling on apps registered in other states.
We can't help someone with an addiction because we don't know who they are, and once we regulate it in New York, iGaming, we then can help those that might be in need are on their pathway to addiction. We'll put in statutory language in this bill to address that.
Now that the Legislature is back in session, we can see what's up for discussion.
The bill would allow for mobile or online betting on various types of interactive gaming, referred to as iGaming, and iLottery. I'm pretty sure those names are not affiliated with the giant fruit vendor known for selling all the other iThings, or with iCarly, an old Nickelodeon TV show, but there's a chance we could see some kind of copyright lawsuit, right? What are the odds?
There's a lot in the proposed bill to get riled up about, and I can assure you, riled I was.
And just like that, you're up to date. Stay tuned for this week's posts - regular features, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!