Activists Defend Canceled ‘Minor-Attracted Persons’ Camp In Vermont Next To School
Locals said in a public meeting that the camp owner said she is 'best friends' with a 'minor-attracted person' who visits her camp near a school.Locals said in a public meeting that the camp owner said she is 'best friends' with a 'minor-attracted person' who visits her camp near a school.Vermont Department of Health tells public to avoid using words like 'son' or 'daughter'
The Vermont Department of Health issued a caution this week not to use the words "son" and "daughter," insinuating that a failure to do so may cultivate unhealthy learning environments.
In a Facebook post shared to its official page Wednesday, the department (VDH) — run by Mark Levine, who was appointed commissioner by Republican Gov. Phil Scott — stated, "Many families and students are getting ready for the new school year. Equity in the classroom is an essential piece of a productive and healthy learning environment."
"When talking about family, it's important to use terms that cover the many versions of what family can look like," said the post.
Accompanying the post was an image titled, "Inclusive Language for Families," which contained instructions on how Vermonters should adjust their vocabularies and mindsets.
According to the VDH, which states elsewhere that "gender is socially constructed," Vermonters should "[u]se 'child or 'kid' instead of 'daughter' or 'son'" because these substitutes are "gender-neutral and can describe a child who may not be someone's legal son or daughter."
In addition to abandoning the centuries-old terms linked, respectively, to the Old English sunu for "male child in relation to either or both parents" and the Old English dohtor for "female child considered with reference to her parents," the VDH urged the sons and daughters of the Green Mountain State to say "family members" rather than "household members" because "not all families live in the same home — think divorced or incarcerated parents, stepsiblings, etc."
'Challenging our instinct or bias to prioritize the needs of white, straight, cisgender, and non-disabled and neurotypical students is the first step.'
Blaze News reached out to the VDH inquiring about what prompted the posting as well as whether there was any scientific basis to its insinuation that the use of the terms "son" and "daughter" was harmful. The department did not provide a response by deadline.
The VDH post seeking further severance of language from biological and conventional meaning was subject to immediate backlash, prompting the department to follow up on Facebook with a message claiming, "This post was intended to encourage using inclusive language when you don't know someone's family situation. This is especially important in settings like classrooms, afterschool programs and sports teams."
"Using language that includes everyone helps children feel seen, respected, and valued no matter how their families are structured," wrote the department, adding a link to a department page about "health equity."
According the department, health equity:
exists when all people have a fair and just opportunity to be healthy, especially those who have experienced socioeconomic disadvantage, historical injustice, and other avoidable systemic inequalities that are often associated with social categories of race, gender, ethnicity, social position, sexual orientation and disability.
The VDH's health equity page indicates why an organization that might otherwise assign greater focus to the local fallout of the opioid epidemic or alarmingly high STD rates is now pestering Vermonters about how they describe their children.
In the interest of "culturally and linguistically appropriate care," the VDH has integrated the National Standards for Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services in Health and Healthcare (CLAS Standards) in all of its work.
The National CLAS Standards were developed by the U.S. Department of Health and Health and Human Services' Office of Minority Health in 2000.
The standards call for public organizations to "establish culturally and linguistically appropriate goals, policies, and management accountability, and infuse them throughout the organization’s planning and operations" as well as to "[partner with the community to design, implement, and evaluate policies, practices, and services to ensure cultural and linguistic appropriateness."
Adherents to the standards are expected to learn about various cultural identities, combat bias, respect others' values and communication preferences, and adapt their services to various persons' cultural needs.
The Christian Post noted that in its latest "Health Equity Update," the VDH provides additional tips on how Vermonters help with their leftist social engineering.
The newsletter states, "Supporting the needs, backgrounds, and abilities of all students is a complex task. Challenging our instinct or bias to prioritize the needs of white, straight, cisgender, and non-disabled and neurotypical students is the first step. This will reduce barriers for BIPOC and LGBTQIA+ students as well as those with physical and neurological disabilities."
In addition to de-prioritizing the needs of students hailing from that racial demographic, which makes up around 91% of the state's population, the health organization echoes CLAS literature, stressing that teachers, coaches, "afterschool school providers," and mentors should reflect on their own beliefs and "become more conscious of issues related to racial equity and gender equity."
The VDH is hardly the first institution to urge Americans to drop words leftists believe are offensive or antiquated.
Stanford University, for instance, released an index of "harmful words" in 2022 that it indicated would be eliminated from use and its websites. These words included: "addict," "American," "ballsy," "Brave," "chief," "gentlemen," "he," "straight," "master," and "white paper."
The New Hampshire Journal highlighted how earlier this year, New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu's (R) Department of Information Technology shared a memo claiming the words "citizen," "guys," "he or she," "man-made," "handicapped," "normal," and "elderly," were problematic, exclusionary, and/or harmful.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Lawsuit: Foreigner Voting In Burlington School District Elections Violates Vermont’s Constitution
Plaintiffs' 'votes will be diluted by noncitizen votes made possible by Burlington’s charter change.'Vermont couples barred from fostering children because of their Christian beliefs on sexuality, says lawsuit
Brian Wuoti of Vermont is a Baptist pastor and a high school math teacher. His wife of 14 years, Kaitlyn Wuoti, leads a bi-weekly women's Bible study and homeschools their five children. They first became foster parents in 2014, adopting a pair of brothers who have become an "integral" part of their family.
Michael Gantt is the lead pastor of another church, and Rebecca Gantt, his wife of 25 years, raises their seven children. They became foster parents in 2016. Extra to their four biological children, they have adopted three children from the Green Mountain State's foster care system.
Both families believe that God created everyone in his image; that sex is binary and fixed by God at conception; and that all people deserve respect and love.
These two families unfortunately share something more in common beside their establishment of loving homes, dedication to protecting the vulnerable, sterling records, and Christian faith.
According to their lawsuit, filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont, the Vermont Department for Children and Families has barred them from continuing to foster children on account of their religious beliefs about sexuality.
'Vermont would prefer children have no home than to place them with families of faith with these views.'
"Although the Wuotis and Gantts have adopted five children between them, the Department has determined they are unfit to foster or adopt any child solely due to their religiously inspired and widely held belief that girls cannot become boys or vice versa," said the lawsuit.
"And Vermont applies this policy categorically — whether applicants want to adopt their grandchild, provide respite care for an infant for just a few hours, or foster a child who shares all of their religious views," continued the suit. "Vermont would prefer children have no home than to place them with families of faith with these views."
The Wuotis discovered that their mainstream Christian beliefs rendered them ineligible to give orphans and other vulnerable minors a supportive home in 2022, when the state was reviewing their application to renew their foster care license.
Despite a case worker suggesting that she "probably could not hand pick a more wonderful foster family," and the Wuotis' licensor apparently indicating there was "no doubt" they could welcome another child into their home, everything changed when they indicated they were Christians and would not embrace the ideological fads of the day. Somehow, they instantly ceased to be wonderful. An absence of doubt in their ability to foster another child became an absolute certainty in their inability.
They received a "Notice of Decision" from the VDCF recommending the revocation of their license.
Last year — a year where the state had 985 children in out-of-home protective custody, 467 in conditional custody, and 150 family support cases — the Gantts heard the call of a child in need.
The VDCF apparently asked the couple whether they could take an emergency placement — a baby about to be born to a homeless junkie. Prior to taking another child into their home, the couple received an email "explaining that families must accept the State's orthodoxy about gender fluidity 'even if the foster parents hold divergent personal opinions or beliefs,'" said the lawsuit.
The Gantts met with a caseworker about fostering the baby and made clear they would "love and accept any child" but that they would not compromise on their Christian beliefs. Michael Gantt also made clear to a department employee he would not bend the knee to gender ideology — no Pride parades, no incorrect pronouns.
The couple received a "Notice of Decision" concerning their license revocation in February.
'The division is committed to making ongoing efforts to recruit, train, support and retain foster families who are LGBTQ affirming and supporting.'
While the lawsuit references various indicators that the VDCF is ideologically captive and hostile to traditional views, a number of which are still maintained by the majority of Americans, it highlighted the department's LGBT activist orientation, manifest in Policy 76.
The policy states, "When assessing safety and risk in an environment where an LGBTQ child or youth resides, family services workers will determine whether a parent, caregiver, or other family member's attitude and behavior about the child or youth's sexual or gender identity impact the safety and well-being of the child."
"The division is committed to making ongoing efforts to recruit, train, support and retain foster families who are LGBTQ affirming and supporting," the policy says in a section on placement considerations.
The lawsuit indicated that the VDCF has reinterpreted its existing requirements of foster parents in accordance with Policy 76 and that foster families must demonstrate they can follow the policy's guidance.
Extra to the policy, other departmental communications and rules have indicated that devout Christians need not apply.
A Sept. 8, 2023, email circulated to all foster families by the VDCF reportedly stated, "Eligibility for licensure is dependent on foster parents and applicants being able to support youth who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning, or another diverse identity (LGBTQI+) even if the foster parents hold divergent personal opinions or beliefs."
'It bears mentioning that this suit was filed at the start of pride month.'
A VDCF spokesman relayed a statement from Aryka Radke, deputy commissioner of the Family Services Division, to the Christian Post, saying that while the department does not comment on the details of pending lawsuits, "generally speaking, DCF takes the care and support of youth in our custody seriously, and we work to ensure that youth in foster care are placed in homes that support all aspects of what makes them who they are. This includes their sexual orientation and gender identity."
"It bears mentioning that this suit was filed at the start of pride month — a time when we reflect on the achievements and continued struggles of the LGBTQI+ movement," Radke continued, signaling her bias. "The department stands in partnership with the community, and continually works to be a better partner, ally, and support system — rather than a barrier to the children and youth who identify as part of this community."
"Providing safe, affirming, accepting and welcoming homes benefits all youth and it has the power to save lives. This is true year-round, and bears underscoring for these youth especially during pride," added Radke.
'They don't need the state pushing its gender ideology on them.'
Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse, the Alliance Defending Freedom legal counsel representing the families, highlighted to the Christian Post that contrary to Radke's suggestion, it's the state's polices that "are actually harmful."
"I would point people to the Cass review that came out of England showing that pharmacological and surgical intervention likely caused more harm than any good and that the evidence is incredibly weak in this area," said Wildmalm-Delphonse. "Children just need a loving place, someone to care for them while they work out these types of issues. They don't need the state pushing its gender ideology on them."
Blaze News previously detailed the extent to which the Cass Review, a multi-year investigation into the pseudoscience of transgenderism, commissioned by England's National Health Service, undermined the ideology that now reigns supreme at the VDCF.
Dr. Hilary Cass, a British medical doctor who previously served as president of the Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health, reached a number of damning conclusions in her final report, such as:
- the "systematic review showed no clear evidence that social transition in childhood has any positive or negative mental health outcomes, and relatively weak evidence for any effect in adolescence";
- puberty blockers compromise bone density and have no apparent impact on "gender dysphoria or body satisfaction"; and
- the evidence in support of "gender-affirming care" is "weak" and unreliable.
Alliance Defending Freedom stated, "By denying people the chance to be foster and adoptive parents because of their religious beliefs and compelling them to speak the government’s preferred message about sexual orientation and gender identity, Vermont is violating the First Amendment."
The lawsuit alleges the VDCF has specifically violated the couples' rights to free speech, free association, and free exercise of religion, as well as the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause. The couple seeks a declaration on the part of the department that its LGBT activist mandate encompassing Policy 76 and a handful of rules violated and continues to violated their constitutionally protected rights. Additionally, they seek an injunction against similar and future denials of foster licenses on the bases of protected beliefs.
"Every child deserves a loving home, and children suffer when the government excludes people of faith from adoption and foster care," added the Alliance Defending Freedom.
The Gantts and Wuotis are hardly the first to be precluded from adopting or fostering on the basis of their Christian faith. The Massachusetts DCF rejected Catholics Mike and Kitty Burke last year. Washington State dashed Shane and Jenn DeGross' dreams in 2022.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Illegal crossings at northern border sector reach 'record-breaking milestone'
Illegal immigrant crossings at a northern border sector reached a "record-breaking milestone" last month, according to Border Patrol Swanton Sector Chief Patrol Agent Robert Garcia.
Garcia wrote in a social media post on Tuesday that the Swanton Sector experienced a significant increase in illegal alien encounters.
"Another record-breaking milestone in northern border history! Swanton Sector continues to encounter an unprecedented number of undocumented migrants, with well over 1,400 apprehensions in the month of April, surpassing the total number of apprehensions of FY 21 and FY 22 combined," he stated.
Another record-breaking milestone in northern border history!Swanton Sector continues to encounter an unprecedented number of undocumented migrants,\u00a0with well over 1,400 apprehensions\u00a0in the month of April, surpassing the total number of apprehensions of FY 21 and FY 22 combined.— (@)
'It was a flood we had never seen before.'
The sector witnessed 365 encounters in fiscal year 2021 and 1,065 in 2022, according to Customs and Border Protection data. The following year, that number skyrocketed to 6,925. Over the first seven months of fiscal year 2024, the Swanton Sector has already executed more than 6,500 illegal alien apprehensions. This year is on track to far outpace 2023's record-breaking stats.
From April 28 through May 4, the sector apprehended 492 illegal immigrants, Garcia noted.
"Since 1924, the U.S. Border Patrol has been entrusted with safeguarding the American homeland. Despite a century of changes, Swanton Sector's commitment to upholding our core values of vigilance, integrity and service to country has remained constant," Garcia stated in an April post on X.
The Swanton Sector comprises eight stations that support several counties in New York and New Hampshire and the entire state of Vermont. The area includes 295 miles of border, including 203 miles of land and 92 miles of water boundary.
Champlain Border Patrol agents, who cover one of the sector's eight stations, detained 220 illegal immigrants over just one week in April. The prior month, the station apprehended 158 illegal aliens from 14 different countries, Garcia stated.
Erik Lavallee, the Border Patrol agent in charge of the U.S. Border Patrol Beecher Falls Station in the Swanton Sector, told WBZ-TV in March, "It was a flood we had never seen before. It was an exponential shift, something we were not expecting, and it just hit us hard."
"We understand completely that the northern border issues versus the southern border issues are apples and oranges. However, that being said, having been up in this sector for almost 20 years, I have never seen anything like it," he added.
According to Border Patrol, the vast majority of illegal immigrants crossing the northern border are from India, Bangladesh, Haiti, and Venezuela.
Lavallee told WBZ that most of the illegal aliens are single adult men, many of whom are involved in human smuggling.
"We know there are multiple organizations that are utilizing Canada to smuggle individuals into the United States," he stated.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
One Word In Your State Constitution Could Open Up Your Elections To Foreign Nationals
But a majority of state constitutions declare that every citizen -- not necessarily only a citizen -- is an eligible voter.Blaze News investigates: ICE officials speak out about how 'sanctuary' policies protect criminals
Many Democratic-run jurisdictions across the United States have adopted various forms of so-called 'sanctuary' policies that continue to provide protections to illegal migrant criminals by creating massive roadblocks for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, according to the agency and immigration experts.
The term "sanctuary policy" describes several similar ordinances that ultimately prevent local and state law enforcement officials from coordinating and cooperating with federal immigration officers.
Marie Ferguson, a spokesperson for ICE's New York City Field Office, told Blaze News that there is "no official or agreed-upon definition of what constitutes a 'sanctuary' jurisdiction"; however, the policies typically encompass three categories: "Don't enforce," "don't ask," and "don't tell."
Ferguson explained that "don't enforce" policies prohibit police from aiding federal immigration authorities; "don't ask" policies ban local officials from looking into an individual's immigration status; and "don't tell" policies prohibit police and federal officials from sharing information.
How do sanctuary policies undermine ICE?
Ferguson stated that measures restricting cooperation between local law enforcement agencies and federal immigration officers "threaten public safety" because it "means criminal noncitizens are released back into our communities with opportunity to reoffend before being apprehended by [ICE's] Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO)."
John Fabbricatore, a retired ICE Denver Field Office Director and current Republican congressional candidate for Colorado's 6th District, told Blaze News that the regulations in sanctuary jurisdictions prevent local law enforcement agencies from communicating with ICE when they arrest or release an illegal alien.
"It makes it where ICE then has to go and find that information in other ways," he stated.
Fabbricatore explained that it is becoming more difficult for ICE to do its job because, in addition to restricting local law enforcement cooperation, some sanctuary laws also prevent other state-run agencies, such as motor vehicle and labor departments, from communicating with ICE.
"Here in Denver, they don't even allow probation and parole to give information to ICE," he told Blaze News. "So this is an illegal alien that's been convicted of a crime and then released out onto the street, and ICE is not allowed to get any information on that person. But yet, the illegal alien is going out on, say, probation, and it's being paid for by the U.S. taxpayer."
Two Colorado counties filed a lawsuit this week against the state, demanding it put an end to its sanctuary policies, claiming the measures "create dangerous conditions" for residents and citizens. Approximately 40,000 illegal migrants have moved to Denver over the past 16 months.
I support Douglas County in filing this lawsuit against the state of Colorado concerning sanctuary policy laws passed by the state legislature. These laws only protect convicted criminal Illegal aliens and do nothing to protect tax-paying citizens and legal residents.\u2026— (@)
Fabbricatore says sanctuary policies were created as part of the abolish-ICE movement to hinder federal immigration officials. These restrictions typically prevent local or state law enforcement from honoring ICE's detainer requests.
ICE's ERO, which "manages all aspects of the immigration enforcement process," according to the agency's website, places detainer requests against migrants who have been arrested and held by local or state law enforcement agencies for committing criminal acts.
"Detainers request that state or local law enforcement agencies maintain custody of the noncitizen for a period not to exceed 48 hours beyond the time the individual would otherwise be released, allowing ERO to assume custody for removal purposes in accordance with federal law," Ferguson told Blaze News.
Without coordination from local agencies, ICE officials are forced to "expend additional resources and search within neighborhoods to re-apprehend these criminals at increased risk to the public and our officers," Ferguson remarked.
The ICE spokesperson noted that detainer requests "are a critical public safety tool" to ensure that criminals do not end up back on the street.
"Since detainers result in the direct transfer of a noncitizen from state or local custody to ERO custody, they minimize the potential that an individual will reoffend," Ferguson added.
The Department of Homeland Security, which includes ICE, has the authority under federal law to issue administrative arrest warrants for immigration violations. ICE issues an administrative warrant of arrest with each detainer request. However, sanctuary policies often state that federal authorities must obtain a criminal warrant issued by a judge or magistrate, which ICE claims "is not required or necessary according to federal law."
"When law enforcement agencies fail to honor immigration detainers and release serious criminal offenders onto the streets, it undermines ERO's ability to protect public safety and carry out its mission," Ferguson noted.
What are the consequences of sanctuary policies?
Fabbricatore, a board member of the National Immigration Center for Enforcement, provided testimony last year at the House Immigration Subcommittee's hearing, "Examine Sanctuary Cities That Shield Illegal Aliens." He raised concerns about the "erosion of immigration enforcement and lack of respect for the rule of law" and warned about the "hundreds of thousands of criminal aliens at large" in the country under the Biden administration.
"As an ICE field office director, I witnessed the deterioration of relationships with local law enforcement agencies because of sanctuary policies," he told lawmakers.
According to Fabbricatore, detainers were helpful tools utilized by ICE to ensure public safety until sanctuary policies began prohibiting the coordination between law enforcement agencies.
"A lot of the sanctuary jurisdictions don't allow their county jails to hold ICE detainees," Fabbricatore stated, referring to sheriff's departments that rent out their unused jail space to ICE. "That limits the overall population for what ICE can hold to a very low number."
According to Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse data, nearly 35,000 illegal migrants were being held in ICE detention as of April 7. Fabbricatore stated that the number of individuals in ICE custody is "very low" considering "the millions of people that are coming in and how many we could put in detention if we had that detention space."
Sanctuary policies have forced ICE to exert additional manpower and hours to locate and detain illegal migrant criminals. If local law enforcement agencies were allowed to notify ICE before a criminal migrant was released from jail, it would only require one or two federal immigration agents to pick up and transfer the individual into federal custody, Fabbricatore explained to Blaze News. It can take up to six officers to apprehend a suspect who has been released onto the street, he added. ICE officers must also run surveillance before attempting to apprehend a suspect, which typically requires at least two officers, Fabbricatore said.
"So it takes a greater amount of hours and much more manpower than if a local jurisdiction would just say, 'Hey, this person's getting ready for release. ICE, come pick them up,'" he declared.
Fabbricatore noted that federal agents catching illegal migrants on the street is not only more expensive for taxpayers but also far more dangerous for officers.
"When two officers can go to the jail, it's a secure environment," he added. "But when you go to a home, or you pull someone over in a car, they are in the community. And now you have the potential as you go to pull someone over, they flee, they crash into somebody else. Or you go to a home where they have access to firearms. Or you arrest them in front of their house in a neighborhood where maybe their neighbors are on their side, and they come out and now there's a big riot."
Experts explained that it is difficult to estimate how much longer illegal migrant criminals are out on the street as a result of the lack of communication between local and federal law enforcement agencies.
Jon Feere, director of investigations with the Center for Immigration Studies, told Blaze News, "The truth is, ICE doesn't even know when a detainer that's not honored results in the release of an alien."
Feere explained that in states like California that do not honor most detainers, ICE will not be notified that the state denied its request. In those instances, the suspect is released from custody without ICE notification.
"They'll just ignore the request altogether," Feere said.
ICE does not learn that its detainer was ignored and the suspect was released from local custody until that individual commits another crime and pops back up on the agency's radar, Feere explained.
He noted that California's policies also prohibit its sheriff's departments from participating in the 287(g) program. According to the ICE's website, this program "enhances the safety and security" of communities by authorizing the agency "to delegate to state and local law enforcement officers the authority to perform specified immigration officer functions under the agency's direction and oversight."
The program allows ICE to train sheriffs on how to identify criminal illegal migrants in their prisons and begin the paperwork process to prepare the individual for removal.
"Those are critical law enforcement partnerships. Sanctuary cities generally outlaw them," Feere remarked. "One of the things that people don't realize is that a lot of these illegal aliens who show up in jails after having been arrested have no records whatsoever. And, as a result, the sheriffs don't know who the person is and ICE doesn't know who the person is until an interview occurs."
Under ICE's Criminal Apprehension Program, officers "actually go and interview some of these individuals in the jails and they will usually admit that they're here unlawfully."
"A lot of sanctuary jurisdictions don't permit ICE to have access to their jails, which is another form of protecting criminal aliens," he said.
Regarding the types of crimes committed, Feere said it could be "almost anything you can imagine."
"It's actually quite shocking that these sanctuaries choose not to honor detainers for aliens who have been arrested for everything from DUIs to carjacking to sexual assaults. These jurisdictions have decided that allowing a foreign national to get away with violating our immigration laws is more important than public safety," he told Blaze News.
What jurisdictions have adopted sanctuary policies?
Many states, cities, and counties across the nation have adopted measures that prevent police from coordinating with federal immigration officials. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, as of April 12, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, and Washington have enacted sanctuary policies at the state level.
In Massachusetts, there are eight cities, including Boston, that have committed to shielding illegal migrants from ICE. The influx of new arrivals has caused the state's shelter system to become overwhelmed. A report published earlier this year by WBZ claimed that the state is spending roughly $64 per day to feed each migrant.
Additionally, Massachusetts is the only state in the nation with a "right to shelter" law that requires every homeless family to be provided with accommodations that include refrigeration and basic cooking facilities. Since many overflow shelters do not fulfill this requirement, the state has resorted to contracting third-party vendors to deliver food to migrants, the WBZ report found.
Paul Craney with Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance told Blaze News, "During her tenure as Massachusetts Attorney General, current Governor Maura Healey vigorously pursued the legal case which now actively prevents Massachusetts's local, county, and state law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration authorities. At the time, she hailed her win at the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court as 'a victory for the rule of law and smart immigration and criminal justice policies …'"
"The victims at the heart of the recent case in the town of Milford likely disagree with her statement," Craney stated, referring to an incident in which an illegal migrant was charged with child rape after a Massachusetts District Court ignored ICE's detainer request, releasing the man back out onto the street.
"The governor and the Massachusetts legislature have the power to fix this dangerous injustice whenever they feel so moved. Federal immigration authorities are tasked with keeping track of recent immigrants and are the organization most in the know as to which, if any, new arrivals may be a threat to the children, people, and property of the people of this country," he stated.
Craney argued that the state's sanctuary policies, which Healey (D) backed, are "actively harming the people of Massachusetts" and creating "a colossal waste in taxpayer money" by forcing ICE to exhaust more time and resources to locate and apprehend criminals.
"It's time for Governor Healey and the legislature to demonstrate that they have some modicum of compassion and empathy for the people being hurt by their inaction and fix the mess they've made," Craney told Blaze News.
Ferguson, an ICE spokesperson with the New York City Field Office, told Blaze News that the agency is hopeful the city's mayor, Eric Adams (D), will reform the current sanctuary policies that prevent the agency from working with local law enforcement.
"ERO New York City will continue to uphold its mission to protect the citizens of New York by removing threats to public safety. We always stand ready to work with our law enforcement partners without condition and welcome Mayor Adams' recent comments about opening the door to cooperation," Ferguson stated.
During a February town hall meeting, Adams said, "Those small numbers [of migrants] that have committed crimes, we need to modify the sanctuary city law that if you commit a felony or violent act, we should be able to turn you over to ICE and have you deported."
Adams has claimed that the city's current laws prevent him from removing migrants that have poured into the city over the last year.
Republican state lawmakers previously proposed legislation that, if passed, would effectively reverse New York City's sanctuary policies.
Canarsie Brooklyn NY \nDuring a Town Hall meeting, a resident raised his concerns over illegal scooters, @NYPDChiefPatrol John Chell states he heard those concerns by other residents and have been taking action and so far seized over 50k illegal scooters and cars off the streets,\u2026— (@)
Anything else?
Fabbricatore stated that migrants are incentivized to relocate to jurisdictions with sanctuary policies.
"Sanctuary policy definitely does not protect United States citizens; it protects criminal illegal aliens," Fabbricatore added. "A lot of these sanctuary cities say that they are protecting immigrants. Legal immigrants don't need protection from ICE because they're doing the right thing. ICE is not going after them. ICE normally goes after those who commit crimes inside the United States. So illegal aliens who, on top of being illegally here, have also committed crimes."
Feere stated that passing legislation that requires sanctuary jurisdictions to honor ICE detainer requests should be the Republican Party's "top priority." He called it "unacceptable" that conservative lawmakers have not already implemented such legislation.
"The issue of sanctuary jurisdictions has gone on for quite some time, and it's amazing to me that Congress hasn't put an end to the nonsense. We have had Congresses where the Republican Party was in control and yet there was not any effort to pass a bill that requires states to honor ICE detainers," he stated. "When you have a situation with states that are choosing to ignore the federal government, our country really starts to fall apart."
"It also frustrates me that the Department of Homeland Security has allowed this to go on as long as it has. There's a saying within DHS, which is that, 'We are one DHS,'" he continued, noting that ICE, Customs and Border Protection, Border Patrol, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Transportation Security Administration, and the Coast Guard are all under DHS.
"Why is it that the other agencies within the DHS continue to do business with these states that are undermining one of its sister agencies?" Feere questioned. "Shouldn't these agencies stick up for ICE? And explain to states like California, Massachusetts that you can't pick and choose which part of DHS you want to work with? Either you work with us all, or you don't."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Vermont lawmakers want fossil fuel companies to pay for damages caused by weather events: 'Climate Superfund'
The Vermont Senate voted 21-5 on Friday to advance the Climate Superfund Act, which would force fossil fuel companies to pay into a fund covering weather event-related damages.
If passed into law, Senate Bill 259 would create a "Climate Superfund Cost Recovery Program" to finance "climate change adaptive or resilience infrastructure projects" in Vermont.
"Under the Program, an entity or a successor in interest to an entity that was engaged in the trade or business of extracting fossil fuel or refining crude oil between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2019 would be assessed a cost recovery demand for the entity's share of fossil fuel extraction or refinement contributing to greenhouse gas-related costs in Vermont. An entity would only be assessed a cost recovery demand if the Agency determined that the entity's products were responsible for more than one billion metric tons of covered greenhouse gas emissions," the bill read.
The fund would be used to "avoid, moderate, repair, or adapt to negative impacts caused by climate change," such as "implementing nature-based solutions and flood protections; upgrading stormwater drainage systems; making defensive upgrades to roads, bridges, railroads, and transit systems; preparing for and recovering from extreme weather events; undertaking preventive health care programs and providing medical care to treat illness or injury caused by the effects of climate change."
Additionally, the program would cover the costs of relocating sewage treatment plants, installing cooling systems in public and private buildings, upgrading that state's electrical grid, addressing toxic algae blooms, and managing the loss of topsoil.
The legislation is sponsored by Sens. Anne Watson (D), Dick Sears Jr. (D), Christopher Bray (D), and 17 other Democratic senators.
According to Sears, the legislation is "built on the long-standing principle that the polluter pays," Mountain Times reported.
"The damage that fossil fuels are causing in our communities continues to grow, with flooding in the last year alone resulting in massive costs to our state," Sears claimed.
Sen. Nader Hashim (D) told lawmakers on Friday, "In order to remedy the problems created by washed out roads, downed electrical wires, damaged crops and repeated flooding, the largest fossil fuel entities that have contributed to climate change should also contribute to fixing the problem that they caused."
"We can place the burden on Vermont taxpayers or we can keep our fingers crossed that the federal government will help us or we can have fossil fuel companies pay their fair share," Hashim said.
Under the legislation, the Vermont state treasurer would provide a report detailing the cost imposed on residents as a result of the "emission of greenhouse gases for the period that began on January 1, 2000 and ended on December 31, 2019." The report would assess the impact of fossil fuels on public health, natural resources, agriculture, economic development, and flood preparedness.
The American Petroleum Institute stated that it opposes the bill and shared objections to the legislation in a letter to the state Senate last week, the Associated Press reported.
The group is concerned that the bill "retroactively imposes costs and liability on prior activities that were legal, violates equal protection and due process rights by holding companies responsible for the actions of society at large; and is preempted by federal law."
"Additionally, the bill does not provide potentially impacted parties with notice as to the magnitude of potential fees that can result from its passage," the API added.
Similar bills have also been introduced in Maryland, Massachusetts, and New York.
ExxonMobil did not respond to the AP's request for comment.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Today's top stories
freebeacon.com
www.theblaze.com
freebeacon.com