Proposed Immigration Law could stop the Separation of Families

Encarnacion Bail Romero, a native of Guatemala, was apprehended in a federal immigration raid in 2007 and torn from her then-seven-month son.

Romero had her parental rights terminated while in federal custody after a judge ruled “illegally smuggling herself into the country is not a lifestyle that can provide any stability for the child.”

She has not seen her son in five years.

U.S. Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA) relayed this mother’s story on the House floor last Thursday as an illustration of why there needs to be an immigration law to protect families who fall through the cracks in the country’s lack of comprehensive immigration reform.

“What this case and so many more like it tells us is that, in the U.S., immigration status in itself has become grounds to permanently separate families,” Roybal-Allard said. “This is absolutely, unquestionably inhumane and unacceptable — particularly for a country that values family and fairness so highly.”

Saying the child welfare system is “biased against undocumented caregivers,” Congresswoman Roybal-Allard introduced the “Help Separated Families Act” last week seeking to prohibit immigration status from disqualifying a parent, legal guardian, or relative from placement consideration.

“People, regardless of their immigration status, deserve to know that their children are cared for, and when possible, children should be able to remain under the care of a family relative instead of becoming a ward of the state,” she said.

Last year, two bills were introduced hoping to facilitate the process for family unification for parents who are undergoing deportation proceedings by requiring cooperation from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Considering the climate in Congress, immigration legislation continues at a standstill.

The Congresswoman’s staff told VOXXI Monday that the bill was formally introduced on Friday and that Roybal-Allard will be reaching out to members this week to gain support.

Yakelin Navidad, her son Nelson Jose, 4, husband Nelson and daughter Gabriela, 14 at a 2009 immigration reform rally to end workplace raids. (Photo by Shuttershock)

The bill would prohibit states from petitioning to terminate parental rights based on the deportation or detention of a parent if other conditions are met. The Congresswoman added that this would protect the legal rights of parents and prevent child welfare agencies from permanently separating children from their parents based on nothing other than immigration status.

More than 46,000 parents of U.S. citizen children were deported from the United States during the first six months of 2011, according to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. It is estimated that over 5,000 children in at least 22 states are currently living in foster care as a result of those immigration enforcement policies.

Roybal-Allard said she felt moved by the large number and it motivated her to move the legislation forward. Several other members of Congress have also denounced the administration’s deportation policies and could be supportive of her bill. In March, Congressional Hispanic Caucus members called the deportation rate of parents “completely unacceptable.”

Emily Butera, senior program officer at the detention and asylum program at the Women’s Refugee Commission, said oftentimes parents who are put in deportation proceedings can’t participate in their child welfare case because the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) won’t allow it.

“We meet a lot of parents that are desperately trying to participate,” Butera told VOXXI, explaining that rarely do they find parents who are not at risk of losing their child.

Butera believes the immigration status of a parent should not be made the sole reason to terminate parental rights. Although there’s been some progress made in terms of the administration’s prosecutorial discretion, implementation still needs to be addressed through the child welfare system because it’s “extremely difficult” for a parent in deportation to reunify with their child.

Sometimes, the parents are detained in a different state, they are allowed very few phone calls and language may also be a barrier.

“It would significantly reduce the unnecessary separation of families by making sure that immigration status does not unfairly impede (the process) in the child welfare system,” Butera told VOXXI, speaking about the bill.

The legislation would also encourage state child welfare agencies to grant waivers for requirements that would prevent a child from being placed with a relative on the basis of a minor legal infraction by the relative. There will also be a state plan requirement that would notify relatives seeking placement of a child that their immigration status will not be questioned.

Statement on Gun Control

Unlike about a dozen other states, Texas law does not ban high capacity magazines, does not place restrictions on gun shows, does not extend background checks to private transfers, does not require weapons be safely stored when possessed or transferred, and does not require waiting periods.

In 2011 there were 2600 gun deaths in the State of Texas and each year since then the number has increased and we are now at over 3200 gun deaths each year in Texas.

Guns are now the number 2 cause of accidental child death in Harris County here in Texas.
In regards to the number of gun owners in each state population, Texas is number 30 with 35.9% of the population owning a gun.

High-capacity magazines should be banned because they too often turn murder into mass murder. A Mother Jones investigation found that high-capacity magazines were used in at least 50% of the 62 mass shootings between 1982 and 2012. When high-capacity magazines were used in mass shootings, the death rate rose 63% and the injury rate rose 156%

Guns are rarely used in self-defense. Of the 29,618,300 violent crimes committed between 2007 and 2011:

1. 0.79% of victims (235,700) protected themselves with a threat of use or use of a firearm, the least-employed protective behavior.

2. Of the 84,495,500 property crimes committed between 2007 and 2011, 0.12% of victims (103,000) protected themselves with a threat of use or use of a firearm.

The US General Accounting Office (GAO) estimated that 100% of deaths per year in which a child under 6 years old shoots and kills him/herself or another child could be prevented by automatic child-proof safety locks.

According to a Pew Survey:

Only 1/3 of gun owners support permitless or “Constitutional” carry laws that allow people to carry concealed firearms in public without a permit. This is something the NRA is lobbying for.

82% of gun owners support banning gun purchases by people on terrorist watch lists.

71% favor creating a federal government database to track all gun sales.

68% favor banning assault-style weapons.

65% favor banning high-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

Among Americans overall, a majority (52%) would like to see stricter gun laws.

The NRA opposes all of these.

How many senseless acts of violence in our streets or tragedies in our communities will it take to get our nation to stop caving to special interests like the NRA when people are dying? We need to pass real gun control–laws that ban high-magazine weapons, increase licensing standards, and require fingerprinting for handgun purchasers.

Statement on Health Care

Today, we have the most expensive, inefficient, and bureaucratic health care system in the world. We spend almost $10,000 per capita each year on health care, while the Canadians spend $4,644, the Germans $5,551, the French $4,600, and the British $4,192. Meanwhile, our life expectancy is lower than most other industrialized countries and our infant mortality rates are much higher.

Further, as of last September, 28 million Americans were uninsured and millions more under-insured with premiums, deductibles, and co-payments that are too high. We also pay, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs.

The ongoing failure of our health care system is directly attributable to the fact that it is largely designed not to provide quality care in a cost-effective way, but to make maximum profits for health insurance companies, the pharmaceutical industry, and medical equipment suppliers. That has got to change. We need to guarantee health care for all. We need to do it in a cost-effective way. We need a Medicare-for-all health care system in the U.S.

Our dysfunctional health care system is not only causing unnecessary suffering and financial stress for millions of poor and middle-class families, it is also having a very negative impact on our economy and the business community—especially small- and medium-sized businesses. Private businesses spent $637 billion on private health insurance in 2015 and are projected to spend $1.059 trillion in 2025.

Why as a nation are we spending more than 17% of our GDP on health care, while nations that we compete with provide health care for all of their people at 9, 10, or 11% of their GDP?

Eliminating the for-profit private insurance system will save at least $600.8 billion per year in administrative costs plus outpatient prescription drug costs, according to Annals of Internal Medicine. Doctor and hospital staff negotiating with health insurance company staffs overcharges, tests, etc.? Gone. With no premiums, there would be new, modest taxes based on one’s ability to pay. And 95 percent of families would save money compared with the current system.

The Commonwealth Fund’s 2014 report on international health system efficiency ranks the United States last of 11 developed nations on measures such as quality of care, access to care, the efficiency of care and equity of care.

Yes, this would most likely mean new taxes but it also means the end of premiums, the end of deductibles, the end of copays, and it means never having to deal with another medical bill again. If you are spending more on taxes, but your premiums go down more than you’re spending in taxes, then you’re benefiting.

One other matter – a single-payer program is not socialism. Doctors, clinics and hospitals are free to practice medicine as they know best. A single-payer approach is simply a better financial way to fund health care in this country.

Statement on Energy

The wind energy industry currently employs over 100,000 full-time-equivalent employees in a variety of capacities, including manufacturing, project development, construction, and turbine installation, operations and maintenance, transportation and logistics, and financial, legal, and consulting services. One of the fastest-growing occupations is a Wind Turbine Technician with a median salary of $51,000.

The State of Texas currently has over 12,000 wind turbines with plenty of room to grow.

Other renewable energy technologies employ even more workers. According to a report from the U.S. Department of Energy, solar power employed 43 percent of the Electric Power Generation sector’s workforce in 2016, while fossil fuels combined accounted for just 22 percent. This included people on a part-time or full-time basis, including jobs in solar installation, manufacturing, and sales.

Solar energy added 73,615 new jobs to the U.S. economy in 2016 while wind added a further 24,650.

In addition to the jobs directly created in the renewable energy industry, growth in the renewable energy industry creates positive economic “ripple” effects. For example, industries in the renewable energy supply chain will benefit, and unrelated local businesses will benefit from increased household and business incomes.

In addition to creating new jobs, increasing our use of renewable energy offers other important economic development benefits. Wind and solar power are more predictable; the prices don’t fluctuate like oil and gas. So, a municipality can sign a contract today and know what the bill is going to be for the next 25 years.

Local governments collect property and income taxes and other payments from renewable energy project owners. These revenues can help support vital public services, especially in rural communities where projects are often located. Owners of the land on which wind projects are built also often receive lease payments ranging from $3,000 to $6,000 per megawatt of installed capacity, as well as payments for power line easements and road rights-of-way. Or they may earn royalties based on the project’s annual revenues. Similarly, farmers and rural landowners can generate new sources of supplemental income by producing feedstocks for biomass power facilities.

A Union of Concerned Scientists analysis found that a 25% by 2025 national renewable electricity standard would stimulate $263.4 billion in new capital investment for renewable energy technologies, $13.5 billion in new landowner income biomass production and/or wind land lease payments, and $11.5 billion in new property tax revenue for local communities.

Renewable energy projects, therefore, keep money circulating within the local economy, and in most states, renewable electricity production would reduce the need to spend money on importing coal and natural gas from other places. Texas alone spends over 1 billion on net coal import.

In the end, renewable energy is new jobs, lower bills, and a cleaner planet.


Equality in Hong Kong is Bad

There have been many explanations for the turmoil in Hong Kong, which is now entering its 16th week. However, what has not been touched on is a matter of the strong relationship between the business and political elite in the city, and the highly lame system of government.

In explaining the source of the unrest in Hong Kong, predictably, many leaders blame the liberal sciences in schools. Policymakers find it hard to believe that students can have the ability to understand critically about politics and society – especially active participation.

On the other hand, the anger of the demonstrators was directed mostly to the governments of China and Hong Kong, especially Chief Executive Carrie Lam. Lam’s actions – with a stubborn bureaucratic attitude – made the situation worse, so did the actions of the police who were once praised “Best in Asia” and the Chinese authorities.

All of these actions have hardened the local identity that became increasingly clear to the demonstrators as the turmoil continued.

Moreover, the feeling of mutual hatred has been so severe that it seems unlikely that anyone will back down. In recent weeks escalation seems easier.

Hopeless without hope

However, the most likely explanation for this turmoil is not the educational curriculum or the influence of Beijing, but the state of the government and the people of Hong Kong itself.

The opposite of the image the hk pools government wants to display – namely obedience to the law and a very good business environment – the city has actually been rotting for decades

First, Hong Kong has experienced a “loss” – a situation when an industry is gone and nothing is replaced – as experienced by other industrialized countries.

They find it difficult to move to public housing. “Nano apartments” which are sized as matchboxes are the only choice for many people, and many flats are inhabited by families until there are children and grandchildren.

Hong Kong youths, who grew up with golden tycoon stories such as Li Ka Shing (who is fondly called “Superman”) also face a bleak future because they are trapped in low-paying, menial jobs.

Why don’t the demonstrators focus on the business elite

Although some of the richest people in the region have voiced support for the government, very few demonstrators expressed anger at the elite economic group.

This proves the strength of the myth of the origins of modern Hong Kong and how rich Hong Kong is considered good. There is a kind of respect for the tycoons in this city, coupled with a lack of class consciousness and dislike that is embedded in anything that seems politically “left”.

Although universal political rights are the main demand of the demonstrators, this demand is more related to the election of the chief executive, not to the structure of government itself.

Rebuilding hopes and cities

The efforts of young people to shape a better future should be appreciated. But, for Hong Kong to have a positive future, this city needs a large-scale economic and political transformation.

Political rights are part of this transformation, but that is not enough. The question for Hong Kong is whether the demonstrators and other community members understand what needs to be done thoroughly and whether they are able to move together to make it happen.


What Disaster hit Portland?

Earl Blumenauer brought MAX train to Portland and created congestion on purpose. Does he find congestion exciting, or is this part of the master plan to get everyone to take the train and bus? Click this link and judge for yourself:

A report portlandfacts shows how congestion harms many stores, who go out of business or barely hang on with the minimum staff to survive, boosting Oregon’s unemployment rate, already among the highest in the nation. Portland is near the top of the “Urban Misery Index,” up there with New Orleans, which is still recovering from the epic Katrina hurricane.

The disaster that hit Portland was Earl Blumenauer’s transportation policies. Buses are far less expensive, and much more responsive to traveler’s needs, than any train. Portland has squandered untold millions on trains and will squander millions more forever in subsidies. Buses are more energy-efficient and go to more places, with more convenient locations. Trains are so expensive that they crowd out spending on bus lines. In San Francisco and Los Angeles, the building of the train systems increased costs so much they had to cut back on bus routes. Even after spending millions on trains, bus ridership has not returned to pre-train levels. Fewer people there use public transportation now than rode the buses then!

When factoring in energy use to build the lines, trains actually use more energy per passenger mile than cars. The increased energy used in producing a typical system would take 172 years to recoup! Using diesel or propane buses decreases greenhouse gases for those that consider this a problem, far less than trains powered by fossil fuels in most areas. Cities that genuinely want to reduce greenhouse gases should instead invest in simple, cost-effective congestion reduction techniques, such as traffic signal coordination. The Federal Highway Administration says that three out of four traffic signals are not properly coordinated with other nearby signals. A 2003 signal coordination project in San Jose, California, is saving motorists 471,000 gallons of fuel per year. At $2 per gallon, the savings more than paid for the project in the first year. Gas prices are now around $3 per gallon, making the savings even larger. Not only that, but idling cars in traffic jams is a major cause of pollution. Such a simple, but logical and proven way to save money, reduce congestion, and lower pollution is the exact opposite approach implemented by Earl Blumenauer. What did he do to reduce congestion? Why, widen sidewalks, of course.

The traffic is bad in Portland because the planners wanted it that way! They want to make your commute extra-long and frustrating in the hopes that you’ll pack up your family and move to a small apartment downtown. It has never worked out to their satisfaction, but they’ll keep trying until you’re so fed up you’ll move or your employer will move. But they won’t move downtown. They’ll move to another state. The reason a new interstate bridge with more lanes has not been added is due to this romantic attachment to trains and a false nostalgia of happy village life that trains would supposedly foster.

The idea that a train would bring development has been repeatedly proven wrong. Portland Rezoned areas along the MAX and waited ten years. No development occurred. They then gave tax exemptions to builders. Now development occurred, but it decreased the money available for schools, firemen, police, etc. They are now trying to expand the train system and looking at closing Jefferson and Benson High Schools. It seems to me they are closing schools to pay for more light rail.

For many people, the train, an eighteenth-century innovation, is not a viable or practical option. Those with disabilities, parents with small children, and those going to places not served by train end up subsidizing the few who do ride the rails. Buses are not chained to a track and can be used on any road, can stop on any corner, and provide easy access to people who need transportation. Bus schedules can be easily adjusted to meet increased demand and high traffic hours. Several lanes of roads can be built for the cost of just one track, and the annual maintenance is much less. Why would anyone decide to pay ten times more for something that does not provide as many benefits? Is it romance and nostalgia for a time that never was? Is it “sustainability” or “livability?” What is sustainable or liveable about high unemployment, homelessness, hunger, closing schools, or cutting services? Are tax exemptions for the politically connected and pork projects funneling money to campaign coffers sustainable? Visit this website for more.

People have voted against the train system repeatedly. Our elected officials do not care what we want. The only way to get them to care is to vote them out of office.

I have chosen to enter this race at great cost and personal sacrifice.  If you too want to end the erosion of our rights, our prosperity, and our constitution, won’t you join in supporting my campaign?  If you can afford the maximum donation of $2400 that would be greatly appreciated.  But even if you can afford only $10 or even $5, that too will be appreciated and used for maximum effect.

And if you can not afford the money, please give of your time.  We can always use more volunteers.  I can not do it alone, I need your help.  We may be fast approaching the end of the time that we can turn things around.  So if you can afford the money, give what you can.  If you can afford the time, give off that also.  But whatever you decide to do, remember the words of a great American statesman, who said, “let it not be said that we chose to do nothing.”

Government protection?

Like Cap and Tax, which will guarantee higher energy bills while lining a few people’s pockets and improving the environment, how? S. 510 will further drive up the costs of living by adding more layers of bureaucracy on food production – ensuring you pay more to meet an essential need.


Congress certainly won’t be the one tightening its belt.  Section 401 of S. 510 authorizes nearly $1 billion to grow the FDA’s reach and calls for almost 4,000 new bureaucrats to be hired in the fiscal year 2010 alone.

This onerous new law will apply harshly to reputable food producers like the independent family farm, where the free market works every day to provide the public with healthy choices.

Meanwhile, Big Agriculture will continue to use its well-entrenched connections to make sure it escapes serious scrutiny.

The statists have worked to replace “credible evidence” with “reasonable probability” in the U.S. Code, giving the FDA power to invade, quarantine, or shut down private property in search of any foodborne illness.

They also changed “presents a threat of serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals” to “is adulterated or misbranded.”  What exactly constitutes adulterated?  That glass of raw milk?  An FDA bureaucrat will decide. It gets worse.

The bill also grants blanket authority for federal agencies to impose international guidelines and standards on domestic food producers – giving agencies the authority to harmonize all American food production and processes in line with the globalist Codex.

Big Brother and Big Agriculture are combating the truly modern way to improve food safety by targeting the rapidly growing number of food producers who, through the free market, provide diversity and give us choices.

The establishment is pushing for more consolidation and is looking to control your food choices to make it happen. Don’t stomach another round of tyranny. Please help us get more freedom, less government regulation, message out by donating to our radio blitz fundraiser. Thank you to those of you that already have.

This is a bipartisan effort to remove control freaks from our seat in Washington DC, Rasmussen Polls have shown that for all the lamestream media attacks 41% of the Tea Party Patriots are Democrats and 49% are Republicans. Americans that want the government to do the job we created them to do, Protect our Rights! We the people need to regain control.

Thank you

Delia Lopez

We will be having a Delia Lopez for Congress Radiothon Fundraiser on Sept. 16th, 9 am to 9 pm Eastern time Listen in Call in 505-715-6522 Michael Badnarik, Sheriff Mack, Frantz Kebreau and Frank Anderson are among the already confirmed guests.





So starts the greatest document ever written the declaration of Independence. So much is said in just those 182 words. A bold statement that turned the world on its’ head. Until this time most government’s focus was on a king. The king was thought to be in some way divine, above all other people and everything belonged to him. His subjects could live on his land if they paid their annual duty. If they fought in his military if needed to extend his throne or protect his interests. If they were not caught saying anything against the king. Our founding fathers followed the Bible as a guide. Thomas Jefferson was a biblical scholar and noted that when the Israelites followed the instructions within their country they prospered and when they did not, the people suffered. He noted the Saxons among others also followed the biblical guidelines for governing people with the same results. He was a wise man who studied history and learned from it. Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and we are!

The idea that all men are created by a creator, and given rights by the creator that are inalienable which means they can not be taken away from the person, by anyone at any time or for any reason! The idea that men created governments to secure those rights! Protect man’s rights to life, to liberty and to pursue happiness. The duty of government is to protect the rights of the individual, that is the reason for its creation and when it fails to do that, the people have the right to abolish it. That legitimate governments only exist by the consent of the governed. Our constitution was written very precisely to limit the power of government, to protect the rights of the people. The Federal government was to be especially restrained because the government closest to the problem is most efficient and the people are better able to maintain control. Our founding fathers knew that governments had violated the rights of men more so than other individual men ever could. Thomas Jefferson said, “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”

The separation of powers was of huge importance in keeping the government from growing into a tyrannical monster. As Thomas Jefferson stated, “When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.” They set up three separate sources of power the representative branch to follow the will of the people, the senate to maintain the power of the states. The judicial was to hold the line when those two houses overstepped their constitutional limitations. The 17th amendment to the constitution fundamentally altered our form of government and has shifted power away from the states.

We declared our independence in 1776 and already by 1798 Thomas Jefferson was authoring the Virginia resolution A small excerpt is here “ That the General Assembly doth also express its deep regret, that a spirit has in sundry instances, been manifested by the federal government, to enlarge its powers by forced constructions of the constitutional charter which defines them; and that implications have appeared of a design to expound certain general phrases” As our federal government has increased its’ power and overstepped its constitutional boundaries our representatives have discovered a way to benefit themselves at our expense. To use campaign donations to benefit the politically connected. Every time in history when the government powers expand a two-class system develops the peasants (people) and the politically connected. Even now government employees are earning on average twice what the people paying their salaries to earn, add in benefits and the discrepancy is worse.

Companies now lobby Congress for tax exceptions, laws and regulations to benefit themselves and harm the competition. The free market system has always produced the greatest amount of wealth and prosperity in any nation it exists in. We have not had a free market system in this nation for 100 years. Free market economies produce a vibrant middle class, an environment where an individual starting with nothing can work hard and move up in the economic levels of society. In government-run systems, the rich get richer and the poor poorer and the middle class is non-existent. This is the direction our nation is heading our middle class is shrinking at an alarming rate and the earnings of the middle class are being taken and given to the very rich through bailouts and the poor with “welfare systems” our governments’ tax system is utilized to benefit those that can donate to campaigns. Companies now lobby Congress to get regulations enacted that will harm their competitors, or get tax breaks for themselves, again harming competition and killing anything close to a free market.

We must retake congress, remove the power from the federal realm to benefit any corporation. We created this government to secure our rights. The constitution was written to limit the power of government especially the federal government. We must work to return the checks and balances that have been destroyed over the years and return our government to the Republic of limited power it originated as. Ben Franklin’s answer “A Republic if you can keep it” is more than a little prophetic. We have lost it and must now work to restore our Republic.