Those who merely received the offensive texts need to be protecting us; DA must release all pages of texts

By Allen D. Payton

It’s time the Antioch Police officers caught up in the scandal of racist and other offensive texts who merely received but didn’t send any of the texts got back to work. With 35 sworn officers currently on paid administrative leave in both the FBI and DA investigation from last year and those included in the text scandal this year, that’s more than one-third of the current officers on the force.  The understaffing is putting us all at risk. In addition, for the purpose of transparency, the Contra Costa District Attorney’s Office needs to release all pages of the texts so the public can read what was sent and the context.

As of June 12th, there were 98 sworn officers on staff with the department out of 115 authorized in the budget, and 49 on full duty. That’s 0.43 officers per 1,000 on duty. The goal has been 1.2 officers per 1,000 for the past 25 years, which has never been achieved. Minimally we should have 1.0 officers per 1,000 population.

The officers in the text scandal have been on leave for about three months and the investigation has been under way for almost two months – leaving our community less protected and less safe.

Those officers who didn’t send any of the offensive texts, but merely received them and didn’t respond – which is most of them – should have been interviewed, first during the investigation. Unless other information has been discovered during the process, those officers need to be cleared and put back to work protecting Antioch residents and businesses.

For example, as previously reported, on Independence Day, Tuesday, July 4th it took officers an hour to respond to a dangerous sideshow at the intersection of Lone Tree Way and Blue Rock Drive/Golf Course Road because those on duty were dealing with two shootings on the other side of town. In addition, according to a Con Fire spokesman, an ambulance transporting someone to a local hospital had to be diverted around the sideshow. Fortunately, it didn’t have an impact on the patient. But minutes can make a difference in saving someone’s life.

All 35 officers should not be fired, as Mayor Lamar Thorpe twice wrote should happen immediately, first on May 19 then again on June  12, Mayor Pro Tem Tamisha Torres-Walker wrote on May 18 and other members of the public have called for. That’s irresponsible and dangerous for our city with a population of over 115,000 residents. Besides, the council members have no say in which officer will or won’t be fired and it’s out of their area of responsibility to call for such a thing, and merely pandering to the public and grandstanding. Frankly, the council members’ calls for the termination of all officers involved could serve to undermine the effort to terminate some of the officers and give them a legal argument that it was done due to political pressure.

The councilmembers know or at least should know better, and that the City must follow the Skelly Hearing disciplinary process and the investigation must be done in accordance with the California Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act.

As the East Bay Times’ Editorial Board wrote, “they are entitled to due process. Not all of them have equal culpability. And if their rights are not respected, the city risks undermining the ongoing criminal and internal affairs investigations into their behavior, which would set back the quest for racial justice. Which is why City Council members, especially Mayor Lamar Thorpe, need to step back and let investigators do their work — and stop making politically charged comments that could jeopardize the outcome.”

As I wrote in April, those in APD leadership who received the texts, as a form of discipline for not paying attention to what the officers they were in charge of were doing, need to be demoted. But they should still be put back to work, also.

The focus of the council, police department and investigators must be two-fold: one, terminating and/or disciplining the guilty officers, and two, keeping Antioch safe.

DA Must Release All Pages of Texts

It’s also time the DA’s office released all the pages of the texts to clear up the claims that the the two reports by the D.A. Office’s Inspector Wallace were “misleading and distorted” according to the APOA’s attorney, and the texts included were cherry picked and edited, so the public can see the context in which they were all written. (See related articles here and here)

One text message specifically in question is the following: On 04/24/2020, at 5:49 p.m., APD Sgt. Josh Evans text APD Officer Amiri, “I’ll bury that n****r in my fields.” APD Officer Amiri laughed at the above comment.

A Public Records Act request by this news organization was made on April 27 and denied on May 2.

Deputy District Attorney Sophea Nop denied the request claiming “these records are exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act pursuant to GC (Government Code) §7923.6000(a) and §7927.705.”

According to law.justia.com, the first section referenced “does not require the disclosure of records of complaints to, or investigations conducted by, or records of intelligence information or security procedures of, the office of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, the Office of Emergency Services and any state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local agency for correctional, law enforcement, or licensing purposes.” The second section referenced “does not require disclosure of records, the disclosure of which is exempted or prohibited pursuant to federal or state law, including, but not limited to, provisions of the Evidence Code relating to privilege.”

Nop was informed that those close to Sgt. Evans have said that his text was taken out of context and was in response to a joke about another officer being with Evans’ wife in their yard and Evans was referring to that make believe officer who doesn’t actually exist.

She was then asked to at least provide the complete text exchange between Amiri and Evans prior to that message which was included in the first report.

Nop was asked via email, “How can the public know the context of some of the messages – which officers and others are claiming were taken out of context – if the complete text message exchanges are not provided?” She did not respond.

While I don’t believe it will change much regarding the outcome for the five or six officers who sent the offensive texts and are being sued, for the purpose of transparency, all the texts in their original form must be released.

All pages of the texts are expected to be made available to attorneys representing the officers during the discovery phase of the lawsuit. Perhaps at that time they will also be made available to this and other news organizations for the public to read.

Editor:

Our “new normal” seems to require acceptance of crime.

California’s Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (prop. 47) served to decriminalize theft below $950 and embolden thieves. 

Politically correct society now pretends: a) criminals don’t exist; b) criminal acts aren’t in fact criminal: or worse, c) criminals are actually victims; and d) unhoused persons don’t commit crime.

Case in point: Slatten Ranch has a large homeless encampment behind the fence near Target. This fence has openings to allow foot traffic. Occasionally the tents get removed, but they always come back.

Target combats theft by storing products in locked cases (inconvenient, much?), but shoppers need to beware, too. Cars should be parked in a visible place with any valuables hidden from view. Cyclists can just expect to have their bikes stolen. There is no real security, just a disclaimer that stores are not responsible for customers’ lost or stolen property.

Certainly, we can choose to avoid shopping at places that become too slum-like, but the real issue is the amount of lawlessness our community accepts.

Who is in charge? How long before people say enough is enough?

Annie Ray

Antioch

The five remaining Antioch Police Officers being sued in the racist text scandal must resign or be fired

It’s a sad, frustrating, embarrassing and difficult time in Antioch, right now. People are angry, want something done, especially our Black residents and rightfully so. The people of our city must have accountability from those paid to protect us and assurances that the racist and offensive texts sent by several Antioch Police officers will never happen again. Plus, our community needs healing. But things need to be done in a way that is fair to all concerned. (See related articles here and here)

The scandal is the real-life fulfillment of what’s written in the Bible verse, Numbers 23:32, “you may be sure that your sin will find you out.” After reading the texts sent on their personal cell phones and reading the federal lawsuit against them, it’s clear that one officer in particular, and four others should resign immediately to start that healing process and if they’re ever going to be considered men of integrity, again in their lives. Furthermore, they need to find another career path, seek counseling and guidance to become better human beings, be required to publicly ask the forgiveness of the people they texted about, as well as of the people of Antioch that they were sworn to protect, not cost us taxpayers any additional money on investigations, salaries or benefits, and not embarrass us any further. If they don’t quit, they must be fired as soon as the investigation is completed.

Clearly, the worst of them is Officer Eric Rombough, followed by Sergeant Josh Evans and Officer Morteza Amiri, as well as Officers John Ramirez and Scott Duggar, plus Timothy Manley Williams, who already quit in 2021. It’s no surprise they’re the officers listed in the lawsuit filed last week as they clearly have the most culpability. What they wrote is so disgusting, the fact they found humorous injuring suspects and violating their rights is horrendous, and offering a reward to anyone who would shoot, even with a non-lethal weapon, to injure a sitting city council member is horrific.

Others, including Sgt. James Stenger and Detective Robert Gerber, need to be demoted as a form of discipline within the department for their responses to the texts and not doing what was necessary to stop them. Sgt. Jimmy Wisecarver retired last November, so he can’t face any discipline for his part in commenting on the texts and apparently not doing anything to stop them.

To be fair to the officers, the texts in the two reports were clearly cherry-picked by the DA’s Office Investigator out of all the pages of text messages. (The Herald requested them on Thursday, April 27, 2023. They have 10 days to respond.) Since some mistakes have been found in the two reports, any and all texts between officers during the timeframe of September 2019 through April 2022 should be released. Plus, we should know if there are any texts from any of the department leaders telling the officers to stop what they were doing.

The officers who remain in the department must hold each other accountable, as well – be the first check and balance on the misbehavior and bad attitudes of other officers. They need to remember who pays their very generous salaries and benefits and who they are hired to serve – we the people!

But not all of the 44 APD officers named in the reports, including 13 to 15 remaining department leaders who received the texts, should be fired, nor should they lose their pensions. Nor does the department need the U.S. Attorney General or his Department of Justice to provide oversight. All such demands by officials and residents are a serious and unnecessary overreach. The politicians need to help calm things down and be voices of reason, instead of further stirring up emotions trying to appear sympathetic and pander to certain audiences to get votes.

For most of the others included in the text threads, there’s been an overreaction, specifically blowing out of proportion one text message sent by Antioch Police Officers Association president Rick Hoffman, who is also a sergeant in the department. He merely made fun of one of his fellow officers who claimed he was called a racist. Hoffman didn’t write any texts that were racist or offensive about any citizen.

Here’s that exchange:

On 05/04/2020, At 8:59 p.m., APD Sgt. Josh Evans text, “Kardell’s mom was yelling how we shot and killed someone today. That rumor getting around quick.”

At 9:00 p.m., APD Sgt. Jimmy Wisecarver text, “Laughed.” APD Sgt. Evans replies, “That was right after she called me a racist as cop….” APD Officer Rick Hoffman laughed at the above listed comment and stated, “Well she has a point.

——————–

While he and other leaders and officers were included in some of the group text threads, to be fair, how can they be held accountable for something they received, and didn’t respond to, as they may have not read those texts?

Ask yourself if you’ve ever been part of group text threads, group chats in Facebook Messenger or even participated in comments made below the post by someone else or yourself on Facebook or Twitter and may not have seen and read all the texts or comments. Just because somebody included you doesn’t mean you took the time to read what the others wrote. I know I’ve been included in text threads, in Facebook Messenger groups and in posts on Facebook, including my own posts, and haven’t had time to read all the texts or comments nor did I respond to all of them. Maybe I’ll respond to only one or two texts, or even a thread of comments under my own Facebook posts. But who has time to read all of them? I know I don’t. So, how can I or anyone be held accountable for something somebody else wrote that you or I didn’t even see, read or respond to? We can’t. Nor should any of the officers who merely were on the receiving end of one or more of the texts. Lumping all the officers into one group of the guilty is wrong, irresponsible and unfair.

Furthermore, had annual reviews been done for each officer – which haven’t been done for anyone in the department since 2017 – the texts sent or received using their personal cell phones would not have been included. So, the leadership would never have known about them anyway. So, that’s a non-issue as far as the text scandal is concerned. But I believe some of the leaders had to know at least the content of some of the texts and didn’t do enough to stop them.

There are what are referred to as sins of commission and sins of omission. While those leaders who received the texts may not have committed any wrongdoing because they didn’t send out any texts, they are guilty of either not doing what they should by reading the texts to know what those who serve under them were sharing or if they did, not doing something or enough to stop it. There’s only one text referenced in the reports in which one officer said to another that one of the leaders, Sergeant Matt Koch told them to knock it off.

The second report reads, On March 31, 2021 At 3:11 p.m., APD Officer Adams texted…“Haha. I forgot that Koch wanted us to stop sending dumb sh-t. Oops.” (a comment that Rombough “laughed” at)

——————–

As for Hoffman, he needs to be a good leader, fall on his sword and at least resign as APOA president for his sins of omission. Because as a sergeant, some of the officers, including Rombough, served under him.

But let’s all slow down a bit, and for all but the five officers still with the department who are listed in the lawsuit, let the investigations be completed before passing judgment. Everybody who screwed up needs to be held accountable however they can be, and that includes those in the Antioch Police Department, as well as the DAs office. That includes disciplining the staff members who merely semi-redacted the first report revealing officers’ phone numbers and the names of the officers included in the FBI investigation as well as the charges they’re facing, as well as to whom the redacted reports were sent and by whom. (See related article)

New Personal Cell Phone Use Prohibition Policy Must Be Implemented

According to Chief Ford, a new policy was implemented last year regarding use of personal cell phones and a restriction on the discussion of police business including suspects with anyone outside of the department. But he said officers can still use their personal cell phones, not just their department issued cell phones, while on duty. I believe that’s wrong, and a new policy must be implemented prohibiting the use of personal cell phones while on duty, and only on their lunch and other breaks, except in a family emergency. I don’t know what other employees are allowed to use their personal cell phones when they’re at work. Officers shouldn’t either. They should be focused on police work and only use their department issued phones while on the job.

Let’s be clear the racist and offensive texts are wrong, horrible, vile, offensive and hurtful whether they were sent on personal cell phones or not. They were egregious, shocking and the entire thing is embarrassing to those of us who live and/or have a business in Antioch and no doubt to the officers who had nothing to do with sending or receiving the texts, and I’m sure to many who merely received the texts and didn’t read them. The bottom line is the five remaining officers named in the lawsuit must be fired and frankly, if they’re going to demonstrate any kind of remorse, responsibility, maturity and respect for the residents of Antioch, resign immediately. Rombough and Co. have to go. That’s what’s necessary to improve the department and begin healing our community. Please join me in praying for that to occur.

Our Neighborhood Voices, a growing statewide coalition of communities, claims the bill is a permanent extension of SB 35, gives developers unlimited ability to develop nearly anything, anywhere in California

California lawmakers recently introduced legislation that would permanently strip local communities of nearly all important land use decisions. While the legislation – SB 423 – is touted as a tool to solve our affordable housing crisis, local elected leaders say that the legislation undermines local democracy by removing the ability of communities to plan and prepare for what is built in their neighborhoods. It also can accelerate damaging ‘Builders Remedy’ projects across the state that see massive projects built in residential neighborhoods without adequate planning for water, schools, transit, safety fire danger and other priorities.

SB 423 also removes vital protections in our Coastal Zones – something no other housing bill has dared to do. Californians have consistently supported protecting our coasts – this bill removes many of those protections forever.

“I was hoping SB 423 might be a tool to help us solve our affordable housing crisis, but it is not,” said Susan Candell, Lafayette City Councilmember. “Instead, it is the state’s final end game to undermine local democracy in cities and counties, and unleash unlimited development, including the ‘Builders Remedy,’ even in our treasured coastal zones.”

SB 423 can potentially release the ‘Builders Remedy’ where developers can just about build anything, anywhere. SB 423 is a permanent extension of SB 35 – a 2018 law that forces local governments to approve certain developments under a streamlined process if they fail to build, not just approve, but build enough housing to meet their Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers. Complex interactions with many other bills lead cities again to be subject to the ‘Builders Remedy’ in 2025 for Southern California and 2027 in Northern California.

The RHNA numbers – which are set every eight years – “laid out impossible goals this cycle,” explains Jovita Mendoza, Brentwood City Councilmember. “Virtually no cities or counties will be able to meet their RHNA numbers. Cities and counties are now set up to fail, and as a result, local governments will lose their ability to have a say about what gets built in our communities. Instead, under SB 423, that approval process will be turned over to developers permanently.”

Coastal zones have been protected from profit-driven overdevelopment since the passage of the California Coastal Act of 1976. This new proposed legislation would virtually undo decades of work to protect California’s coastlines.

“Now local oversight, those who are the stewards of the coastal zone, is removed. Instead, those decisions are handed over to developers and their allies in Sacramento. We all know we need affordable housing in every part of California, but this bill drastically reduces the required affordable units,” said Redondo Beach City Councilmember Nils Nehrenheim.

Our Neighborhood Voices is a non-partisan coalition of residents and elected officials from every corner of California who believe that land use decisions should be determined by local communities and their elected leaders – not one-size-fits-all laws from Sacramento and for-profit developers.

To get these important questions in front of voters, Our Neighborhood Voices is organizing to qualify a citizen-led ballot initiative that would protect the ability of local communities to adopt laws that shape local growth, preserve the character of neighborhoods, and require developers to produce more affordable housing and contribute to the costs associated with it.

By Joe Guzzardi, Project for Immigration Reform

Within less than 72-hours, President Joe Biden bailed out the Silicon Valley Bank and the equally insolvent Signature Bank. The banks’ abrupt failures caused a withdrawal rush on other banks across the nation that Social Science Research Network analysts fear could force nearly 200 depositories to shut their doors. Even insured depositors – those with $250,000 or less in the bank – could have problems withdrawing their cash if these institutions faced the same run-on cash that Silicon Valley experienced a week ago.

The hastily contrived plan included providing SVB’s depositors with access to all their funds, effectively averting painful financial uncertainty and the threat of heavy losses for thousands of venture-backed startups. Signature Bank, which had followed SVB into insolvency, received the same guarantee.

More important, the Federal Reserve will provide a massive lifeline to the nation’s banks that would assure that similarly reckless lenders have access to funds that would keep them afloat and, hopefully, subdue any growing nationwide panic. Biden has since called for Congress to impose stiff penalties on executives at mid-sized banks whose ineptitude leads to bank collapse.

In short, the administration’s bailout plan handed SVB a blank check to cover all its depositors who not coincidentally are mainly Bay Area venture capitalists, Biden’s donor and voter base. All accounts are now covered with FDIC insurance, even those above the $250,000 limit. S&P Global, which provides intelligence and assessments to worldwide corporations, found that tech companies had $151.6 billion in uninsured deposits at SVB, or 93.9 percent of the company’s total holdings.

The SVB fallout has been headlines since Day One; the story is evolving. But, behind the scenes, the Biden administration is working feverishly to grant more favors to his tech pals. The tech industry, led by Lyft, Meta, Twitter and Amazon, has fired at least 150,000 workers. Among those laid off were foreign workers in the U.S. on temporary H-1B visas. The visa allows for a grace period of up to 60 days for those laid off to find another employer sponsor or they must return home. Before coming to the U.S., each H-1B visa employee knew and agreed to the guidelines which included the possibility that, if laid off and unable to find another job, they would have to leave.

Suddenly, however, the H-1B visa’s reasonable conditions are unfair and unacceptable. Led by Biden’s 25-member Advisory Commission on Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders, lobbying to extend the job search period from 60 to 180 days has intensified. The Immigration and Citizenship Status Subcommittee’s final recommendations included not only extending the 60-day time allotment, but also granting the foreign nationals employment authorization documents (EAD), and travel permits to those who have approved I-40 employment documents in the E-1, E-2 and E-3 categories, and have waited in the immigrant visa backlog for five years, regardless of whether they’re able to file for adjustment of status applications.

To have meaning, immigration laws must be adhered to, enforced and not changed to satisfy the whims of special interests. Distributing EADs, mostly to Indians, before green cards become available would incentivize more foreign nationals to flood the immigration sponsorship program and increase the years-long backlog.

The tech layoff – with more to come – should provide employment opportunities for U.S. workers, displaced or denied opportunities for more than three decades since Congress created the H-1B visa in the Immigration Act of 1990. Instead, U.S. tech jobseekers will have to compete with the recent 85,000 H-1B visa winners in the just-completed 2023 lottery, and the recipients of the administration’s pending green card giveaway largess.

Consistent with its open border policy that puts migrants first, the Biden administration ignores U.S. tech workers’ needs and protects legally deportable aliens even though settled immigration law calls for their removal.

Big tech’s insistence that it needs an ever-higher H-1B total has always been suspect. But this year, with massive industry layoffs, the lottery should have been canceled. Furthermore, circumventing immigration laws to create more loopholes for fired H-1Bs, as the expansion lobby is doing, is indefensible.

ABOUT JOE GUZZARDI

Joe Guzzardi is a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist who writes about immigration and related social issues. Joe joined Project for Immigration Reform in 2018 as an analyst after a ten-year career directing media relations for Californians for Population Stabilization, where he also was a Senior Writing Fellow. A native Californian, Joe now lives in Pennsylvania.

 

By Andrei Iancu and David Kappos

Chinese President Xi Jinping is putting his money where his mouth is.

“We must regard science and technology as our primary productive force,” he recently said. He’s already raised his country’s research and development spending to unprecedented levels. Now, he’s filling the highest reaches of government with experts in such areas as artificial intelligence, biotech, and semiconductors.

The United States needs to take this challenge seriously. Many in Washington appear to. The Chips and Science Act, passed in August, directs $200 billion over the next few years into basic research in cutting-edge fields like artificial intelligence and robotics.

But bankrolling basic research alone won’t lead to more innovation down the line. We also need robust intellectual property protections, without which new inventions wither away after the initial discovery for lack of further investment.

The last several decades have taught us that money isn’t everything. For example, the United States now spends about 3% of gross domestic product on R&D annually — a higher proportion than it spent at the height of the Space Race in the early 1960s. And yet, total factor productivity — the best measure of how much value innovation adds to the economy — has shrunk to an annual growth rate of just 0.5%, compared to 1% back then.

In other words, Americans used to get more for less.

This recent lackluster performance is a byproduct of ongoing assaults on IP law, which send a discouraging message to the companies and funds that invest in technology. Consider, for example, a proposal at the World Trade Organization to waive international patent protections on Covid therapeutics and diagnostic tools — most of which have applications far beyond one disease. This would amount to a hand-out of historic proportions to our biggest economic competitors.

The waiver is unnecessary on its own terms in a world where Covid tests and treatments are already in abundant supply. Plus, it would deal a devastating economic blow to the United States, undermine the development of new medicines, and set a precedent that invites even more attacks on IP rights. Other countries could insist on a “right” to U.S. patented technology in areas ranging from renewable energy to agriculture and beyond.

Another case in point: Dozens of members of Congress are urging the Administration to twist the law so that the federal government can seize patents whenever it has contributed so much as a cent to R&D.

It takes an enormous investment to move research from the laboratory to the marketplace, and we can be sure companies would stop funding product development if the government could simply nullify patent rights based on political whim. Kill patents and you kill private investment in innovation.

How can the United States keep its place as the world leader in scientific innovation? For a start, by resisting calls to tamper with patent rights. There is no surer way to cede technological leadership to China.

Andrei Iancu served as the undersecretary of commerce for intellectual property and director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office from 2018 to 2021, under former President Donald Trump. David Kappos served as the undersecretary of commerce for intellectual property and director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office from 2009 to 2013, under former President Barack Obama. Both serve as board co-chairs of the Council for Innovation Promotion.

Dear Editor:

If the Mayor and his two councilwomen (Walker and Wilson) need secretaries to help them do their jobs, then we need them to resign and be replaced by others capable of doing their elected jobs! The excuses that were given, as to why getting these secretaries for themselves, are ludicrous! (See related article)

As a past council member, as well as others past, I too had a full-time job and still carried out my elected duties without any personal hired secretaries. Many others, unhired help volunteers, provided any extra assistance that I and other mayors and council members may have needed to carry out our duties. This they can get freely, from their friends and families to start with! Their arguments in favor of getting their own paid Secretaries ignore our already hired various employees, and THAT is how we did it. We had many various events, communications with the public, as well as various other duties that this mayor and two councilwomen do not have now. It worked and can work now!

Having full time jobs is no excuse either. They never complained about such when they ran for their separate elections. If they cannot do their elected jobs, without the planned new hired secretaries, then it is time for them to pack it up and leave their positions! Council Members Barbanica and Ogorchock voted against the hired help and have no issues doing their elected duties, both presently having full time jobs and then some.

What we, the public need, and have soundly made clear for many years now, is more police Officers to begin with. In that alone they have failed to do and only made excuses over these past years why it hasn’t been done! I know and have heard their excuses and it does not “wash” with me and many others. They have failed and that is that.

Perhaps the mayor and his two Councilwomen should quit their full-time jobs instead and therefore have more time to do their various self-serving activities that they regularly have created to have the public ooh and aww about them.

If the mayor alone would quit with his constant unjustified press conferences and unnecessary press releases, using up our other employees to set these things up (like the transporting, setting up, and then reversing it after he is done) then he could devote that time to do those things he should instead be doing. Let’s not forget either that Councilwomen Walker and Wilson show up to attend these ridiculous things with him.

We need more police, not personal Secretaries as agreed to instead. Either do their elected jobs or resign is my take on the matter. We did it and so should they, without the extra secretaries!

Ralph A. Hernandez

former Antioch Council Member

The ‘EAGLE’ Act would revise portions of the Immigration Act of 1990 allowing more foreign workers to fill U.S. tech jobs

Co-sponsored by three Congressmen currently representing or will represent Contra Costa County – Thompson, Swalwell and Garamendi

By Joe Guzzardi, Progressives for Immigration Reform

Like the proverbial bad penny that keeps reappearing, lousy immigration bills are hard to kill off. Consider the EAGLE Act of 2022, also known as Equal Access to Green Cards for Legal Employment, or formally recognized as H.R. 3648. The newest proposed legislation is another iteration of the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act. Although it passed the House by a 365-65 vote, eventually it stalled in Congress.

Introduced by immigration lawyer, amnesty advocate, enforcement foe and expansionist champion Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), the new and the old versions of her proposed legislation both share the same ruinous-to-U.S. tech workers’ feature: the legislation would rob thousands of U.S. tech workers of access to well-paid, white-collar, high-skilled jobs in the science, technology, engineering and math fields, STEM jobs for which they are fully qualified.

Along with her like-minded congressional allies that include Rep. Tom Emmer (R-Minn.), who was just elected as House Majority Whip for the 118th Congress and thus became the third highest ranking Republican in the House, Lofgren has scheduled a vote on the EAGLE Act, which has bipartisan support, when Congress returns from its Thanksgiving recess.

Briefly explained, the EAGLE Act would dramatically revise portions of the Immigration Act of 1990. Almost any alien who has been on the visa waiting list for at least two years with an approved petition for an employment-based green card could apply for adjustment of his status which then wouldn’t count against existing numerical caps. Stated another way, employers can sponsor a temporary foreign-born worker for an H-1B nonimmigrant visa and convert that worker to permanent by merely sponsoring him for a green card. Aliens go from temporarily present to permanent residents. With the stroke of a pen, job searches become more challenging for U.S. tech workers – Congress’ twisted idea of sound legislation.

The bill also eliminates the per-country caps for employment-based visas, which means that within about a decade Indian and Chinese nationals will receive virtually all such visas, especially the H-1B; other countries’ nationals would have an uphill climb to obtain a visa. Under current law, no countries’ nationals can comprise more than 7 percent of any visa category. This provision ensures that skilled workers from around the globe have an opportunity to come to America. The EAGLE Act, however, seeks to entirely remove all caps from employment-based visas and more than double the existing family-preference visa from 7 percent to 15 percent, a hike that would, because of family reunification, ensure significant population surges. The proposed visa cap elimination is ironic because Lofgren and the EAGLE Act’s cosponsors claim to embrace diversity, but the bill heavily favors Chinese and Indian citizens to the exclusion of most others.

Moreover, dependent children of the aliens granted the new status would be allowed to retain their legal standing, a form of amnesty, as dependents of their parents for the duration of the green card application process; they would be protected from aging out while their parents move up in the backlog. An estimated 190,000 minors would be protected.

Time was when Democrats purported to care about America’s minority workers. But their empathy toward U.S. workers is long gone, and is now redirected to foreign nationals, particularly Chinese and Indians. Blacks, Hispanics and other minorities aspire to IT jobs, too. But they’ve had little luck in obtaining those coveted STEM jobs. Pew Research found that Black workers make up 9 percent of the STEM workforce, while Hispanics also comprise about 9 percent. The low STEM representation among Blacks and Hispanics is largely unchanged from 2016.

For rational thinkers, few and far between in Congress, a push for liberalized immigration laws and amnesty in light of the border surge and its 2 million-plus encounters in 2022 is beyond the pale. But those sound-of-mind types don’t understand the congressional mindset; nothing stops its amnesty drive. And if the EAGLE Act doesn’t get Senate approval, Lofgren always has the option to attach it to a must-pass Omnibus bill. With the 118th House about to transfer into GOP hands, EAGLE Act supporters view December as their last chance to subvert U.S. tech workers.

Joe Guzzardi is a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist who writes about immigration and related social issues. Joe joined Progressives for Immigration Reform in 2018 as an analyst after a ten-year career directing media relations for Californians for Population Stabilization, where he also was a Senior Writing Fellow. A native Californian, Joe now lives in Pennsylvania. Contact him at jguzzardi@pfirdc.org.