Big Pharma “pushing” for Kinzinger

Below is a recent ad from the internet, which proports that Mr. Kinzinger is a Medicare Champion. (It is from:   http://www.medicareaccesschampion.org/kinzinger/

This “award” appears completely bogus. The article from Health News Review details the awarding “non-profit”’s history and connections with big pharma. The ad is being paid by the non-profit.  Mr. Kinzinger received a similar “award” and a paid mailing from another industry “non-profit”; see:  http://boonecountywatchdog.blogspot.com/2018/06/alsic-award-rep-kinzingers-mailer-to.html

*********************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Story Reviews News Release Review Blog Posts

• 
  

October 2, 2017

Non-profit Alliance for Patient Access uses journalists and politicians to push Big Pharma’s agenda

POSTED BY

• 

Mary Chris Jaklevic is a freelance health care reporter and regular contributor to this blog. She tweets as @mcjaklevic.

In an era of widespread calls for action to tame skyrocketing prescription drug costs, one organization consistently opposes measures to rein them in: the Alliance for Patient Access (AfPA).

Associate members of the Alliance for Patient Access, or its offshoot the Institute for Patient Alliance, are primarily drug or medical device companies.

The AfPA claims it’s trying to ensure patients have access to FDA-approved therapies. However, its track record shows it pushes platforms that help drug companies’ bottom lines. HealthNewsReview.org frequently writesabout how patient advocacy groups are co-opted by drug industry funding, but the AfPA is something different, observers say: a front group established solely to do the bidding of industry.

To advance its agenda, the AfPA often uses politicians and the news media, and rarely are its deep pharmaceutical connections called out.

Recently, for example, STAT ran a ghostwritten op-ed piece from an AfPA board member that extolled a $24,000-a-year drug to treat psychosis related to Parkinson’s disease. The op-ed was retracted after HealthNewsReview.org discovered and reported that it was ghostwritten.

A track record of opposition to limits on drug costs

National pushback against high drug costs has coincided with an expanded role for the AfPA. At its inception in 2006 the AfPA claimed to represent a few dozen neurologists who treat Parkinson’s patients. Today it purports to have more than 800 physician members with “working groups” in seven issue areas. In an email, an AfPA spokesperson said its membership “is comprised of policy-minded physicians and healthcare providers” who “contribute their time as volunteers as opposed to financial dues.” Corporate contributors have nearly doubled in number since 2015, based on lists found on the group’s website.

Critics say the AfPA and other industry-funded nonprofits oppose even modest measures to limit spending on expensive drugs with marginal benefits, pushing up costs for everyone and threatening prospects for a viable system in which everyone gets adequate care.

“They’re trying to shore up what is obviously an otherwise losing public opinion climate on drug pricing,” said John Rother, president of the National Coalition on Health Care, which advocates for affordable care. The Coalition is partially funded by insurance companies who would benefit from lower drug costs. Rother runs the Coalition’s Campaign for Sustainable Rx Pricing.

The AfPA’s general message is that the problem isn’t high drug costs, but rather payers steering patients to drugs not picked by their doctors, through what it calls “non-medical switching.” It calls for “patient-focused” approaches to drug coverage.

David Mitchell, founder and president of Patients for Affordable Drugs, isn’t buying it.

“These groups exist to help sell medication,” Mitchell said. “I don’t love insurance companies. If you’re a patient, they can be a real pain in the ass. But when you’re attacking insurers and government, you’re really attacking the companies and the taxpayers who are trying to grapple with high prices.” (Patients for Affordable Drugs is one of the few patient advocacy organizations that pledges not to accept industry funding; it receives funding from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, which also supports HealthNewsReview.org.)

As for these criticisms, Susan Hepworth, an AfPA spokesperson who responded to HealthNewsReview.org’s queries, said “AFPA recognizes that policymakers have a tough job trying to balance the demand for health care with finite resources. However, decisions policymakers reach will be better policy if it is informed by the perspectives of those on the front line of clinical care: physicians and their patients.”

A pharma friendly platform

What does patient-focused advocacy look like, to the AfPA? In recent years, the organization has:

• run ads pressuring Congress to oppose value-based purchasing for Medicare Part B drugs,
• issued white papers pushing back against opioid-prescribing restrictions
• made a video endorsing legislation that would block health plan policies that encourage patients to try the most cost-effective drug therapies first,
• conducted a policy forum that raised questions about the safety and efficacy of generic versions of biologic drugs,
• compared coinsurance for high-end cancer drugs to “rationing,”
• used social media to promote co-pay coupons that reduce patient cost-sharing,
• and issued news releases that attack insurance payment denials of very expensive, marginally effective cholesterol-lowering medications as “dangerous.”

Who’s running the show?

Brian Kennedy

The Alliance for Patient Access is operated by a public affairs firm, Woodberry Associates LLC, and the two entities share addresses and management, public documents show. They were both created by former Iowa state GOP chairman Brian Kennedy in 2006, just after he lost a congressional primary bid.

Kennedy is both Woodberry’s president and executive director of the AfPA and at least two offshoots, the Global Alliance for Patient Access and the Institute for Patient Access. He’s listed as a “counselor” of a third affiliate, the Coalition for Clinical Trials Awareness.

In 2015, the most recent year for which data is available, Woodberry and its employees took in more than $900,000 from the AfPA and related groups in payment for consulting, rent, and other services.

Who donates to the AfPA?

Most of the non-profit organization’s funding comes from the drug industry, not physicians. A list of “associate members and financial supporters” linked to its web site contains 26 pharmaceutical companies and a biopharmaceutical trade group, the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO). The AfPA also has received more than half a million dollars from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturing Association (PhRMA), a drug industry trade group, since 2008, according to PhRMA disclosures.

Annual dues for these corporations and trade groups are at two levels of $25,000 and $50,000, said Hepworth, the AfPA spokesperson, who is also a Woodberry employee.

Companies funding the AfPA sell some of the nation’s most expensive drugs. They include:

• Abbvie (Hepatitis C drug Viekira Pak, $83,319 for a 12-week course),
• Vertex (cystic fibrosis drug Orkambi, $259,000 per year),
• Bristol Myers-Squibb, (Hepatitis C drug Daklinza, $63,000 for a 12-week course),
• and Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals (H.P. Acthar, used for multiple conditions including rheumatic disorders and multiple sclerosis, $205,681 per year).

Board members have received hundreds of thousands in industry money

The group’s six physician board members all have significant financial ties to drugmakers, according to ProPublica’s Dollars for Docs and published research disclosures.

For example, according to the Dollars for Docs database, AfPA board vice president Srinivas Nalamachu, MD, received $811,352 in 2013-2015, nearly all of it related to opioid drugs or drugs that treat side effects from opioids. He is on the AfPA’s working group for pain therapy access. In April 2017, the Kansas City Star identified Nalamachu and his former partner, Steven Simon, MD, as among the top-paid promoters of drugs to treat opioid-related constipation. The Star subsequently reported in July that their clinic was raided by FBI agents in connection with an investigation of Insys Therapeutics, an opioid maker accused of paying kickbacks to physicians who prescribed its drugs. The FBI raid focused on Simon’s patient records and did not involve Nalamachu, according to the Star.

Asked how the group can claim to advocate for patients when it’s funded by drug companies, Hepworth responded in an email: “Physicians, healthcare providers, patients, and manufacturers of medicines all share the same goal: ensuring that patients have access to FDA approved therapies. So it’s not surprising that they support AfPA’s objective. Each brings a unique perspective and AfPA provides a platform for physicians and patients to inform policymaking with their respective perspectives.”

Vested interests don’t always make it into news coverage

Journalists don’t always report the vested interests behind these views.

In Politico’s Prescription Pulse newsletter, covering a positive European study about a biosimilar drug, an article quoted the AfPA’s offshoot, the Global Alliance for Patient Access, saying biosimilars “may disrupt patients’ care and lead to higher costs in the long term.” Politico didn’t disclose that the Alliance is funded by brand-name biologics companies that could lose if biosimilars, which are cheaper generic versions, gain market share.

Similarly, Bloomberg’s Bureau of National Affairs ran a story about legislation to combat the opioid epidemic, in which the AfPA raises concerns about “unintended consequences patients with legitimate medical needs may face because of arbitrary restrictions placed on prescribing.” It didn’t mention that the AfPA takes money from at least five opioid makers: Purdue Pharma, Endo Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, Allergan and Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries.

Rother, of the National Coalition on Health Care, said examples like these amount to a false equivalence in news coverage, treating both sides as if they have equal merit. “I think the role of journalism is to expose who’s actually behind these kinds of what I’d call fake groups. They are front groups that are there only to protect in the interests of manufacturers, not consumers,” he said.

Alliance-sponsored forums involving journalists

The Alliance for Patient Access also has elevated its profile by sponsoring policy forums involving journalists.

STAT biotech reporter Damian Garde moderated the AfPA’s National Policy and Advocacy Summit on Biologics and Biosimilars in April. A tweeted photo from that meeting (below) shows Garde sitting next to Robert Yapundich, MD, whose ghostwritten op-ed later published in STAT failed to disclose more than $300,000 in payments from the drug industry.

In 2015 POLITICO hosted a similarly-themed AfPA-sponsored panel, Biosimilars: Can They Break Through?.

View image on Twitter

Kathleen Arntsen@KathleenArntsen

Stakeholder panel on #drugpricing interesting but where's the #payer? #AfPASummit @CreakyJoints @IFAArthritis

1:44 PM - Apr 12, 2016

• 3

• See Kathleen Arntsen's other Tweets

Twitter Ads info and privacy

Both events focused on why biosimilars have been stalled by regulatory hurdles in the U.S. The AfPA receives funding from several makers of brand-name biologics including Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Amgen, AbbVie and Sanofi.

Asked about STAT’s participation with the AfPA and other industry partnerships, Executive Editor Rick Berke told HealthNewsReview.org Managing Editor Kevin Lomangino: “Every partnership we enter into, we think about the optics and appearances. We’re comfortable with the decisions we’ve made. They may not be up to your standards but they’re up to our standards.”

[Editor’s Note: STAT managing editor Gideon Gil wrote to us after this piece was published, stating: “Rick Berke’s comment to Kevin Lomangino from a month ago is taken out of context. He did not refer to the AfPA as a partnership. He was referring to our actual partnerships, not to the AfPA.” Although STAT does partner with pharmaceutical industry groups to host events, Gil wrote that Damian Garde’s moderation of the AfPA panel was not such a partnership.]

Politico spokeswoman Katie Pudwill said sponsors are allowed to give opening remarks but “don’t participate in or design the conversations so their interests don’t affect the outcome of the debate/discussion.” She added: “We have editorial independence over the conversations that take place once one of our journalists takes the stage.”

Some were quick to criticize these media organizations. “Politico and STAT were had,” Mitchell, of Patients for Affordable Drugs, said. “It wasn’t a legitimate discussion. It was a paid-for pharma promotion of this scare tactic that you mustn’t take a biosimilar because it won’t do the same thing as a branded biological.” See more on our coverage of tactics used in the biologics vs biosimilars tug-of-war.

‘Patient Access Champion’ awards handed out to Congress

The AfPA attempts to harness physician voices to sway public policy, holding briefings and advocacy training for “policy-minded physicians” who want to “challenge restrictive health policies.” It claims to run a forum of about 40 physician-legislators in 23 states. “With respect to health care issues, physicians serving as elected officials are often in a unique position to shape policy,” it says.

The AfPA offers cover for lawmakers who carry out the pharmaceutical industry’s agenda, some observers say. In one striking example, the group accepted $7.8 million in 2014 and 2015 to give Medicare “Patient Access Champion” awards to members of Congress, according to its IRS disclosures for those years. The AfPA annual report shows that 50 awards were presented. The awards appear to be a way to thank cooperative legislators while also pressuring them and others to enact the AfPA’s policy agenda.

AfPA spokeswoman Hepworth would not tell HealthNewsReview.org who contributed those millions, citing a “general policy” of not disclosing who contributes to particular projects.

In some cases, framed “Patient Access Champion” certificates were presented in district offices, with representatives from other health and senior citizen advocacy groups invited to attend and pose for photos. Many Congress members boasted of their awards in social media, newsletters, and press releases, citing them as evidence that they protect the rights of senior citizens and stand up for the middle class. Here’s a tweet from the AfPA showing U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-MI, accepting her award:

View image on Twitter

A portion of the money went to buy newspaper ads and mailers that urged senior citizens to contact their representatives to encourage them to “protect” Medicare funding for prescription drugs, HealthNewsReview.org found.

Some say those awards and ads shielded lawmakers from criticism for voting against Medicare cost controls, such as an independent rate-setting board and other measures.

A mailer from the Alliance for Patient Access, asking voters to thank Sen John Barrasso, R-WY, for voting on a bill related to Medicare Part B.

“If they are called out for undermining patients’ rights, they can say, ‘No, I received an award for protecting patients’ rights.’ A lot of citizens don’t have time to sort it out,” said Lisa Graves, executive director of the Center for Media and Democracy, a corporate watchdog group.

The AfPA does not have to disclose who funded its bid to influence Congress, or anything else it does, because it’s organized as a not-for-profit under a section of the IRS tax code reserved for “social welfare” organizations, known as 501(c)4. Unlike super PACs, which are independent political committees, nonprofits don’t have to reveal their financial backers. They’ve become the preferred option for groups who want to influence politics without having their identities publicized.

Some advocates want more transparency for nonprofits with 501(c)4 status, which have proliferated since the 2010 Citizens United court decision empowered them to participate in politics. The IRS says politics can’t be their primary function, but that rule is rarely if ever enforced.

For now, said Mitchell, “For consumers, it’s caveat emptor.”

Editor’s note: In a follow-up post, we found a dozen examples of the AfPA using op-eds to push their agenda. See more: ‘Ethical bordellos:’ Op-eds don’t always disclose Big Pharma conflicts of interest

Above is from:  https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2017/10/non-profit-alliance-patient-access-uses-journalists-politicians-push-big-pharmas-agenda/

News organizations unknowingly paid Melania Trump at least $100,000 last year to use pictures of her

News organizations unknowingly paid Melania Trump at least $100,000 last year to use pictures of her

6:54 p.m. ET

Olivier Douliery-Pool/Getty Images

President Trump's financial disclosure from May shows that in 2017, first lady Melania Trump earned between $100,000 and $1 million from an unusual deal with Getty Images.

NBC News reports that Getty Images, a photo agency, agreed to pay Trump in royalties for the use of any images in a series of 187 photos of the Trump family taken by Belgian photographer Regine Mahaux. The photos were taken between 2010 and 2016, and it was a requirement that the images be used in "positive stories only." NBC News found that at least 12 media organizations, including Marie Claire, Yahoo News, and NBC News itself, paid to use the Mahaux pictures.

An NBC News spokeswoman said the network did not know about the "positive stories only" clause and did not sign an agreement to abide by it, and was never told that a portion of the royalties paid would go to the Trumps. After NBC News notified organizations about the deal, several took the images down from their websites.

Sometimes celebrities do earn royalties from licensing wedding or baby photos, but it is highly unusual for the spouse of an elected official to do so. Getty Images said that due to confidentiality agreements, the company could not share details related to the deal, which was made before President Trump's election. Mahaux would only tell NBC News that "everything is legal." In a standard photo contract, the photographer receives royalties and the photo agency collects fees after each use of an image, but models do not get paid. Catherine Garcia

Above is from:  http://theweek.com/speedreads/782668/news-organizations-unknowingly-paid-melania-trump-least-100000-last-year-use-pictures

How likely is a Fiat Chrysler/Hyundai merger?

Eric D. Lawrence, Detroit Free Press Published 4:43 p.m. ET July 2, 2018

(Photo: PIERO CRUCIATTI/AFP/Getty Images)

CONNECTTWEETLINKEDINCOMMENTEMAILMORE

Acquisition speculation never really goes away for Fiat Chrysler Automobiles.

This time, South Korean automaker Hyundai has been cast in the role of potential suitor, a variation on speculation that spread last year.

Asia Times published a story last week highlighting a scenario where Hyundai Motor Group CEO Chung Mong-koo would launch a "takeover bid" for the Italian-American automaker at some point before FCA CEO Sergio Marchionne retires next year.

The story relied on unnamed sources, and Jim Trainor, a spokesman for Hyundai in the U.S., called the rumor "completely groundless."

But a Hyundai and FCA merger would offer some intriguing possibilities.

Michelle Krebs, Autotrader executive analyst, called it a situation to watch.

"I have long thought – on paper – that an FCA and Hyundai-Kia alliance makes some sense. Hyundai and Kia are strong in cars and Asia. FCA is strong in utilities – far more so than HK – and strong in trucks, which Hyundai doesn’t have at all," Krebs wrote in an email, noting a history that has included working together primarily before Chrysler was part of FCA on engines.

Marchionne also floated a possible connection last year with Hyundai on fuel cell technology development.

But Krebs also noted that alliances do not always succeed even when they appear to make sense.

"While an alliance may look good on paper, it may not work in terms of mindsets of the companies and the culture. I would note that the Daimler Chrysler 'merger' made sense on paper. It was a disaster due to the clashing cultures. The Nissan-Renault alliance didn’t make obvious sense, but it is nearly 20 years old now," Krebs said.

For FCA, the speculation about being purchased is familiar. Last year, numerous Chinese companies were rumored to be interested in the automaker, and at least one, Volvo-parent Geely held informal talks with FCA, according to Bloomberg. Geely ultimately opted to invest $9 billion in Daimler apparently instead.

Part of the speculation has also been fed by Marchionne's penchant for making public overtures to other automakers, such as General Motors and Volkswagen. He's long suggested more consolidation was needed in the auto industry, and FCA has taken a team approach to areas such as autonomous vehicle development such as through its partnership with Waymo.

But Marchionne was forceful during the North American International Auto Show in Detroit in January in pushing back against specific talk of selling off the company — with most focus on the highly valuable Jeep brand — in pieces.

"The answer is no we’re not going to break up anything," Marchionne said at the time. "We have no intention of breaking it up and giving it to the Chinese."

The assumption has been that FCA needs more help to offset the huge costs associated with development of electric and autonomous vehicles, areas that several of its competitors have focused much more on. With solid financial performance in recent quarters and a share price that has consistently beaten Ford, that talk had cooled a bit.

But with no successor to Marchionne named, the questions about the company's future will continue to percolate, even though the five-year plan laid out last month in Italy was received generally favorably.

Contact Eric D. Lawrence: elawrence@freepress.com. Follow him on Twitter: @_ericdlawrence.

ABOVE IS FROM:  https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/chrysler/2018/07/02/fiat-chrysler-hyundai/751490002/

NEW DISCOVERY?: Some nonprofits could start paying taxes for the first time.

Republican tax law hits churches

Some nonprofits could start paying taxes for the first time.

By BRIAN FALER

06/26/2018 05:05 AM EDT

House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady is defending a controversial provision of the GOP tax law that requires churches and other historically tax-exempt organizations to begin paying a 21 percent tax on some types of fringe benefits they provide their employees. | John Shinkle/POLITICO

•  

• 
  

Republicans have quietly imposed a new tax on churches, synagogues and other nonprofits, a little-noticed and surprising change that could cost some groups tens of thousands of dollars.

Their recent tax-code rewrite requires churches, hospitals, colleges, orchestras and other historically tax-exempt organizations to begin paying a 21 percent tax on some types of fringe benefits they provide their employees.

That could force thousands of groups that have long had little contact with the IRS to suddenly begin filing returns and paying taxes for the first time.

Many organizations are stunned to learn of the tax — part of a broader Republican effort to strip the code of tax breaks for employee benefits like parking and meals — and say it will be a significant financial and administrative burden.

It also means political peril for lawmakers, many of whom were surely unaware of the provision when they approved the tax plan. Churches’ tax-exempt status, in particular, has long been considered sacrosanct and Republicans are relying on the faithful to back them in the November elections.

Morning Tax

Though many organizations are still unaware of the tax, more than 600 churches and other groups have already signed a petition demanding it be repealed.

“There’s going to be huge headaches,” said Galen Carey, vice president of government relations at the National Association of Evangelicals, an umbrella group of evangelical Christian organizations. “The cost of compliance, especially for churches that have small staffs or maybe volunteer accountants and bookkeepers — we don’t need this kind of hassle.”

The Jewish Federations of North America is looking at a new $75,000 tax bill this year because of the change.

“A lot of people are just finding out about it and the more people find out about it, the more pressure there will be on Treasury and Congress to either delay implementation or consider changing this,” said Steven Woolf, senior tax policy counsel for the group.

At least one Republican lawmaker is now proposing to rescind the tax, though House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady — one of the architects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act — is defending the provision.

It will simplify the code when it comes to how workers are compensated, Brady said through a spokesman.

The debate comes as Republicans celebrate the six-month milestone of the law’s enactment. They’ve emphasized the benefits of its big cuts in taxes on businesses and individuals.

But to help defray the budgetary cost of those changes, Republicans simultaneously pared tax breaks for workers’ fringe benefits, which is projected to raise around $40 billion over the next decade.

They were mainly trimming deductions companies have long taken for entertaining clients and providing meals for employees.

But Republicans also wanted to treat nonprofits equally, which proved challenging.

Because those organizations don’t pay income taxes, lawmakers couldn’t take away fringe-benefit deductions. So instead they created a 21 percent tax on the value of some of nonprofit employees’ benefits.

The main benefits affected are transportation-related, like free parking in a lot or a garage and subway and bus passes. It also targets meals provided to workers and, in some circumstances, may affect gym memberships.

“The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act included provisions that provided grater parity in the tax treatment of different types of employee compensation,” said Rob Damschen, a Brady spokesman. “These provisions apply to both employers that are taxable entities and those that are tax-exempt entities.”

“Providing this greater parity helps to reduce the extent to which decisions about the elements included in the employee compensation package are driven by tax considerations,” he said in an email.

The proposal got virtually no attention when the legislation was making its way through Congress late last year, and many groups are outraged to now learn of the requirement.

“What we’re talking about is an income tax on the church for providing parking to its employees — that’s what we’re talking about,” said Mike Batts, chairman of the board of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability, which is circulating the petition denouncing the tax. “It's absurd."

He scoffs at the idea of treating businesses and nonprofits equally.

“The whole idea of tax exemption for nonprofit organizations that are doing charitable, religious and educational work is for them not to be on the same playing field as for-profit businesses when it comes to taxes, in order to incentivize the good work they do to make our society better,” said Batts, who is also managing partner of an accounting firm that specializes in religious nonprofits.

He and others complain that, thanks to nonprofits’ tax-exempt status, many don’t have experts on staff who can help them understand the provisions. They also note that while companies also lost fringe-benefit breaks, they simultaneously got big cuts in their tax rates and new incentives for investments that more than made up for the lost deductions.

Many nonprofits say they are confused over how exactly the tax is supposed to work.

Churches and other groups want to know how they are supposed to go about calculating the value of things like parking spaces for employees. Some wonder if the garages provided as part of clergy residences are now taxable.

Other nonprofits have their own questions.

Universities want to know if the bus services they provide for faculty and students are taxable and how they figure out how much they owe. Orchestras want to know how to treat musicians who may perform in different locations.

“At what point is something a travel reimbursement? And at what point is it a commuter benefit?” said Heather Noonan, vice president for advocacy at the League of American Orchestras.

Treasury is now working on regulations spelling out the details of how the tax will work, though the groups are supposed to have already been paying the tax. It took effect Jan. 1 and nonprofits are supposed to pay it quarterly.

A host of groups, including the Boys & Girls Clubs of America, Goodwill Industries, the YMCA and the National Council of Nonprofits are demanding the tax at least be delayed, saying it is unfair to ask them to be paying a levy they don’t understand.

Earlier this month, Rep. Michael Conaway (R-Texas) introduced legislation to kill the tax.

Above is from:  https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/26/republican-tax-law-churches-employees-670362

The Trump administration says it's a 'myth' that families that ask for asylum at ports of entry are separated. It happens frequently, records show

By Paloma Esquivel and Brittny Mejia

Jul 01, 2018 | 5:00 AM

Asylum-seeking immigrants line up at a border fence in Tijuana, Mexico. (Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

A woman named Mirian and her 18-month-old son reached Brownsville, Texas, early this year after fleeing Honduras, where the military had teargassed their home. She made her way to a port of entry and asked for asylum, according to court records.

Mirian had her identification, her son’s birth certificate, which listed her as his mother, his hospital birth record and his vaccination records.

Border officers took the records, then told her they would be taking her boy, she said in a sworn court declaration. They walked her out to a government car, told her to put him in a car seat and closed the door.

It was three months before they were reunited.

The Trump administration’s “zero-tolerance” policy of criminally charging people who cross the border illegally led to thousands of children being separated from their parents.

But the practice of separating families appears to have begun accelerating last year, long before zero tolerance was announced in the spring. Among these cases, according to records and interviews, are many that happened at ports of entry.

Administration officials have said repeatedly that asylum seekers who don’t want to be separated from their children should present themselves at a port of entry. Doing so is the legal way to ask for asylum, they said.

But court filings describe numerous cases in recent months in which families were separated after presenting themselves at a port of entry to ask for asylum.

This happened even when asylum seekers carried records, such as birth certificates or hospital documents, listing them as the parents of their children, according to interviews and court records.

While border officials have long had a policy of separating children when their safety might be in question, lawyers and advocates say they began seeing a significant increase last year in officials separating children from their parents who asked for asylum at ports of entry, without clear reasons.

In a ruling Tuesday ordering the reunification of families in a case brought by the ACLU, San Diego federal court Judge Dana M. Sabraw wrote that there had been a “casual, if not deliberate, separation of families that lawfully present at the port of entry, not just those who cross into the country illegally.”

Nicole Ramos, an attorney who provides legal help to asylum seekers in Tijuana, said she started to see an increase in family separations at ports of entry in May 2017.

Ramos has filed eight complaints related to this issue in recent months with the Department of Homeland Security’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, which investigates civil rights violations.

Separations at ports of entry have happened “even when families have presented sufficient evidence of parentage, even where they do not have signs of neglect or abuse … even when the child is able to speak for themselves and say” this is my parent, Ramos said.

She said the problem has been compounded by long wait times at ports of entry. In some cases, families have been left waiting for weeks to claim asylum at a border crossing.

Lee Gelernt, the lead attorney on the ACLU’s case challenging family separations, said the government has justified taking children in some cases by saying there was concern a child was with a smuggler.

In one case, he said, “the little girl was screaming ‘Mommy, mommy, don’t let them take me away.’ Anyone would have known it was not a smuggler.”

In an email, U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman Daniel Hetlage referred a reporter to a Department of Homeland Security fact sheet, which says it is a “myth” that families asking for asylum legally at ports of entry are separated.

The sheet says DHS will separate in three circumstances: “1) when DHS is unable to determine the familial relationship, 2) when DHS determines that a child may be at risk with the parent or legal guardian, or 3) when the parent or legal guardian is referred for criminal prosecution.”

• 
  

In a federal court declaration, Marc W. Sanders, acting director of Homeland Security’s Human Smuggling Cell, argued that releasing all families together can bolster human smuggling and increase illegal immigration.

“Once such a requirement is publicized it is likely to be a pull factor that contributes to further illicit migration to the United States,” he wrote.

Ramos said she worries that despite President Trump’s June 20 executive order to end family separations, border officials will continue separating families without due process by saying that a parent is a danger to the child or is not actually the parent.

“They were doing it before the zero-tolerance policy and they’re going to keep doing it,” she said. “They will say the parent presented a security risk without well-articulated reasons as to what that security risk was.”

It is unclear how often families have been separated at ports of entry.

Customs and Border Protection spokesman Carlos Diaz said the agency did not have data on such separations. But if a family asks for asylum at a port of entry, “it is highly likely that the family will stay together through the process,” Diaz added.

Diaz referred questions to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service. Officials there referred a reporter back to Customs and Border Protection.

Officials at the Department of Health and Human Services, the agency in charge of children who are separated from their parents, said only that the total number of children in its care is 11,800. This includes children who crossed the border without parents as well as those separated from their parents.

The ACLU case that prompted Sabraw’s ruling described half a dozen cases of families separated at ports of entry, including Mirian’s.

In several of those cases, parents said in sworn declarations they had documents showing their relationship to their children and were never told that officials believed they were a danger to their children.

In one case, a man from Kyrgyzstan who sought asylum in October at the port of entry in San Ysidro, Calif., with his 13-year-old son was told a few days later that they would be separated.

“All I can remember is how much my son and I were both crying as they took him away,” the man wrote in a sworn declaration. “I do not recall anyone questioning whether I am really his biological father or whether I was a danger or abusive to him in any way. I even had my son’s birth certificate proving I am his father.”

In another case described in a lawsuit challenging family separations filed by 17 states and the District of Columbia, a mother who requested asylum at a port of entry in Laredo, Texas, with her 15-year-old son was told he would be taken to a shelter or “given to an American family for adoption.”

The child is an American citizen.

In May, a Guatemalan mother approached the San Ysidro port of entry with her three sons — ages 2, 6 and 13 — saying she feared returning to her country because of her husband’s community organizing work.

The family was taken to a detention center in Texas where they stayed together for two weeks before immigration officials took her children.

“Each minute that I am separated from my children is anguish,” the woman wrote in a court declaration.

From Left, Olivia Caceres, Andree, Mateo and Jose Demar Fuentes pose for a photo in El Salvador in December 2016. (Family photo)

In November, Jose Demar Fuentes arrived at the San Ysidro port of entry with his 15-month-old son, Mateo, having fled gangs in El Salvador.

He had Mateo’s original birth certificate, which listed him as the father, as well as his Salvadoran photo ID, said Olivia Caceres, Mateo’s mother.

Still, after Customs and Border Protection transferred Fuentes and his son to Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials, the boy was taken to a facility in Texas.

“They said he couldn’t prove he was the father, even though he had the original birth certificate,” Caceres said.

ICE officials said they were “unable to positively confirm a father/son relationship during the custody determination interview.”

When she learned what had happened to her son, Caceres said, “I felt like a bucket of cold water had been dropped on me.”

She said she does not understand why her partner and their son were separated.

“If they don’t want us to break the law and we come legally to ask for help and they’re still separating us from our kids — it’s hard,” she said.

Almost two weeks passed before Caceres learned that her son was in a facility. Eventually, after proving she was his mother, she was allowed five-minute video calls with him twice a week.

During the calls, Mateo would stare at her face or bring her toys, trying to pass them through the phone.

His only words to her, the only words he knows, were “ma” and “pa.”

Despite what happened with her son, Caceres in late December followed Fuentes’ lead and turned herself in at a port of entry to ask for asylum, along with her son Andree, who was 4 years old at the time.

She was released with an ankle monitor and allowed to remain with the boy.

In Los Angeles, with the help of family, Caceres worked to be reunited with Mateo.

At one point, she was asked to take a DNA test, but her lawyer successfully fought against it because documentation had already been provided that she was Mateo’s mother.

Finally, on Feb. 7, she got a call letting her know that Mateo would arrive at the airport the next day.

Eighty-five days had passed since Mateo was separated from his father.

“You tell yourself, the small children aren’t going to suffer, but they do,” Caceres said. “He was traumatized and is still traumatized.”

The first week, when visitors arrived at their home, the boy would grab his mother’s legs and cry if they came near him.

On a recent weekday morning, Mateo woke up screaming, like he often does since their reunion. His mother hugged him tight to her chest, rubbing his back and whispering to him in Spanish: “Aquí está mamá.”

“Mom is here.”

Above is from:  http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-port-of-entry-separations-20180701-story.html

Another 2 cents per gallon in Belvidere?

Above is from:  http://www.rrstar.com/news/20180629/belvidere-may-tax-gas-consumers-2-cents-per-gallon

Belvidere could use its home rule authority for the first time to raise taxes

By Susan Vela
Staff writer

Posted Jul 2, 2018 at 9:57 PM Updated Jul 2, 2018 at 9:57 PM

BELVIDERE — Belvidere City Council may use its home rule authority for the first time to raise taxes if it approves a 2-cent-per-gallon gas tax this month, Belvidere Mayor Mike Chamberlain said.

Created by the Illinois Constitution in 1970, home rule is a series of powers that give cities with more than 25,000 people greater local authority to govern and tax. Belvidere has been a home-rule community since its population tipped 25,000 for the 2010 Census.

The 2-cent gas tax is one of several options the city has been studying to raise money to address its infrastructure costs and rising police and fire pensions.

“We’re in the business of serving the majority of the community to the best of our ability,” Chamberlain said after Monday’s City Council meeting, when aldermen conducted a silent reading of an ordinance that would implement the 2-cent tax. “A gas tax is a user tax. If you don’t use a lot of gas, then you don’t pay. It’s a matter of trying to find how to raise revenue without affecting people who can least afford it.”

City officials estimate the gas tax would cost the average driver purchasing 20 gallons of gas per week an additional $21 per year. The measure would raise about $200,000 to $300,000 more a year for “basic governmental services” including fire protection, law enforcement and public works.

June 29, 2018

Further discussion could happen at Council’s 6 p.m. Committee of the Whole meeting on Monday. A final vote is expected on July 16.

Two Belvidere residents who addressed the City Council on Monday had different opinions on the proposed tax.

“Any money you make from this, a lot of it’s going to come from out-of-towners stopping for gas here before they get in the suburbs where its 30 cents higher,” John Enright said. “We don’t know how good we have it. Add the two cents. Spend the money wisely. And that’s my two cents’ worth.”

Shirley Mills said she can afford the gas tax. She’s not sure about others.

“I just think there are a lot of people that, regardless of how small it is, they just can’t afford to have any more taxes,” Mills said.

According to AAA, the average gas price across the nation on Monday was $2.86 per gallon, compared to the $2.94 average in Illinois, $2.82 in Wisconsin and $2.85 in Indiana.

Above is from:  http://www.rrstar.com/news/20180702/belvidere-could-use-its-home-rule-authority-for-first-time-to-raise-taxes

Signs of support for a candidate forum Group calls on Kinzinger, Dady to take part in public Q&A events

DIXON – More than 700 area residents are calling on U.S. Rep. Adam Kinzinger and Democratic challenger Sara Dady to attend a community forum in Dixon next month.

Members of Action for a Better Tomorrow Sauk Valley, a political advocacy group, traveled to Kinzinger’s office in Ottawa Wednesday morning to drop off a letter inviting him to speak at a community forum at 6:30 p.m. July 30 at the Post House Community Center with Dady, a Rockford immigration attorney looking to unseat the Channahon Republican in the Nov. 6 election.

Along with the letter was a stack of papers with more than 700 signatures of constituents in the 16th Congressional District in favor of a minimum of four candidate forums between the two.

One of ABT’s main goals is to bring candidates to the area to answer constituents’ questions face-to-face, to help them decide what names to mark on the ballot, ABT member Sarah Bingaman said.

“We feel that there’s a great need for that,” Bingaman said. “We want to give local voters a chance to meet the candidates and base their vote on firsthand information to make an informed decision, and we’ve had great success so far.”

The handful of members were “cordially received” by staff at Kinzinger’s office, she said, and they specifically picked July 30 because it’s pegged as a district work day on the congressional calendar, meaning Kinzinger should be in the area.

The group plans to deliver the same letter and petition to Dady in Rockford.

The community forum will take place as long as at least one of the candidates shows up, Bingaman said.

The 16th District covers all of Lee, Ogle, Bureau, Boone, Grundy, Iroquois, LaSalle, Livingston, and Putnam counties, and parts of DeKalb, Ford, Stark, Will and Winnebago counties.

Above is from:  http://www.saukvalley.com/2018/06/27/signs-of-support-for-a-candidate-forum/a5i4yga/