logo
Three interesting bills: immigration, National Guard deployment and labeling pork

Three interesting bills: immigration, National Guard deployment and labeling pork

Yahoo31-01-2025

A view of the Virginia House of Delegates Chamber in Richmond. (Photo by Nathaniel Cline/Virginia Mercury)
More than 1,000 bills are filed for General Assembly consideration each year. In this weekly series, the Mercury takes a look at a few of lawmakers' 2025 proposals that might not otherwise make headlines during the whirlwind legislative session.
House Bill 2560: The consequences criminal proceedings can have on immigration
This bill from Del. Alfonso Lopez, D-Arlington, would require courts to notify defendants at their initial hearing for any misdemeanor or felony that the outcome may have federal immigration and naturalization consequences.
Lopez told the House Criminal Subcommittee this week his legislation would help ensure fair due process for immigrants who aren't fluent in English or educated on the U.S. legal system. Lopez said currently individuals might accept plea deals because they don't understand the full consequences, unaware that, 'they're potentially condemning themselves to deportation or exile regardless of how many years they've spent in the United States.'
Lopez emphasized his bill isn't targeting violent criminals, but, for instance, someone who is charged for 'failure to file a report with the Virginia Peanut Board' or underage drinking, both of which are violations punishable by a Class 1 misdemeanor and can carry a sentence of up to a year in prison. However, even if an individual takes a plea deal where their punishment has been reduced to a fine or community service, Lopez said they will still be subject to immigration proceedings because of a federal rule about the 'potential' for a year in prison.
Several groups spoke in support of the bill, including Fatimah Muwahhid with the Humanization Project, who told the subcommittee that pleading guilty for little to no sentence is a move that, 'is logical to accept for anyone needing to get back to work to support a family.'
Muwahhid continued, 'imagine agreeing to that for all the right reasons, only to find out after you have taken a guilty plea that you may not ever see that family again.'
Lopez said the legislation is a 'trimmed down' version of his bill which passed last year only to be vetoed by Gov. Glenn Youngkin, who objected to a provision prohibiting inquiries into the defendant's immigration status unless it was relevant to their case.
The bill unanimously passed the House Criminal Subcommittee and Courts of Justice Committee and will be heard on the House floor next week.
House Bill 2193: Prohibiting National Guard deployment to active combat
This legislation from Del. Nick Freitas, R-Culpeper, would prohibit the Virginia Guard from being sent into active duty combat unless Congress has made an official declaration of war or has taken action authorized by the Constitution for expressly executing U.S. laws, repelling invasion or suppressing an insurrection.
Freitas, an Army veteran, told the House Public Safety Committee Thursday that his bill is an attempt to correct a 'mistake' of U.S. foreign policy that involves service members in wars overseas without a congressional declaration of war.
'I think we have gotten to a point where it is time for somebody, somewhere to hold Congress responsible for completely abdicating its responsibility under the Constitution to declare war, and instead, allowing the executive branch to get us involved in wars,' Frietas said. 'As long as [Congress] pass[es] a budget amendment, then Congress apparently has had a say in the process.'
Congress approved its last formal declaration of war during World War II.
Between August 2021 and February 2023, more than 2,000 state National Guard personnel were on federal active duty in the U.S. and overseas — the most since 2007 — A. A. 'Cotton' Puryear, chief of public affairs for the Virginia National Guard, told the Virginia Mercury.
'Soldiers deployed overseas provided mission command for multi-national forces in Kuwait, mission command and base life support in Iraq and Kuwait, a security response force in the Horn of Africa, air defense site security in Iraq, engineer utilities support in Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait and conducted [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] peace support operations in Kosovo,' Puryear said. Additionally, he said the Virginia National Guard Airmen, 'also supported a short-notice air superiority support in the United Arab Emirates.'
Freitas emphasized his bill is crafted to respect the authority of the federal government and Virginia's governor to mobilize the state's National Guard.
The bill passed the House Public Safety Subcommittee unanimously, which chair Del. Sam Rasoul, D-Roanoke, called, 'the libertarians and liberals coming together.' The legislation now heads to the full House Committee on Public Safety.
Senate Bill 1133: Requiring notice of pork products on menus
Restaurants and catering operations would need to identify pork products on menus for customers, under legislation from Sen. Jennifer Boysko, D-Fairfax. Her bill also calls for restaurants to post a copy of the menu where it can be accessible to employees involved in the preparation or service of food.
Boysko told the Senate Health Subcommittee this week her bill tackles a religious issue for Muslim, Jewish and some Christian communities whose faith prohibits them from eating pork. The town of Herndon requested Boysko carry the bill, with councilmember Naila Alam telling the panel in a statement, 'In Northern Virginia — a hub of diversity and economic activity — labeling pork products is not just respectful, it's necessary.'
According to the Public Religion Research Institute, in 2023, Jewish Americans made up 2% of the total U.S. population and Muslim Americans 1%. However, Fairfax County's population is 3% Muslim and 2.7% Jewish, and Loudoun County is 2.5% Jewish and 1.6% Muslim.
Boysko said the legislation would also be beneficial to the increasing number of people who chose vegetarian, vegan or other flexitarian diets.
Speaking in opposition to the bill, Tommy Herbert with the Virginia Restaurant, Lodging and Travel Association said it would not be 'reasonably possible' for a restaurant owner to comply with the bill because there are pork products 'upstream' in the food production process that they may not be aware of, like in products that come ready-made to the restaurant.
Herbert said gelatin is an example, 'which can be derived from pork, but you do not know whether it is derived from pork.'
Sen. David Suetterlein, R-Roanoke County, told the Senate Education and Health Committee on Thursday that Virginia already 'got it right' with an existing law requiring labels for halal and kosher products, and Boysko's bill could take the commonwealth down a path of requiring labels for more things.
Sen. Lashrecse Aird, D-Petersburg, noted she sees restaurants 'more times than not' already indicating food sensitivities or allergens with an asterisk or italics on menus, and Boysko's bill would be, 'an additional step into work already being done with menus.'
The bill passed 3-2 in the subcommittee and 7-6 in the Senate Education and Health Committee, with Republicans voting in opposition.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Judge blocks administration from enforcing anti-diversity and anti-transgender executive orders
Judge blocks administration from enforcing anti-diversity and anti-transgender executive orders

Los Angeles Times

time39 minutes ago

  • Los Angeles Times

Judge blocks administration from enforcing anti-diversity and anti-transgender executive orders

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge in California has blocked the Trump administration from enforcing anti-diversity and anti-transgender executive orders in grant funding requirements that LGBTQ+ organizations say are unconstitutional. U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar said Monday that the federal government cannot force recipients to halt programs that promote diversity, equity and inclusion or acknowledge the existence of transgender people in order to receive grant funding. The order will remain in effect while the legal case continues, although government lawyers will likely appeal. The funding provisions 'reflect an effort to censor constitutionally protected speech and services promoting DEI and recognizing the existence of transgender individuals,' Tigar wrote. He went on to say that the executive branch must still be bound by the Constitution in shaping its agenda and that even in the context of federal subsidies, 'it cannot weaponize Congressionally appropriated funds to single out protected communities for disfavored treatment or suppress ideas that it does not like or has deemed dangerous.' The plaintiffs include health centers, LGBTQ+ services groups and the Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender Historical Society. All receive federal funding and say they cannot complete their missions by following the president's executive orders. The San Francisco AIDS Foundation, one of the plaintiffs, said in 2023 it received a five-year grant from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to expand and enhance sexual health services, including the prevention of sexually transmitted infections. The $1.3 million project specifically targets communities disproportionately affected by sexual health disparities. But in April, the CDC informed the nonprofit that it must 'immediately terminate all programs, personnel, activities, or contracts' that promote DEI or gender ideology. President Trump has signed a flurry of executive orders since taking office in January, including ones to roll back transgender protections and stop DEI programs. Lawyers for the government say that the president is permitted to 'align government funding and enforcement strategies' with his policies. Plaintiffs say that Congress — and not the president — has the power to condition how federal funds are used, and that the executive orders restrict free speech rights. Har writes for the Associated Press.

Trump vs. California is the fight the White House wants
Trump vs. California is the fight the White House wants

Yahoo

time42 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump vs. California is the fight the White House wants

President Trump is getting the fight with California he wants as Democrats in the state criticize his decision to send the National Guard to Los Angeles without local approval to deal with protests surrounding raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The unfolding events hit at the heart of key issues that Trump basks in: immigration and fighting liberal California Democrats. You can also add in law and order, as Trump and his team accuse California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and other local officials of being too soft on demonstrators destroying property and setting cars on fire. White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller on Sunday reposted several images meant to convey the chaos in LA, including one showing huge plumes of smoke billowing from a burning vehicle as demonstrators watched, with one with holding Mexican flag. The post read, 'Let's check in on how LAPD's management of the 'protests' is going,' and criticized Newsom's slamming of Trump's decision to send the guard. A second Miller repost was from his White House colleague Taylor Budowich, who sent out a similar video of a masked protestor on a car surrounded by other burning cars and demonstrators in the streets. 'Democrat management,' the post said. Newsom has said California will sue the Trump administration over its deployment of the National Guard, while the White House maintains Trump intervened at the right time to restore law and order and that the violent attacks had already escalated before he stepped in. 'Donald Trump has created the conditions you see on your TV tonight. He's exacerbated the conditions. He's, you know, lit the proverbial match. He's putting fuel on this fire, ever since he announced he was taking over the National Guard — an illegal act, an immoral act, an unconstitutional act,' Newsom said on MSNBC. Just a few days ago, Trump was battling negative coverage of his public feud with erstwhile ally Elon Musk. The violence in LA allowed him to rapidly shift gears and put much of the focus on immigration even as his team pushed Congress to pass his signature legislation — which had triggered the battle with Musk. 'The riots in Los Angeles prove that we desperately need more immigration enforcement personnel and resources. America must reverse the invasion unleashed by Joe Biden of millions of unvetted illegal aliens into our country,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on the social platform X, calling for Senate passage of the House-passed 'one, big beautiful bill' with its funding measures for border security. The story even served to bring Musk back into the fold, with the tech mogul sending a number of supportive messages of the president that criticized Newsom and demonstrators. Trump ran on a platform of mass deportations. Since then, ICE raids, arrests of migrants at immigration courts and lawsuits over deportations have been a major part of his first few months in office. His administration has blamed Democrats, especially Biden, for allowing what they call an 'invasion' of migrants coming in at the nation's southern border, and White House briefings have often begun with spotlighting a deported migrant who committed a crime in the U.S. The images of masked demonstrators with Mexican flags falls right into this argument. That the protests are in California is also good for Trump. Trump has flirted with the idea of fining or nixing federal funding for the state, lashing out earlier this month after a transgender athlete was allowed to compete and win at a high school track and field meet. He also blamed Newsom, who is widely considered to be eying a presidential bid, for the wildfires that raged in the Los Angeles area in January and made his first trip as president to California to meet with him and survey damage. Newsom then visited Trump at the White House in February about aid for wildfire victims. The White House is now blaming Newsom for the protests in Los Angeles, bashing him for suing the administration instead of focusing on solutions. 'Gavin Newsom's feckless leadership is directly responsible for the lawless riots and violent attacks on law enforcement in Los Angeles. Instead of filing baseless lawsuits meant to score political points with his left-wing base, Newsom should focus on protecting Americans by restoring law and order to his state,' White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said. Trump on Sunday didn't rule out using the Insurrection Act, which allows the president to deploy the military and federalize the National Guard in the event of an insurrection. He considered invoking the law in his first term during the 2020 protests over police brutality, but officials like former Defense Secretary Mark Esper pushed back at the time. 'We're going to have troops everywhere. We're not going to let this happen to our country. We're not going to let our country be torn apart like it was under Biden and his auto pen,' Trump said Sunday. The president also said that if California officials stand in the way of federal officials deporting migrants, they will face federal charges. 'We're just going to see what happens. If we think there's a serious insurrection … we're going to have law and order,' he said. California Democrats are responding to Trump by calling on residents to not turn to violence while protesting, arguing that the president's move to bring in the National Guard was meant to provoke the chaos. 'Angelenos — don't engage in violence and chaos. Don't give the administration what they want,' Mayor Karen Bass said on X. Similarly, Newsom warned other states about Trump federalizing the National Guard and accused him of escalating the situation. 'This is exactly what Donald Trump wanted,' Newsom said on X. 'He flamed the fires and illegally acted to federalize the National Guard. The order he signed doesn't just apply to CA. It will allow him to go into ANY STATE and do the same thing. We're suing him.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Paraguay president's X account likely hacked in Bitcoin scheme
Paraguay president's X account likely hacked in Bitcoin scheme

Yahoo

time42 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Paraguay president's X account likely hacked in Bitcoin scheme

ASUNCION (Reuters) -Paraguay's government on Monday said that President Santiago Pena's X account had likely been hacked after the leader appeared to promote trading of cryptocurrency Bitcoin. "The president's official X account has presented irregular activity which suggests possible unauthorized entry," the government said in a statement. A post on Pena's account in English, with a Spanish-language statement purporting to be from the government, had declared that the Latin American country had made Bitcoin legal tender and that it would roll out a $5 million Bitcoin-backed reserve fund. The government asked citizens to ignore posts from the account until official confirmation was made available. Paraguay's national cybersecurity team was working with X to investigate the situation, the government added. X did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store