Latest news with #RobertRivas
Yahoo
11-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Newsom's $25 million legal aid should bar undocumented criminals. Codify it
Democrats in Sacramento just lost a messaging battle with Republicans who lack the numbers to pass legislation on their own. By killing a GOP proposal to codify language that bans undocumented criminals from accessing $25 million in legal aid, Democrats will now rightfully get hammered over an issue that could have easily been fixed. Last Thursday, the Assembly Human Services Committee axed AB 1066 by Assemblymember Leticia Castillo, R-Corona. It was Castillo, a freshman lawmaker Democrats – including Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, D-Hollister – say Castillo's legislation was unnecessary. They say a Letter to the Journal, which is Sacramento jargon for formal communication between legislators on the intent of bills, was sufficient to ban undocumented criminals from legal services. Republicans argue the letter isn't the law. But that's not what Gov. Gavin Newsom stated in February, when he signed companion bills to protect undocumented residents from the Trump administration's attack on that community. Responding to concerns that undocumented immigrants could benefit from the stroke of his pen, Newsom invited legislators to make it clear that none could. 'To the extent further clarification is necessary, I encourage the Legislature to pass subsequent legislation,' Newsom said when he signed Senate Bills 1 and 2, which allocates $50 million overall – half toward legal services for immigrants and other vulnerable Californians and the other half to the state Department of Justice to cover court costs. Castillo took him up on it, to no avail, 'I'm deeply disappointed that AB 1066 was killed in committee,' Castillo told The Bee Editorial Board. 'This was a straightforward effort to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not used to provide immigration legal services to individuals convicted of violent or serious crimes, including drug traffickers, attempted murderers, and those in possession of child pornography.' Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, during a March visit to Fresno, told The Editorial Board that dollars in the bill are committed to support organizations that provide pro bono services to the undocumented and others. 'It wasn't, as Republicans have suggested, our intent to defend violent criminals.' Our problem: There is no reason immigrants with criminal records should benefit from California's desire to protect among the roughly 1.8 million undocumented immigrants who contribute to the economy of California with their labor. That is why a Republican effort to codify the barring of undocumented residents with criminal records from that legal aid should have received serious consideration. 'I absolutely plan to bring this bill back,' said Castillo, who said the Letter to the Journal does not carry the force of law. 'The people of California want accountability, not loopholes that reward criminal behavior. I'll continue fighting to protect public safety and ensure our laws reflect that priority. Given that California depends on 850,000 agricultural workers in a $60 billion industry and given that a 2024 UC Davis study found that half of those workers are undocumented (some estimates say that number is as high as 75 percent), this issue transcends partisan politics. To our detriment as a nation, immigration is fought as a binary choice. It's not. In agriculture and other labor sectors, California has an economic interest in undocumented workers whose labor is needed. But California also has an interest in public safety. We agree with Democrats that $25 million in legal aid to protect valuable workers is the right choice for California. But we believe Gov. Newsom should keep his word: 'None of the funding in this bill is intended to be used for immigration-related legal services for noncitizens convicted of serious or violent felonies.' Codify that language, governor. 'We 100% support the arrest and prosecution of the people that are hurting our own community,' said Fresno County Supervisor Luis Chávez at a January press conference. 'But what we're asking (Customs and Border Protection), what we're asking our federal authorities, is to be cognizant so that they don't have collateral damage; so that you don't pick up the mom and dad that are going to work in the food processing plant or a packing house.' Rep. Jim Costa, D-Fresno, said at the same conference that he supports 'getting bad people off the streets.' 'But mass deportation reflects a different notion, and breaking families up is not the American way,' Costa said. Meanwhile, Rep. David Valadao, R-Hanford, said in a January statement that 'we can all agree known criminals should be expelled from the United States, but it is crucial that future (deportation) operations are communicated clearly to avoid causing any further alarm among our farmworkers.'
Yahoo
02-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
What to know about California's fight over harsher penalties for soliciting sex from older teens
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A debate over whether to create harsher penalties for soliciting and buying sex from 16- and 17-year-olds exploded in the California Legislature this week. Republicans and some moderate Democrats were pushing for a new tool to help law enforcement go after those who solicit older minors for sex. But some said they worried the measure could be misused and weaponized by parents upset about interracial or LGBTQ+ relationships to target older teens involved in relationships. The issue came to a head Thursday after Republicans in the Assembly argued for the policy on the floor. Democrats overwhelmingly rejected the effort but vowed to bring a new proposal to address the issue. Here's what to know: How does current law protect 16- and 17-year-olds? Under current law, contacting a person under 18 to engage in sexual activity in California is a felony. So are crimes like soliciting a child who is a victim of human trafficking, sexting a minor and engaging in sex with a minor if the age gap between the parties is more than three years. It's also a 'serious' crime in California to traffic minors. Anyone convicted of at least three "serious" felonies in California faces a sentence of between 25 years and life in prison under the 'three strikes law.' 'California leads the nation with some of the toughest laws against trafficking,' said Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, a Democrat. What changes are proposed? Those who are 16 or 17 years old were not included in bipartisan legislation on sex trafficking signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom last year. The law, which took effect this year, allows prosecutors to charge those who solicit and buy sex from minors 15 or younger with a felony. It left in place an existing law that limits the penalty for soliciting older teens to a misdemeanor. Assemblymember Maggy Krell, a Democrat with a background as a prosecutor, wanted to expand the law Newsom signed to include older teens. Children under 18 who are bought for sex are considered victims of human trafficking under federal law and should receive the same protection under California law, she said. 'If you're 17 years old on the street corner and an old man comes up and purchases you for sex, that's rape,' Krell said. 'That should be treated as a felony.' Why do some Democrats oppose the change? Democrats on the Assembly Public Safety Committee amended Krell's bill to drop the provision that would make it a felony to solicit and buy sex from older teens. They agreed with Krell's goal but worried the approach could have unintended consequences. Leigh LaChapelle of the Coalition to Abolish Slavery & Trafficking told lawmakers at a hearing that the policy could be used to target 16- and 17-year-olds who are in relationships with other minors. 'They are worried about the way that the criminal legal system can be utilized by parents who are upset about interracial and LGBTQ relationships," LaChapelle said. During Thursday's legislative debate, Democrats said it's important to give prosecutors the discretion to decide on penalties in these cases. Newsom, first partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom and Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis criticized the committee's actions. 'The law should treat all sex predators who solicit minors the same — as a felony, regardless of the intended victim's age. Full stop,' Newsom's office said in a statement. He rarely comments on pending legislation. What happens next? Several moderate Democrats, including Krell, broke with their party Thursday to vote with Republicans. Democrats instead backed an amendment saying they plan to 'adopt the strongest laws to protect 16- and 17-year-old victims.' Assemblymember Nick Schultz, who chairs the public safety committee, said he's committed to bringing a new proposal on the issue forward this year. 'We will have a solution,' Schultz said. 'That's my commitment.'
Hamilton Spectator
02-05-2025
- Politics
- Hamilton Spectator
What to know about California's fight over harsher penalties for soliciting sex from older teens
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A debate over whether to create harsher penalties for soliciting and buying sex from 16- and 17-year-olds exploded in the California Legislature this week. Republicans and some moderate Democrats were pushing for a new tool to help law enforcement go after those who solicit older minors for sex. But some said they worried the measure could be misused and weaponized by parents upset about interracial or LGBTQ+ relationships to target older teens involved in relationships. The issue came to a head Thursday after Republicans in the Assembly argued for the policy on the floor. Democrats overwhelmingly rejected the effort but vowed to bring a new proposal to address the issue. Here's what to know: How does current law protect 16- and 17-year-olds? Under current law, contacting a person under 18 to engage in sexual activity in California is a felony. So are crimes like soliciting a child who is a victim of human trafficking, sexting a minor and engaging in sex with a minor if the age gap between the parties is more than three years. It's also a 'serious' crime in California to traffic minors . Anyone convicted of at least three 'serious' felonies in California faces a sentence of between 25 years and life in prison under the 'three strikes law.' 'California leads the nation with some of the toughest laws against trafficking,' said Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, a Democrat. What changes are proposed? Those who are 16 or 17 years old were not included in bipartisan legislation on sex trafficking signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom last year. The law , which took effect this year, allows prosecutors to charge those who solicit and buy sex from minors 15 or younger with a felony. It left in place an existing law that limits the penalty for soliciting older teens to a misdemeanor. Assemblymember Maggy Krell, a Democrat with a background as a prosecutor, wanted to expand the law Newsom signed to include older teens. Children under 18 who are bought for sex are considered victims of human trafficking under federal law and should receive the same protection under California law, she said. 'If you're 17 years old on the street corner and an old man comes up and purchases you for sex, that's rape,' Krell said. 'That should be treated as a felony.' Why do some Democrats oppose the change? Democrats on the Assembly Public Safety Committee amended Krell's bill to drop the provision that would make it a felony to solicit and buy sex from older teens. They agreed with Krell's goal but worried the approach could have unintended consequences. Leigh LaChapelle of the Coalition to Abolish Slavery & Trafficking told lawmakers at a hearing that the policy could be used to target 16- and 17-year-olds who are in relationships with other minors. 'They are worried about the way that the criminal legal system can be utilized by parents who are upset about interracial and LGBTQ relationships,' LaChapelle said. During Thursday's legislative debate, Democrats said it's important to give prosecutors the discretion to decide on penalties in these cases. Newsom, first partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom and Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis criticized the committee's actions. 'The law should treat all sex predators who solicit minors the same — as a felony, regardless of the intended victim's age. Full stop,' Newsom's office said in a statement. He rarely comments on pending legislation. What happens next? Several moderate Democrats, including Krell, broke with their party Thursday to vote with Republicans. Democrats instead backed an amendment saying they plan to 'adopt the strongest laws to protect 16- and 17-year-old victims.' Assemblymember Nick Schultz, who chairs the public safety committee, said he's committed to bringing a new proposal on the issue forward this year. 'We will have a solution,' Schultz said. 'That's my commitment.'
San Francisco Chronicle
02-05-2025
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
What to know about California's fight over harsher penalties for soliciting sex from older teens
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A debate over whether to create harsher penalties for soliciting and buying sex from 16- and 17-year-olds exploded in the California Legislature this week. Republicans and some moderate Democrats were pushing for a new tool to help law enforcement go after those who solicit older minors for sex. But some said they worried the measure could be misused and weaponized by parents upset about interracial or LGBTQ+ relationships to target older teens involved in relationships. The issue came to a head Thursday after Republicans in the Assembly argued for the policy on the floor. Democrats overwhelmingly rejected the effort but vowed to bring a new proposal to address the issue. Here's what to know: How does current law protect 16- and 17-year-olds? Under current law, contacting a person under 18 to engage in sexual activity in California is a felony. So are crimes like soliciting a child who is a victim of human trafficking, sexting a minor and engaging in sex with a minor if the age gap between the parties is more than three years. It's also a 'serious' crime in California to traffic minors. Anyone convicted of at least three "serious" felonies in California faces a sentence of between 25 years and life in prison under the 'three strikes law.' 'California leads the nation with some of the toughest laws against trafficking,' said Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, a Democrat. What changes are proposed? Those who are 16 or 17 years old were not included in bipartisan legislation on sex trafficking signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom last year. The law, which took effect this year, allows prosecutors to charge those who solicit and buy sex from minors 15 or younger with a felony. It left in place an existing law that limits the penalty for soliciting older teens to a misdemeanor. Assemblymember Maggy Krell, a Democrat with a background as a prosecutor, wanted to expand the law Newsom signed to include older teens. Children under 18 who are bought for sex are considered victims of human trafficking under federal law and should receive the same protection under California law, she said. 'If you're 17 years old on the street corner and an old man comes up and purchases you for sex, that's rape,' Krell said. 'That should be treated as a felony.' Why do some Democrats oppose the change? Democrats on the Assembly Public Safety Committee amended Krell's bill to drop the provision that would make it a felony to solicit and buy sex from older teens. They agreed with Krell's goal but worried the approach could have unintended consequences. Leigh LaChapelle of the Coalition to Abolish Slavery & Trafficking told lawmakers at a hearing that the policy could be used to target 16- and 17-year-olds who are in relationships with other minors. 'They are worried about the way that the criminal legal system can be utilized by parents who are upset about interracial and LGBTQ relationships," LaChapelle said. During Thursday's legislative debate, Democrats said it's important to give prosecutors the discretion to decide on penalties in these cases. Newsom, first partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom and Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis criticized the committee's actions. 'The law should treat all sex predators who solicit minors the same — as a felony, regardless of the intended victim's age. Full stop,' Newsom's office said in a statement. He rarely comments on pending legislation. What happens next? Several moderate Democrats, including Krell, broke with their party Thursday to vote with Republicans. Democrats instead backed an amendment saying they plan to 'adopt the strongest laws to protect 16- and 17-year-old victims.' 'We will have a solution,' Schultz said. 'That's my commitment.'
The Independent
02-05-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
What to know about California's fight over harsher penalties for soliciting sex from older teens
A debate over whether to create harsher penalties for soliciting and buying sex from 16- and 17-year-olds exploded in the California Legislature this week. Republicans and some moderate Democrats were pushing for a new tool to help law enforcement go after those who solicit older minors for sex. But some said they worried the measure could be misused and weaponized by parents upset about interracial or LGBTQ+ relationships to target older teens involved in relationships. The issue came to a head Thursday after Republicans in the Assembly argued for the policy on the floor. Democrats overwhelmingly rejected the effort but vowed to bring a new proposal to address the issue. Here's what to know: How does current law protect 16- and 17-year-olds? Under current law, contacting a person under 18 to engage in sexual activity in California is a felony. So are crimes like soliciting a child who is a victim of human trafficking, sexting a minor and engaging in sex with a minor if the age gap between the parties is more than three years. It's also a 'serious' crime in California to traffic minors. Anyone convicted of at least three "serious" felonies in California faces a sentence of between 25 years and life in prison under the 'three strikes law.' 'California leads the nation with some of the toughest laws against trafficking,' said Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, a Democrat. What changes are proposed? Those who are 16 or 17 years old were not included in bipartisan legislation on sex trafficking signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom last year. The law, which took effect this year, allows prosecutors to charge those who solicit and buy sex from minors 15 or younger with a felony. It left in place an existing law that limits the penalty for soliciting older teens to a misdemeanor. Assemblymember Maggy Krell, a Democrat with a background as a prosecutor, wanted to expand the law Newsom signed to include older teens. Children under 18 who are bought for sex are considered victims of human trafficking under federal law and should receive the same protection under California law, she said. 'If you're 17 years old on the street corner and an old man comes up and purchases you for sex, that's rape,' Krell said. 'That should be treated as a felony.' Why do some Democrats oppose the change? Democrats on the Assembly Public Safety Committee amended Krell's bill to drop the provision that would make it a felony to solicit and buy sex from older teens. They agreed with Krell's goal but worried the approach could have unintended consequences. Leigh LaChapelle of the Coalition to Abolish Slavery & Trafficking told lawmakers at a hearing that the policy could be used to target 16- and 17-year-olds who are in relationships with other minors. 'They are worried about the way that the criminal legal system can be utilized by parents who are upset about interracial and LGBTQ relationships," LaChapelle said. During Thursday's legislative debate, Democrats said it's important to give prosecutors the discretion to decide on penalties in these cases. Newsom, first partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom and Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis criticized the committee's actions. 'The law should treat all sex predators who solicit minors the same — as a felony, regardless of the intended victim's age. Full stop,' Newsom's office said in a statement. He rarely comments on pending legislation. What happens next? Several moderate Democrats, including Krell, broke with their party Thursday to vote with Republicans. Democrats instead backed an amendment saying they plan to 'adopt the strongest laws to protect 16- and 17-year-old victims.' Assemblymember Nick Schultz, who chairs the public safety committee, said he's committed to bringing a new proposal on the issue forward this year. 'We will have a solution,' Schultz said. 'That's my commitment.'
