Burr Ridge Mayor Gary Grasso on Wednesday demanded an apology from Gov. J.B. Pritzker over the migrant issue.
Last week, Pritzker’s office suggested village officials showed “xenophobia” in reaction to the arrival of migrants.
On Sept. 7, Burr Ridge officials received vague reports that an unknown number of refugees were headed to Burr Ridge from Chicago, Grasso said. They were part of the hundreds of migrants sent by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott.
I appreciate your commitment to be more welcoming to these asylum seekers than your initial comments suggest. I certainly would have preferred for my administration to be in contact with your office earlier, and I apologize for the inadvertent delay in contacting your office while my team was scrambling to find a place for these 64 people – mostly women and children – to sleep.
As we move forward constructively together, I also hope you reflect on the negative environment you created for these asylum seekers with your public comments and take this opportunity to apologize to them for creating such an unwelcoming reception.
I would like to share a few examples of statements that these migrants could have heard from you:
• You said that they were “supposedly” here legally. They are actually here legally, under a process established for decades.
• You threatened the business license of the hotel that is contracted by the state for emergency housing. This attempt at fear-mongering has a chilling effect on businesses and raises community concerns.
• You said that no additional asylum seekers would be welcome “without Village consent and planning – if at all.” The state has a contract with the hotel to provide emergency rooms. We used this contract for Afghan refugees in February and March of 2022.
My administration will continue to be in touch with you and your office to help address any questions that you have. In fact, my office called twice on Thursday, Sept. 8 and then put you in direct contact with an official at the Illinois of Emergency Management Agency who can quickly answer most of your questions. As one of the state’s lead agencies, they have the best ability to provide accurate and timely information, and track down any additional information you seek.
However, I note for the record that your initial questions focused on the asylum seekers’ legal status, not the obligations of your municipality or desire to help them.
As you are well aware, the State of Illinois has significantly more responsibilities to these asylum seekers than the Town of Burr Ridge, but I am pleased to see that you believe we all share the moral responsibility to be more welcoming.
* Meanwhile, the Tribune asked a group of asylum-seekers if they felt they’d been coerced to board the buses from Texas…
But in Elk Grove Village, the Navarro family and other migrants — all sitting outside the hotel where they have been placed for temporary housing by city and state efforts — said they didn’t feel coerced to board the buses that were made available to them. But they agreed that with the lack of comprehensive help or options to travel to different cities, they felt forced to take whatever route was presented to them after their monthlong journey to safety.
“They (immigration authorities) didn’t force us to get on the bus, but they didn’t give us other options to go elsewhere,” Navarro said. “We were told that at least once we arrived at New York, there would be people that could help us get to Chicago.”
One Venezuelan migrant who arrived at Martha’s Vineyard identified himself as Luis, 27, and said he and nine relatives were promised a flight to Massachusetts, along with shelter, support for 90 days, help with work permits and English lessons. He said they were surprised when their flight landed on an island.
He said the promises came from a woman who gave her name as “Perla” who approached his family on the street outside a San Antonio shelter after they crossed from Mexico and U.S. border authorities released them with an immigration court date.
He said the woman, who also put them up in a hotel, did not provide a last name or any affiliation, but asked them to sign a liability waiver.
“We are scared,” he said, adding he and others felt they were lied to. “I hope they give us help.” […]
Massachusetts U.S. Attorney Rachael Rollins said at a news conference her office would be “looking into that case” and speaking with the Justice Department.
* More…
* Countryside Mayor Sean McDermott: Texas Gov. Abbott sends asylum seekers here to sow chaos, but Illinois is better than that: The busloads of people sent from Texas are legal asylum seekers, with every right to temporarily reside in our country while they apply for more permanent refuge. The border agencies have done their work and provided these refugees with legal entry into this country with a future court date to present their asylum claims. Let me repeat: These people are correctly following a legal process that has been in place for decades. When my grandparents emigrated from Ireland, they followed a similar path of uncertainty and turmoil before finally making the United States their home. It’s one of the proudest American traditions — the idea that anyone can become part of this great country if they work hard, play by the rules and take the necessary steps to become part of our larger community.
…Adding… Grasso’s response…
September 16, 2022
Governor Pritzker
Your September 15th response, although addressed to me, was forwarded to me from a local Patch reporter who had received it directly from your press secretary last evening. I only received the letter late this morning from your staff. Upon reading the letter, had it ended where it began - with appreciation of my commitment to be welcoming to the refugees and your apology for your office’s “inadvertent delay” in contacting the Village I would have accepted them as sincere, and moved on. But the rest of your letter contained a different tone. So, here are a few replies:
• The IDHS employee who has continually been present and engaging on site this morning (during my third visit to the hotel since Saturday to check on the refugees) volunteered, without prompting, that the Village really “came through” in welcoming the refugees; so it’s apparent that your comments about us not having welcomed the refugees is wrong - I can produce a volume of emails (not to mention a list of callers) who have offered food, clothing and jobs to the refugees without hesitation;
• Of course, as we discovered the hotel had a contract with the State that was the apparent reason it had agreed to house the refugees for the State for at least 30 days, I emphatically told the hotel that long-term housing of refugees should be cleared with the Village and Board and I want to know the basic information your office wanted to know about them in order to inform the residents and make decisions based on that information - long term housing of refugees for the State is not customary hotel business, as you no doubt know;
• You state this action was done “… while my team was scrambling to find a place for these 64 people - mostly women and children - to sleep.. .” through a contract with the hotel”.. . to provide emergency rooms”. The State should not be scrambling and should have had a plan to handle a few hundred intermittently received refugees - it’s an emergency because there was no plan;
• Of course, my initial questions - after learning they were already checked into the hotel - included their legal status - I learned of their asylum status only then - being here legally is a fundamental, initial piece of important information to anyone in my position;
• The two calls you mention came only after I discovered from a friend in the DuPage Board of Health that there was a conference call of state, county, and city officials - but again, not including my staff at which I made my displeasure with the process abundantly clear.
Finally, i too note for the record that your press secretary has not apologized for the disparaging characterization of our community. Given your heritage (not too dissimilar to mine) - such a comment should never be lodged against a community, and here quickly retracted.
Governor, I wish you the best in a difficult time, but must state in closing that the significant responsibilities you men^ep that th^tate has to the refugees cannot eclipse the rights of the municipal communities and citi^fer^fe of lllin^s/A/ho are your first priority.
Q: There are claims that the bill prevents police officers from forcibly removing a trespasser from one’s property. … Is that claim true or false?
Rep. Patrick Windhorst (R-Metropolis): Well, I think it’s at least partially true, if not completely true. That relates to a trespasser on property, not inside the residence, but on property. And it says that that person is not subject to arrest unless they are presenting a risk of the safety of an individual or the community. So if an individual is simply on property without authorization or trespass. The police are simply to cite and then leave. […]
Cook County Public Defender Sharone Mitchell: I think that Representative Windhorst is right that part of that legislation says that law enforcement should not arrest for the lowest level offenses. But the next line gives law enforcement the sole authority to make that decision. And it’s also important to note that that piece of legislation was actually taken from recommendations from a group of states attorneys, court system actors and prosecutors in a report that was released in April 2020. So that gives law enforcement the flexibility to actually make that decision themselves.
* This is from the April 2020 Illinois Supreme Court Commission on Pretrial Practices Final Report, mentioned by Mitchell, on the trespassing language…
Law enforcement shall issue a citation in lieu of custodial arrest, upon proper identification, for those accused of Class B and C traffic and criminal misdemeanor offenses, or of petty and business offenses, who pose no obvious threat to the community or any person, or who have no obvious medical or mental health issues that pose a risk to their own safety. Those released on citation shall be scheduled into court within 21 days. Subsequent court reminder notification shall be provided via mail, electronically, text or telephone.
(a-1) Law enforcement shall issue a citation in lieu of custodial arrest, upon proper identification, for those accused of traffic and Class B and C criminal misdemeanor offenses, or of petty and business offenses, who pose no obvious threat to the community or any person, or who have no obvious medical or mental health issues that pose a risk to 25 their own safety. Those released on citation shall be scheduled in to court within 21 days.
Mitchell says the statute gives law enforcement officers discretion to interpret what an “obvious threat” is. Somebody camped out on a person’s porch and won’t leave after being ordered to by the police could easily be declared a threat, in other words.
But even Democrats have told me they are looking for ways to tighten up the language in the fall veto session. We’ll see.
Whatever we have to change we will change. I want to again say that we have committed to making sure that this will make Illinois safe and also furthers justice in this state. We’ve got to get it right and it will take some tweaking over time. We’ve already tweaked some, we’ll continue to do that where it’s necessary.
* Anyway, back to the Illinois Supreme Court Commission on Pretrial Practices Final Report on this topic…
Arrest is an essential and integral function of effective policing. However, the practice is far more intrusive to individual freedom, subjecting a person to potential pretrial detention or unnecessary conditions of pretrial release. Citation in lieu of arrest authorizes law enforcement to release a subject, in appropriate non-violent cases, with a date to appear in court, rather than being subjected to formalized arrest and booking procedures.
The American Bar Association and International Association of Chiefs of Police foster a policy favoring issuance of citations. “It should be the policy of every law enforcement agency to issue citations in lieu of arrest or continued custody to the maximum extent consistent with the effective enforcement of the law.” Nationwide, law enforcement departments utilize some form of citation in lieu of arrest. Approximately 87% of police agencies participate in this form of policing with 80% of these jurisdictions having ten (10) years or more experience using this arrest alternative.
Republican Sen. John Curran and Republican Rep. Dan Ugaste were on that commission, as was a representative of the Illinois Association Chiefs of Police and former US Attorney Rodger Heaton.
* I asked Jordan Abudayyeh at the governor’s office for comment…
Under the SAFE-T Act, law enforcement officers can continue to use their judgement to arrest a person that is a threat to the community.
The statute clearly states, “law enforcement shall issue a citation in lieu of custodial arrest, upon proper identification, for those accused of traffic and Class B and C criminal misdemeanor offenses, or of petty and business offenses, who pose no obvious threat to the community or any person, or who have no obvious medical or mental health issues that pose a risk to their own safety.”
If the law enforcement community needs more clarity regarding their ability to arrest people who are posing a threat to other people or themselves then our administration is happy to work with them and lawmakers to make that even more clear.
* The reason I asked for some clarification is because the trespassing issue has become a hot topic of discussion. Sen. Darren Bailey said this on Dan Proft’s WIND show last week…
The simple offense of trespassing in your house, on your yard, in your business. The law enforcement can only stand there, by this SAFE-T Act and write a warning. That’s all that they can do. They cannot forcefully remove these people. So we’ve got a pretty dire situation on our hands
Law enforcement do have discretion to remove the person from the location of the alleged criminal activity, and then cite and release the person from another location.
The elimination of carbon-emitting power plants in Illinois over the next 20 years will leave the Chicago area without enough generating capacity to meet its needs, forcing the region to import electricity from other states for the first time in modern memory.
That’s the conclusion of a new report by PJM Interconnection, the power-grid manager for a multistate region from northern Illinois to the mid-Atlantic. PJM blames the closing of fossil fuel plants—which to date has been driven by poor economics but soon will be mandated by the state’s year-old Climate & Equitable Jobs Act, or CEJA—for a projected capacity gap that will force the area to look elsewhere for power by 2030 at the latest. PJM further concludes that billions in spending on new and upgraded power transmission lines will be required to bring power to Chicago from Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania. […]
“The [Pritzker] administration finds this study incredibly myopic and is confident that as we work to implement the goals of CEJA over the next two decades there will be enough clean energy options for consumers and the grid—it’s exactly why the bill incentivizes the production of clean energy and the market has already moved away from fossil fuel options on its own,” spokeswoman Jordan Abuddayeh says in an email. […]
“Based on the additional clean, renewable energy expected to come online as a result of CEJA and the amount of power nuclear plants in northern Illinois can produce, we project that there will be enough generation at nearly all times of the year to continue to reliably meet our customers’ needs without importing power from other regions,” ComEd spokesman Paul Elsberg says in an email. “While it’s possible there will be times in future years when some generation will need to be imported to meet demand when it’s at its highest, this will depend on many factors—among them, how much solar energy, wind energy and battery storage is added to the power grid, and when.”
* And that’s not all. Earlier this week, Sangamon County Judge Raylene Grischow issued a preminary injunction against the Illinois EPA to stop its enforcement of an annual emissions cap that predated the actual implementation of the rules. The retroactive rule meant that Elwood Energy LLC did not have “fair notice” of “how its 2021 conduct was regulated until IEPA issued its rules in January 2022.” The company was asked to generate more electricity than normal in the fall of last year and that generation had left precious little space under the retroactive cap imposed in January. The company claimed it was losing millions of dollars because it could not operate. The ruling is here.
“By requiring compliance four months in the past,” Grischow wrote, “the rule penalizes Elwood and harms its business, in violation of the Federal and Illinois Due Process Clauses.”
React from the Illinois Clean Jobs Coalition…
We’re not surprised that fossil fuel companies would challenge Illinois’ new clean energy direction. The Climate and Equitable Jobs Act’s steady path to eliminating pollution from gas and coal plants is gradual, achievable, good for public health, and essential to becoming a leader in the clean energy economy.
These provisions were rigorously reviewed by experts. The preliminary injunction would allow a 1,700-MW methane gas plant to flout CEJA’s emissions limitations because JPower’s Elwood gas plant has claimed it cannot accurately calculate how much nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and other harmful pollutants it emits.
We are confident the provisions will ultimately be upheld by the judicial system and thwart Elwood’s efforts to avoid compliance. We look forward to achieving CEJA’s bold goals of decarbonizing our electric sector and creating good, equitable jobs and economic opportunities in the clean energy sources that will power Illinois in the future.
…Adding… On a related note, here’s a press release…
The Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) approved the Dakota Access Pipeline and Energy Transfer Crude Oil Pipeline expansion in the Prairie State today.
The approval comes after a court decision vacating the previous approval, because the prior approval did not demonstrate how the expansion benefited Illinoisians and the ICC failed to consider the troubling record of the pipeline operator.
In January 2022, the Illinois 4th District Appellate Court vacated the approval of the pipeline expansion and remanded it back to the ICC. The suit was brought by Save Our Illinois Land (SOIL), the Sierra Club, NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), and area landowner William Klingele.
Following are quotes from the litigants:
“This decision shows the ICC’s continued favoritism toward business interests at the expense of Illinois citizens. It endangers us all,” said Deni Mathews, chairperson of Save Our Illinois Land. “Instead of evaluating the full impact of such projects, we are left to grapple with the continued effect of carbon pollution on our air, water, and soil. Carbon emissions increase while our earth’s climate systems are providing clear evidence that we must stop.”
“In signing off yet again on this reckless expansion of the Dakota Access pipeline, the ICC is putting critical water resources at even greater risk,” said Catherine Collentine, Director of the Sierra Club’s Beyond Dirty Fuels campaign. “From the beginning, DAPL has threatened clean drinking water and trampled on Indigenous rights. Allowing even more dirty oil to run through it could be disastrous for communities along its route. We will continue to work to shut down this dangerous oil pipeline altogether.”
“This pipeline expansion threatens our health, our climate, and Illinois’ waters,” said J.C. Kibbey, IL clean energy advocate at NRDC. “There are few, if any, benefits to the people of this state, but the massive risks to Illinois are clear. While we bear the risk, big out-of-state fossil fuel companies reap the profits.”
* I heard this morning that ABC7 and WGN had followed the lead of NBC5 and stopped airing the “Scream” ad paid for by the People Who Play By The Rules PAC. I asked the committee if this was true and they confirmed it today. Here’s Dan Proft…
All the network affiliates approved the ad. Then came the push back from the targets the ‘news’ stations serve, Gov. Pritzker and Mayor Lightfoot, and other enthusiasts of lawlessness and unchecked violence and down came my ad. It began with NBC and, since all these network affiliate executives share a brain, the rest of the stations, with one notable exception, followed. The video of the attack is perfectly fine for use by the ‘news’ stations if it’s in furtherance of their salacious ‘if it bleeds it leads’ coda. But if someone takes the attack in question, same video, and connects the dots to the people who’ve abdicated their responsibilities for providing public safety, well, then down it must come. It’s indicative of the lengths the Chicago Democrat Media Complex will go to protect their own–and I’m not talking about their viewers.
Discuss.
Also, as we’ve discussed before, the video does appear to have been altered.
*** UPDATE *** From the victim’s attorney…
Rich – I represent the victim in the Scream Ad that Dan Proft has been running and I just wanted to note that the victim was never asked or consulted by them regarding the use of that video. Not that she would have agreed to allow it, but at least she should have been given a heads up that it was coming out. She wishes to remain anonymous and heal from this whole ordeal and the Scream ad isn’t helping. All the best. Tom
Thomas More Leinenweber
Leinenweber Baroni & Daffada, LLC
