politics

If there’s one thing Jed Wheeler and Marcus Ruiz Evans agree on, it’s that things in California need to change.

The state sends too much money to Washington, they say, and is both politically and culturally out of step with a country that lacks its openness and vitality.

“We can solve our own problems and don’t need to wait on a government 3,000 miles away,” said Wheeler, echoing Evans’ suggestion that Democratic-leaning California would be far better off going it alone as a separate country.

They sharply disagree, though, on the matter of how and precisely when California should seek a divorce from the other 49 states.

Evans is pushing a ballot measure that would put the question of secession before voters in 2018, believing the time has never been so ripe to form a breakaway nation. Wheeler is working to create a pro-secession political party, looking a dozen or more years down the road when its candidates hold office, and fears that a premature vote would undermine the effort.

In short, the effort to cleave California faces a crackup of its own.

At least four proposals are floating about to reshape the state in some fashion, including two that would split up California along different axes. All work at cross-purposes, and the result is varied degrees of hostility among proponents; none of the plans seems likely to reach fruition anytime soon, if ever.

That is something they have in common.

Since 1849, when the state was remade in a rush of greed and ambition, there have been more than 200 efforts to split apart, pull away or otherwise reimagine the vast empire known as California. Not one has succeeded.

The latest, most conspicuous attempt, a proposed ballot initiative fueled by anti-Trump sentiments and titillated national media coverage (those wacky Californians!) seems destined to fall short of qualifying for the ballot, barring a sudden change in fortune.

Supporters of the measure, led by Evans, have until July 25 to collect nearly 600,000 valid signatures to place an independence measure before voters in November 2018. The group, which received the go-ahead to collect signatures at the end of January, has yet to reach a quarter of that number, according to the California secretary of state’s office.

The group has also not reported raising any campaign contributions, according to the secretary’s office, which oversees elections.

Evans, 40, a former government affairs consultant now working full-time on the “Calexit” campaign, insisted a robust signature-gathering process was underway, engaging thousands of volunteers in 82 chapters across the state. However, the precise number collected was unknown, he said, because of the loose structure of his pro-secession group, Yes California.

“Some are mailing them in. Some are holding them. Some are taking them directly to their county registrar of voters,” he said. Asked to assess the odds of making the ballot, Evans responded, “Good. I won’t say great.”

The effort, uphill from the start, has not been helped, he said, by reports linking the Calexit movement to Russia, which Evans called preposterous and unfair. The co-leader of Yes California is Louis Marinelli, a former San Diego-area Assembly candidate now teaching English in Russia, where, among promotional activities, he appeared last fall at a Kremlin-backed pro-secession conference in Moscow.

“It has definitely been damaging to us getting big donors and hurting our ability to bring on new members because of clouding the issue without accurately reporting all the facts,” Evans said, citing the organization’s 44,000 “likes” on Facebook as just one example.

Nor, he said, was it beneficial when Nigel Farage, a leading proponent of Britain’s exit from the European Union and prominent Trump supporter, recently flitted into California to talk up a vague plan to split the state down the middle, creating a coastal “West California” and interior “East California.”

“They’re trying to confuse people,” Evans huffed. “Classic Trump.”

It seems Evans and his pro-secession movement might have found an ally in Wheeler and others working to form a political party dedicated to achieving state independence. Many tenets of the left-leaning California National Party — the state needs to keep more of the money it sends to Washington and establish home-grown policies on issues such as immigration and healthcare — echo those propounded by Yes California.

The nascent party has taken no official position on the 2018 secession drive. But Wheeler, the party’s vice chairman, believes the initiative would lose, damaging the independence movement. Better, he said, to elect sympathetic lawmakers under the National Party banner who could then work to bring about California’s eventual departure.

“We’re trying to be very pragmatic and realistic where we are as a movement,” said Wheeler, 36, who works for a digital media company in San Francisco.

While “the idea of having a ballot initiative is seductive and appeals to a lot of people,” he said, “you can’t harvest the crop without the work of planting the seeds, then tilling the soil and all that stuff first.”

In California’s far north, a determined group of dissenters have done that labor for decades — so far to no avail.

Efforts have been underway since before World War II to break off more than a dozen rural counties and combine them with a chunk of southern Oregon to form Jefferson, the nation’s 51^st state.

The impetus is the same that drives backers of secession: the notion of a far-off government (in this case, Sacramento) ignoring local sentiments and a sense of being outnumbered and outvoted by a population whose social and political views are at odds with the prevailing (in this instance, conservative) culture. The proposed flag — a pair of Xs, or double cross — captures the animating sentiment.

“We really don’t have fair representation,” said Terry Rapoza, 67, a leader of the Jefferson movement in Shasta County, where he sells T-shirts and other souvenir clothing in Redding.

He cited recent passage of a 10-year, $52-billion road repair and transportation bill; the hike in gas taxes, he said, will have much less impact in urban California than in rural stretches, where people might drive 20 miles to the grocery store, or a dozen miles to pick up their mail.

But he has little use for secession, which strikes him as bizarre — would the new California nation have its own nuclear arsenal and U.N. representative, he wonders — and fruitless in ending the urban-rural divide he blames for persistently short-changing his part of the state.

There’s something wrong and even vaguely un-American, he suggested, about trying to break the country apart. “We want to add a star to the flag,” Rapoza said. “Not take one off.”

mark.barabak@latimes.com

@markzbarabak on Twitter

ALSO

The cost of California’s public pensions is rising fast. But efforts to fix the problem by ballot measure have fizzled

What Californians need to know about the state’s $52-billion transportation plan

California is sick of being a presidential campaign afterthought. Here’s one lawmaker’s fix

WASHINGTON — Elizabeth Hanford Dole, a former Cabinet secretary and the wife of Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, received speaking fees from 1991 through 1994 in excess of $875,000–much of it from groups with a stake in policy matters pending before Congress, records show.

The fees have enhanced substantially the couple’s joint income, which totaled about $600,000 in 1994, according to income-tax returns and annual financial disclosure statements. Mrs. Dole, a national figure in her own right, last fall took a temporary leave as president of the American Red Cross to support her husband’s campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.

Sen. Dole has filed income-disclosure statements with the Senate for the last four years saying that all of Mrs. Dole’s speaking fees were contributed to a Red Cross charity account–except for “taxes, a contribution to a retirement fund and speech-writing expenses.”

However, a Times analysis of the records shows that the Doles have retained a substantial part of Mrs. Dole’s speaking fees:

From 1991 through 1994, the Doles kept $147,663 in cash from Mrs. Dole’s fees–after speech-writing costs and federal income taxes were paid.

An additional $243,830 was placed in Mrs. Dole’s retirement account, as the senator stated in his financial disclosure forms. The couple contributed $405,513, or 46%, of the fees to the Red Cross charity account for troubled youths during 1991 through 1994. But only in 1993 did Mrs. Dole donate all of her speaking fees to the charity–minus taxes, expenses and a contribution to her private retirement fund.

In 1994, the most recent year for which financial records are available, the Doles kept $47,421 in cash from Mrs. Dole’s $184,775 in speaking fees and placed $63,505 into Mrs. Dole’s retirement account.

Dole Comment

Asked for comment, aides to Dole did not dispute The Times’ findings. Reading from a prepared response Thursday night, Dole campaign spokeswoman Christina Martin said:

“We are not aware of a reason to amend the senator’s [financial disclosure] statements at this time. Sen. Dole has filed amendments in the past and would do so again, should a review prove such a step is necessary. The senator is a firm believer in full disclosure, as is demonstrated by his release [last week] of tax returns dating back 29 years.”

The annual disclosure forms signed by Sen. Dole warn that civil and criminal sanctions can be imposed if a senator “knowingly and willfully” makes a false statement.

Nelson Warfield, Dole’s chief spokesman, said the senator is not influenced by Elizabeth Dole’s acceptance of speaking fees from groups with business pending before Congress.

“No one gains Bob Dole’s favor by hiring his wife,” Warfield said. “In the senator’s words, he hasn’t the foggiest idea who she speaks to.”

Clearly, Mrs. Dole’s career in Washington makes her a sought-after guest speaker. Before joining the Red Cross in 1991, she was an appointee of five presidents–serving as a member of the Federal Trade Commission in the 1970s and as secretary of labor and secretary of transportation in the 1980s. Mrs. Dole, a lawyer, has won praise for her leadership of the Red Cross–and she did not accept the $200,000 salary paid by the organization during her first year as president.

Business Dealings

Yet in an election year when the past transactions of First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton continue to loom as a problem for the president, attention also is focusing on the business dealings of the wife of the senator from Kansas, who polls show is the front-runner for the Republican nomination.

Mrs. Dole referred questions posed by The Times to Warfield, the presidential campaign spokesman.

“Mrs. Dole has an extraordinary record of public service which spans over 20 years,” Warfield said. “This is in itself the reason so many people request her as a speaker.”

Mrs. Dole, who married the senator in 1975, typically has accepted speaking engagements for fees ranging from $12,000 to $35,000. Now 59, she employs the services of a booking agency and often speaks on the need for volunteerism or the shape of America’s labor force.

As a member of the executive branch during the ‘70s and ‘80s, Mrs. Dole did not accept speaking fees. She did receive $100,026 of the payments in 1988–when she temporarily left federal office to assist Sen. Dole’s presidential campaign. Sen. Dole, meanwhile, accepted fees totaling $1.4 million from 1981-91. In addition to his Senate compensation, tax records show that Sen. Dole during those years contributed $337,328 to a private pension plan–a nest egg paid for by his speaking fees.

Moreover, although Sen. Dole professes no knowledge of the groups to which his wife has spoken–many of them should be familiar to him.

At least 16 of the groups that retained Mrs. Dole to speak from 1991 through 1994 maintain lobbying offices in or near Washington and have business pending before the federal government. Records also show that four of the groups that paid to hear her earlier had hired Sen. Dole–before congressional rules in 1993 began cracking down on the controversial practice of senators and House members accepting such payments.

One of the biggest groups is the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Assn.–a Washington trade group that represents the largest makers of prescription-brand drugs. The organization lobbies Congress on a range of issues related to drugs and medical devices–and worked to defeat President and Mrs. Clinton’s proposed overhaul of the nation’s health care system.

Both of the Doles have accepted speaking fees from the drug manufacturers’ group. In 1992 the group paid for all travel expenses, including three nights of winter lodging in South Florida, for Sen. and Mrs. Dole. On that trip the senator accepted a $2,000 fee–the maximum then allowed under Senate rules.

In 1993 the drug makers invited Mrs. Dole back to Florida–and paid her a speaking fee of $20,000 plus travel expenses. Her appearance came at the same time the pharmaceutical group was working against parts of the Clintons’ health care proposal.

On the same weekend that Mrs. Dole addressed the group’s board of directors, the executives approved “an immediate, comprehensive mobilization of company employees, retirees, shareholders and suppliers to operate telephone banks” to challenge one aspect of the Clintons’ health care reform proposal, according to an executive summary prepared by the association.

“The effort,” said the summary, “was to encourage people to call or write members of Congress with the message that government price controls on prescription drugs would chill the development of new lifesaving, cost-effective medicines.”

Warfield, the Dole campaign spokesman, declined to comment specifically on Mrs. Dole’s speaking fee from the pharmaceutical association or other groups. Jeffrey C. Warren, spokesman for the pharmaceutical group, said Mrs. Dole “was an attraction on her own, because of her own achievements.” Warren said that the group hired Sen. Dole to speak in 1992 because of his knowledge of politics and “where things are going.”

Representatives of most of the groups that hired Mrs. Dole said that they chose her because of her experience. Some, however, also said that they retained Mrs. Dole because of her connection to one of the most powerful figures in Washington–her husband.

“That certainly makes her a little more interesting, definitely,” said Pat Areno, an executive for the Building Owners & Managers Assn., which paid Mrs. Dole $20,000, plus expenses, to speak at a conference in San Diego in June 1994. “You can’t ignore that it’s a factor. That is certainly part of her draw and her appeal.”

A spokeswoman for the American Health Care Assn., which lobbies Congress on behalf of nursing-home owners, said that the group paid Mrs. Dole $20,000 to speak in 1991, irrespective of Sen. Dole’s status.

“I suppose her connection with the senator helps create a visibility and makes her attractive, in that sense,” said the spokeswoman, Linda Keegan. “It really isn’t what motivated us to bring her in as a speaker.” The association in 1988 paid Sen. Dole $2,000 to speak.

Other Groups’ Fees

Fees from other groups with business before Congress that have retained Mrs. Dole to speak include:

* The National Electrical Contractors Assn.–$20,000, plus all of Mrs. Dole’s expenses for attending the group’s May 1993 event at a coastal Georgia resort. The group is lobbying to loosen worker safety and health requirements and to abolish the Davis-Bacon Act, which forces contractors on public projects to hire more expensive, union labor. Mrs. Dole’s speech “focused more on her Red Cross activities,” according to John M. Grau, chief executive of the contractors group.

* The accounting firm of Ernst & Young–$16,000, plus Mrs. Dole’s expenses for attending a 1991 gathering in Chicago. Ernst & Young at the time was facing congressional scrutiny and criminal investigations related to its auditing of some savings and loans, including Lincoln Savings & Loan, that failed in the 1980s at a cost to taxpayers of millions of dollars. Without admitting wrongdoing, Ernst & Young in 1992 settled charges of inadequate auditing at the S&Ls; by paying the government $400 million.

The firm since 1992 has lobbied for legislation that would limit the liability of accounting firms in their work for corporations and financial institutions. The legislation was enacted recently when the Senate and House overrode a veto by President Clinton. Sen. Dole was among those who supported the legislation, which was part of the congressional Republicans’ “contract with America.”

The Ernst & Young executive who arranged Mrs. Dole’s 1991 appearance has left the firm, according to Patrice Yngracia, a spokeswoman, who would not identify the former employee. Yngracia said that Mrs. Dole spoke to a group of “hospitality” industry executives who were clients of Ernst & Young.

* The American Logistics Assn.–$20,000 in 1993. The Washington-based association represents Fortune 500 companies and smaller firms that sell food and recreation facilities for the U.S. military. “Our goal is to defend this military resale system as it exists,” said Donald E. Ledwig, the group’s president. Ledwig said that Mrs. Dole spoke on the need for volunteerism. Arrangements for her speech, he said, were made before he joined the organization.

Travel Agent Speech

Another example of how the interests of Mrs. Dole’s speaking-fee clients can intersect her husband’s role as a senator involves a dispute between the nation’s major airlines and the travel-agent industry.

In November 1994, the American Society of Travel Agents arranged to have Mrs. Dole address the group’s international conference, in Lisbon, Portugal. The group paid a speaking fee of $35,000 and covered all of Mrs. Dole’s air fare and lodging.

In February 1995, several major airlines struck a blow to the travel-agent industry by announcing that they would strictly cap commissions paid to agents for booking domestic flights. American Society of Travel Agents lobbyists reacted immediately–seeking support in Congress and enforcement of antitrust law by the Justice Department.

On Feb. 22, 1995, Sen. Dole called for the Justice Department to examine the matter.

“There are more than 350,000 travel agents in the United States who will be adversely affected by the airlines’ decision. . . ,” Dole wrote in a letter to Assistant Atty. Gen. Anne K. Bingaman. “It is clear that the timing and substance of the airlines’ decision deserve a careful review by the antitrust division.”

Dole’s letter, obtained by The Times, was co-signed by Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.), chairman of the antitrust subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Gina Talamona, a Justice Department spokeswoman, said that the antitrust division is monitoring the dispute.

A spokesman for the travel agents’ association, Steve Loucks, said that Mrs. Dole spoke for about 20 minutes in Lisbon. He said that her services were “sponsored” by a member of the association, MasterCard.

Loucks said that Mrs. Dole was retained because of her background in federal policy, adding:

“Certainly, being the wife of, at that time, the minority leader of the Senate made her a very attractive property to bring in to Lisbon.”

America, the Land of Immigrants, has always been ambivalent about just what that mantle should mean, but that ambivalence has taken on an edge. The middle ground has shifted, decidedly to the right.

And California, characteristically, is ahead of the trend.

Now, when liberal Sen. Barbara Boxer suggests that National Guard troops be stationed along the southern border, only immigrant-rights activists are publicly aghast. When Gov. Pete Wilson says the Constitution should be changed to deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, a Field poll shows that half of all Californians like the idea.

“This is a state of siege in California,” says an observer from Washington, immigration expert Demetrios Papademetriou of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

“There is an enormous bombardment out there. There is always something new about immigration. One’s senses get bombarded every day, which is the worst possible moment for trying to make fundamental decisions regarding immigration. I am delighted that they will be made in Washington, rather than California.”

Yet California is where the Immigration and Naturalization Service estimates 52% of all illegal immigrants live, where dueling studies constantly argue the benefits and costs of the immigrant mix, and where, increasingly, many see an immigration apocalypse born of neglect.

Even the membership of the Sierra Club is in the midst of an emotional debate about whether to take a public stand on the hot button topic of the day.

“It’s not as simple as clean air, or like pollution, where less is better,” said Executive Director Carl Pope.

But millions of other Americans seem to have made up their minds. The polls say most Americans believe illegal immigration is out of control, that the country has too many immigrants, illegal or otherwise, and that this is very bad news for the economy and for our national quality of life.

Every day, Americans are clamoring that something should be done. So everyone from the President of the United States to the president of the local homeowners association is offering suggestions.

Hire more Border Patrol agents and get them equipment that works. Issue tamper-proof identity cards. End taxpayer-funded medical care and schooling for anyone in the country illegally. Seize the assets of employers who hire illegal immigrants. And get serious, finally, about welfare fraud. The list goes on.

“Under bold, centrist political leadership, California could have been avoided,” said Dan Stein, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR, the grandfather of a growing family of groups calling for a moratorium on immigration.

“What is happening in California is the direct result of the isolated and removed nature of immigration policy decisions in Washington.”

Many call this brouhaha a backlash against immigrants, scapegoating during an economic recession and a shortsighted repudiation of the principles that made America great.

Others call it unadorned common sense.

“If you set your table for five people in your home and then 15 people show up unexpectedly, you aren’t prepared, and you’ve got problems,” said Fred Vines, a retired state policeman who lives with his wife, a teacher, on Los Angeles’ Westside.

“We’re billions in the hole,” he said. “This has never happened before. It’s got to be overpopulation. You’ve got people coming here who shouldn’t be here.

“Put up a Berlin Wall!” cried Vines, an African-American who denies that racism has anything to do with his get-tough stand. He says that any fool can see it: Immigration is bringing this country down.

*

The organizers of this night meeting of Citizens for Action Now, an 18-month-old immigration reform group in Orange County, have called for more folding chairs to accommodate an overflow crowd of about 60 mostly middle-aged, mostly white citizens or legal immigrants.

Barbara Coe, a police records clerk and co-director of the group, has made a point of emphasizing the legal immigrant component to the newcomers in the room.

It is not immigrants the group is against, she says, but illegal immigrants. She stressed that racism has no place here.

“We decided that the only way we are literally going to save our heritage is to put the focus on the illegal alien problem,” she said.

Early arrivals at the meeting talk among themselves. A middle-aged woman tells of the “marauders” who take over the streets at night. A man who lives and works in Santa Ana, the county seat that is now 70% Latino, says of the city: “It’s gone! It’s gone!”

Before everyone stands to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, sheets of blue cards are passed around. Citizens for Action Now, part of the 15-member California Coalition for Immigration Reform, asks its members to carry the cards with them and leave them in businesses such as restaurants, “where it seems fairly apparent” that illegal immigrants are employed.

“Stop the Invasion! Close our Borders NOW! Deny benefits to ILLEGAL ALIENS NOW! Defeat GATT/NAFTA NOW!” read the cards, which leave a space for the sender’s name and address.

The evening’s guest speaker, William E. Dannemeyer, the former Orange County congressman considering another U.S. Senate bid, arrives to detail his controversial, and unsuccessful, legislative efforts to stem the immigrant flow.

But during the question and answer session after his remarks, members of Citizens for Action Now intimate that Dannemeyer, who was one of the most conservative lawmakers on Capitol Hill, hadn’t been tough enough.

One woman told Dannemeyer: “I feel desperate that the battle is lost.” Another man detailed his inspection of Israel’s border defense system, praising that country’s swift actions to thwart enemy incursions.

“If we can go to the moon, are you going to tell me we don’t have the technology to do what this little country Israel can? That’s baloney!”

The room erupts in applause.

*

Immigrant rights groups say they have heard such sentiments before, only they are hardly blase.

They are afraid that the angry, frustrated public mood might translate into laws that will codify discrimination and divert attention from more onerous economic problems in favor of an easy target: the illegal immigrant without a vote. They warn of a rise in hate crimes.

“We in the immigrant rights community are on the defensive right now,” concedes Roberto Lovato, who heads the Central American Refugee Center in Los Angeles. “We are not being sought out for solutions.”

At a recent news conference in Downtown Los Angeles, Latino community leaders displayed enlarged copies of stories that appeared in the Los Angeles Times from the 1930s to the present. The idea was to trigger a public deja vu .

“Ousting of Aliens Will Be Speeded,” read a headline from 1931. “Government Maps War on Wetbacks,” said another from 1954, and in 1971: “Illegal Alien Growing Peril to U.S. Worker.”

The last offering, “Wilson Urges Stiff Penalties to Deter Illegal Immigrants,” was from the week before.

“We know well in our community that this is a historical cycle,” says Arturo Vargas, vice president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

Indeed, during the 19th Century, the state Legislature imposed special taxes on Mexican miners, and the state’s Workingmen’s Party rallied around the slogan, “The Chinese Must Go.” During the Great Depression, and again in 1954, hundreds of thousands of Mexicans were sent home.

Yet, cyclical or not, the country’s anti-immigrant mood seems unlikely to cool on its own. Based on a mix of fact, myth and fear, feelings run deep. Ambivalence–and contradictions–thread through it all.

The restaurant busboy might be admired for his willingness to work hard for little pay. But the faceless mass of illegal immigrants is threatening our way of life.

Although it is true that, as a percentage of the population, immigration levels today are a third of what they were during the peak years of 1900-20, the numbers are about the same. And those numbers–about 10 million legal and 3 million to 5 million illegal immigrants over the past decade–seem huge.

This is especially true during economic hard times, or perhaps, as immigrant rights group suggest, when people consider who the new immigrants are. Unlike the immigration boom at the turn of the century, more than 90% of the latest immigrant tide comes from the Third World.

Bottom line: The United States takes in more immigrants than the rest of the world combined. And people here are wondering out loud if America has not done enough.

Consider this reaction from homemaker and mother Ellie Kiefer, who recently moved from her Burbank home of 11 years to Simi Valley: “They are just letting them come in. If it was something very positive, starting nice businesses, or really trying or something, that might be different.

“But the crime is getting worse, there are more gangs. The killings. It’s ridiculous. That’s one of the reasons I’m so sick of it.”

Or this from a middle-aged African-American woman who works as a teaching assistant in the Los Angeles Unified School District: “We have to go back to school to speak their language. That’s not fair. And I have to pay for it out of my own pocket. If you are born here in the United States, and you speak English, you have to adjust to them. I don’t think that’s fair.”

Lucy Bermudez, a Philippine-born nurse who just left heavily immigrant Panorama City for Ventura County, says: “I waited for 15 years to become a citizen. It’s unfair of the illegal ones. They are just popping in.”

For Spanish-speaking shopkeeper Maria Elba Miranda, who emigrated illegally from El Salvador 13 years ago, the burning issue is security, and fear. “I’ve noticed a change in the type of people coming, even from my own country,” she said.

“There are just too many people here. . . . I remember when I came, I was really scared, timid, just looking for work, but now they come here looking for trouble.”

On the same Los Angeles street where Miranda lives and works, immigrants openly hawk fake green cards for $50. If you want a phony Social Security card, they can arrange that too. And to the untrained eye, all the documents look good.

“What we do is help people work, not like those guys, they’re the ones who should be deported,” says a 17-year-old nicknamed Orejas, or Ears, who arrived illegally from Mexico six months ago.

Orejas points across the street at the “bad immigrants” to distinguish himself and his friends from their ilk. Go to them, he says, if you want to buy drugs.

*

The INS estimates, conservatively, that about 3.2 million illegal immigrants now live in the United States. Most of these migrants–up to 70% of them from Mexico–arrived after the estimated 3.7 million others who have taken advantage of the amnesty provision of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act.

Although that law is widely acknowledged to have ended life in the shadows for many immigrants, it has failed to stop the illegal flow. To wit: the control part of the act has become a joke:

Thousands of mandated Border Patrol jobs remain unfilled. Employer sanctions are rarely enforced. And states such as California complain bitterly that Washington does not reimburse them for services to illegal immigrants whose entry the federal government should have blocked.

Such a situation has led many to believe that no sooner do illegal immigrants cross the border than they end up on the dole. In fact, undocumented immigrants are legally ineligible for almost all public benefits other than maternity and emergency medical care under Medi-Cal or Medicaid, and some prenatal care.

But because of the thriving market in counterfeit documents, fraud appears to be widespread.

Moreover, U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants are also entitled to all citizenship benefits, such as the fast-growing Aid to Families With Dependent Children program, and like foreign-born children, free education through the 12th grade.

And beyond the costs vs. revenue debate that is the subject of academic debate, residents of areas with large immigrant populations say they feel the impact of the newcomers in more personal ways.

An African-American police officer married to a Mexican immigrant says the couple’s two children are enrolled in a Los Angeles public school that is 90% Latino, “so my kids have a hard time.”

“The teachers are spending all this time on the Spanish,” he said. “So it slows down my kids. So I’m moving mine to a private school.”

Puerto Rican Miguel Rodriguez, 35, of Carson recently recovered from a car accident and went back to reclaim his welding job.

“They told me they didn’t have anything,” he said. “They hired a couple of guys, Latinos who don’t speak any English, who will take less. They’re making $8 an hour. I was making $13. . . . It kind of pisses me off.”

And from Lanie Wong, 65, a mother of five grown children and a daughter of Chinese immigrants, there is this: “It bothers me that the illegals think they can outsmart our system. They brag. It doesn’t affect me, personally. But it’s the principle.”

*

Felix Martinez, a 43-year-old father of four, and his friend, Milton Monterosa, 41, a father of two, have arrived hours early for an appointment at a Los Angeles office of the state Economic Development Department. They have gone months without work and are hoping for a lead on a job.

Like hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of others, Martinez, of Mexico City, and Monterosa, from San Salvador, overstayed their entry visas and slipped unnoticed into the underground economy that traditionally welcomed illegal immigrants with abundant, low-paying jobs.

Under the amnesty granted to illegal immigrants residing in the country before 1982, both men legalized their status, but the American dream escapes them still.

“My friend and I were just talking,” Martinez says. “Los Angeles has fallen down so much. Before, there used to be a lot of work. Things were good. Now the situation is desperate. There is no work. There is nothing.”

Monterosa just nods.

“On the one hand, I think it’s good that immigrants come to this country,” Martinez goes on. “But, you know, I’m in this position. I can’t condone more people coming. I tell my brothers, everybody. They say, ‘Oh, the streets are paved with gold there. There is a lot of work. I’m coming.’ I tell them: ‘There is no work. Why should you come to suffer? Don’t come.’ ”

Inside the unemployment office, Los Angeles-born Lawrence Cush, 31, is also waiting for a lead. He says he has prepared himself for a good job with a college education and experience as a PBX operator at the Ambassador Hotel.

But he has been out of work since 1985.

“I feel in competition with the immigrants,” he says. “Everyone should speak English, but they don’t. . . . I applied for a job at Continental Cable and they told me that I had all the qualifications but that I didn’t get hired because I didn’t speak Spanish.”

Cush is on welfare. He is looking for a job that pays at least $8 an hour “so that I could make $17,000-$20,000 a year, and that’s not that much. That way I could do my part to support my family.

“I’m not going to take the minimum wage,” he said.

Outside, Martinez speaks in Spanish: “I have these desperate nights where I hug my knees together in bed and pray to God for a miracle, to send me a job, any job, a gardener, a cook, whatever. I’m not talking about some fancy job in an office, a secretary.

“I’ll take anything.”

SACRAMENTO — Assembly Speaker Herb J. Wesson Jr. has awarded nearly $350,000 in consulting contracts to half a dozen political allies, including Los Angeles City Council candidate Martin Ludlow and Councilman-elect Tony Cardenas.

The contracts, several of them for more than $8,000 a month, call for contractors to give Wesson advice on such issues as education, the state budget, the agricultural industry and outreach to local elected officials in Southern California.

Wesson issued the contracts unilaterally, without legislative review, and is the only overseer of their performance. The money comes from the Assembly’s overall $114-million budget.

Other contractors include Pasadena City Councilman Chris Holden and former Assemblyman Mike Briggs, a Republican from Fresno who broke with his party to cast a critical vote on the budget last year.

Wesson (D-Culver City) defended the contracts. They were obtained through a public records request.

“The speaker is empowered to bring people on to do the things he thinks need to be done,” Wesson said. “I’m big on people that can help me connect with other people.”

All told, Wesson extended several contracts begun by his predecessor, entered into at least two very small contracts and made six new consulting deals of more than $2,300 each.

In addition to Ludlow, Cardenas, Holden and Briggs, Alice Huffman, a former lobbyist for the California Teachers Assn., and Virginia Strom-Martin, a former assemblywoman, made agreements with Wesson to perform consulting work for him and the Assembly. Each of their deals is different, of varying lengths and amounts, ranging from $5,000 a month for Holden and Huffman to $8,470 a month for Ludlow.

‘Budget Dust’

The contracts were issued as the state wrestles to bring its multibillion-dollar budget shortfall under control.

Tim Hodson, executive director of the Center for California Studies at Cal State Sacramento, called the money involved in Wesson’s contracts “budget dust” compared to the state’s overall shortfall, which has been estimated at $35 billion between now and June 30, 2004. Still, Hodson said the contracts would fuel public skepticism about government leaders and decisions.

“People look at it as a symbol and say, ‘That’s why we don’t like government, that’s why we’re not sure there’s a budget deficit, that’s why the Republicans are right and you shouldn’t raise taxes because the money all goes to people like Mike Briggs,’ ” he said.

Assemblyman Tony Strickland (R-Moorpark) said giving out the contracts was within Wesson’s prerogative as speaker. But Strickland added: “It’s not the Legislature’s money. It’s the people’s money.”

The speaker described several of the contractors as friends. Most of them are Democrats and all but two have held political office. Many also stand to help him after his Assembly career ends due to term limits next year. Associates of Wesson have said he has expressed interest in replacing Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, his former boss, on the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, in the event that Burke does not seek reelection.

Wesson refused to describe the work contractors have done for him in great detail, saying: “A lot of what I get from them I would not and should not share.”

But generally, Wesson said, the contractors have arranged symposiums, appeared at functions for him and offered advice.

Chris Holden, for instance, organized a budget briefing with city managers and is arranging a round table on affordable housing and a symposium on youth activism, Wesson said. Holden is the son of Los Angeles Councilman Nate Holden, for whom Wesson once worked as chief deputy. Wesson hired Chris Holden in March 2002, shortly after he became speaker of the 80-member Assembly, for a contract that is to expire at the end of June and not exceed $77,500. The pay is $5,000 per month.

Wesson said he and Chris Holden are “very close because of the relationship I have with his father.”

“I wanted to take advantage of Chris’ relationships with cities throughout the state and in some respects throughout the nation,” Wesson added.

Holden could not be reached for comment.

Ludlow, who was on contract until early March, said he was consulting for the speaker’s Los Angeles office, performing many of the same functions he did as Wesson’s deputy chief of staff. He left that post in August.

“I spent numerous hours working on briefings, working with the district director and legislative people,” said Ludlow, who is running for the 10th Council District seat. “Whether it’s day or night, his staff engaged with me on a daily basis.”

Wesson added: “You couldn’t find a better, more energetic person than Martin. He’s one of the best organizers in the state.”

Former Legislators

Wesson hired three ex-lawmakers as consultants, including Briggs, who cast a key vote on last year’s budget.

Wesson employed Briggs as a consultant on agricultural and horse racing issues at $8,250 a month. Briggs’ contract expired April 1 but will be extended indefinitely, said Wesson spokeswoman Patricia Soto. Briggs was not available for comment

When he represented Fresno in the Assembly, Briggs was one of four Republicans to join Democrats in voting for a budget in 2001 and 2002. He left the Assembly to run for Congress but lost in the March 2002 primary.

Wesson said Briggs’ contract has no connection to his budget votes. He called Briggs a friend with useful contacts in the farm and racing industries.

“And he has four children,” Wesson said. Asked what that has to do with Briggs’ consulting work, Wesson said, “I do the best I can to be fair and help people.”

In December, Wesson also hired Cardenas, a former San Fernando Valley Democratic assemblyman, as a consultant at $7,850 a month. Wesson said Cardenas, a former budget committee head, has been advising him on budget and Los Angeles issues. Cardenas was recently elected to the Los Angeles City Council.

Asked what he does to earn the consulting fees, Cardenas said, “I’ve spoken to [Wesson], I’ve spoken to his staff, I’ve met with people in the building…. I’ve been available to him morning, noon and night.

“I don’t necessarily keep track of hours,” Cardenas said. On Tuesday, Wesson extended his contract for another month. Cardenas takes his council seat July 1.

In December, Wesson also hired Strom-Martin, a Democrat who termed out of her North Coast Assembly district last year, for $8,250 a month. Soto said she advised on “matters of education and fisheries.”

Strom-Martin’s contract ended Feb. 5 when Wesson promoted her to a $114,000-a-year job on the state Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board.

Huffman, president of the California National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People, runs her own public relations firm and has received $5,000 a month from her Assembly contract since March 2002. She “would be a coup on anybody’s … staff,” Wesson said. Her contract is due to expire in June.

In addition to those people who now work as contractors, Wesson put another former legislator on the Assembly’s permanent, regular payroll. Sally Havice, a Cerritos Democrat ousted from the Assembly by term limits last year, now earns $99,000 a year as a permanent consultant to the Education Committee. Havice’s vote in favor of a bill to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases was key to its passage last year.

*

Times staff writers Peter Y. Hong and Jeffrey L. Rabin contributed to this report.

NEW YORK — Robin Morgan, a wholesome child star of the 1940s and ‘50s who grew up to become an all-American radical as a poet, essayist, editor and second-wave feminist, has died. She was 85.

Morgan, who was still working on new books and poems, died Saturday in New York after suffering a series of health problems in recent weeks, said her son, Blake Morgan. Her death came just days after that of her close friend and fellow activist Gloria Steinem.

During the 1960s and ’70s, Morgan embodied and inspired historic changes in how women lived and thought. As she was happy to point out, the onetime “Ideal American Girl” and adored “Little Robin Morgan” was a rule breaker and justice seeker with a notable list of achievements, along with a prison record and an FBI file.

Morgan was at the center of the some of the defining moments of what came to be called second-wave feminism, expanding upon the achievements of the suffragists a half-century earlier. In 1968, she was among the organizers of the first protest against the Miss America pageant, joining fellow activists in tossing their bras (soon mythologized as burning) into a “Freedom Trash Can.” The 1970 essay anthology she edited, “Sisterhood is Powerful,” is considered one of the essential texts of the modern women’s movement.

Yet she considered herself primarily a poet and artist, and that work fed into her activism, her son said.

“She was someone who was able to take very big ideas and distill them succinctly, like a poet, into a few words,” said Blake Morgan, pointing to such quotes of hers as “hate generalizes, love specifies.”

Morgan was credited for coining ‘herstory’

Her legacy was one of deeds, words and images. Morgan is widely credited with coining the term “herstory,” the feminist reworking of “history,” and popularizing the clenched fist/female symbol icon of the liberation movement. Her poem “Monster,” with such lines as “I want a women’s revolution like a lover/I lust for it,” was quoted at feminist rallies and beyond. Her poem “Arraignment” helped capture the movement’s embrace of the late Sylvia Plath and condemnation of her husband, poet Ted Hughes, whom Morgan and others blamed for Plath’s suicide in 1963. Morgan’s rhyming couplet “I accuse/Ted Hughes” inspired the title for Sonic Youth’s song “J’Accuse Ted Hughes.”

Labeled an “anarchist housewife” in one government report, Morgan confronted the establishment, left and right. In 1970, she and fellow protesters were arrested and jailed after occupying the offices of the counterculture Grove Press, whose owner, Barney Rosset, was fighting employees’ efforts to unionize. In the widely reprinted 1970 essay “Goodbye to All That,” she called out activists and libertines from Abbie Hoffman and Hugh Hefner to Dave Dellinger and the music group the Fugs.

“Goodbye to the male-dominated peace movement, where sweet old Uncle Dave can say with impunity to a woman on the staff of Liberation magazine, The trouble with you is you’re an aggressive woman,” she wrote.

“Goodbye to the idea that Hugh Hefner is groovy ’cause he lets Conspirators come to parties at the Playboy Mansion — goodbye to Hefner’s dream of a ripe old age. Goodbye to Tuli and the Fugs and all the boys in the front room — who always knew they hated the women they loved. Goodbye to the notion that good ol’ Abbie is any different from any other up-and-coming movie star who ditches the first wife and kids, good enough for the old days but awkward once you’re Making It.”

She led an unconventional personal life

In her personal life, Morgan had male and female lovers and was married for more than 20 years to the gay poet Kenneth Pitchford, with whom she had her son, a musician, producer and record company founder. She once described her marriage as a “two member commune” and was so resistant to labels that she remembered being “straight-baited” by feminists who thought she should be a lesbian and chastised by conservatives who assumed she was a lesbian.

In her 2001 memoir “Saturday’s Child,” she expressed joy and amazement at how her life turned out and how she was able to retain “a threadbare, somewhat surreal sense of humor.”

“Put that in your apple pie and smoke it,” she wrote.

She wrote more than 20 books, including a memoir

Besides “Saturday’s Child,” she completed more than 20 books, including “The Word of a Woman: Feminists Dispatches,” and the poetry collections “Monster” and “Dark Matter.” She followed “Sisterhood is Powerful” with “Sisterhood is Global” (in 1984), and “Sisterhood is Forever” (2002), featuring such contributors as Steinem, Simone de Beauvoir and Eve Ensler. For several years, she was editor in chief of Ms. Magazine, which Steinem co-founded.

Steinem would call her an ideal “utility player,” gifted in almost every way a protest movement might require. As an organizer, she helped found such 1960s feminist groups as New York Radical Women and Women’s International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell (W.I.T.C.H.). She was part of the Youth International Party, the left-wing Yippies led by Hoffman and Jerry Rubin among others, but soon became disgusted with how the group treated women and left.

In 1984, she was a founder of an early feminist think tank, the Sisterhood Is Global Institute. In 2005, she, Steinem and Jane Fonda launched the Women’s Media Center, which has a mission to support “the visibility, viability and decision-making power of women and girls in media.”

More recently, she hosted a syndicated radio show and remained active despite being diagnosed 16 years ago with Parkinson’s disease, which inspired several poems and a TEDWomen talk in 2015.

A child star in the ‘40s

In a different era, Morgan might have been just another forgotten child star. Born in 1941 in Lake Worth, Fla., and raised in New York, she never saw her father while growing up and was told — falsely — by her mother that he was dead. Her mother also shaved a year off her age, claiming she was born in 1942, to make her early public career seem even more impressive.

The blond, talented Robin was modeling by age 3, hosted her own “Little Robin Morgan” radio show at age 5 and around the same time was featured on the radio (later television) game show, “Juvenile Jury.” From 1949-57, she appeared on the hit TV domestic comedy series “Mama” and made appearances on “Robert Montgomery Presents,” “Kraft Television Theatre” and other shows.

She would meet some of the era’s biggest stars, from Abbott and Costello to Sal Mineo, and was popular enough to inspire such commercial tie-ins as Robin Morgan dolls. Magazines described her as “unspoiled” and “courteous” and “the ideal girl-next-door,” immune from “violent outbursts of antagonism against established society.”

But off camera, and sometimes on, she was so apart from her image that her first “serious” childhood poem began: “Go, rage, winter the world with despair.” During one broadcast of “Juvenile Jury,” the question was whether a boy deserved to be spanked. Morgan was supposed to joke that he should wear padding under his pants, but instead declared that all physical punishment was wrong.

As she recalled in “Saturday’s Child,” producer Dan Ehrenreich squeezed her shoulder so hard that Morgan could feel his fingernails. He turned her microphone away and eventually placed his hand over her mouth.

“I realized that I loved and respected that child who fought back in what was the first political act I recall ever daring to make,” Morgan wrote.

Her political activity began in her late teens

Once in her late teens, she began taking classes at Columbia University, attended poetry workshops and became politically active. She marched for civil rights and against the Vietnam War and met protesters, artists and such poets as W.H. Auden and Anthony Hecht, who she said gave her a man’s-eye view of the creative process: “But, my dear, women should be poems, not write them.”

In 1962, she met Pitchford at a Manhattan party. Once the other guests (“boozy bikers” and “stoned, hallucinating Joffrey dancers”) had left and the host urged others to go with them, Pitchford lighted candles, put Dvorak’s “New World” symphony on the record player and became her “first.” They later walked for hours and ended up on a downtown park bench.

“You have such an air of possibility about you, Robin,” he told her. “It makes me believe anything can happen.”

Italie writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Jennifer Peltz contributed to this report.

The Los Angeles federal public defender’s office on Friday joined a renewed effort to oust Bill Essayli, the top federal prosecutor in Southern California, accusing the government of “playing shadow games with the most consequential powers a government can wield against its population.”

Citing a recent order from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Jackson, the public defender’s office renewed a motion seeking to disqualify Essayli from participating in or supervising the prosecution of their client, Jaime Ramirez.

The federal appellate court ruled last month that the Department of Justice cannot keep an official who has not been confirmed by the Senate in charge of a U.S. attorney’s office simply by giving that person a different title and the full powers of the job.

In their motion filed Friday, James Anglin Flynn and Ayah A. Sarsour, deputy federal public defenders, accused the government of asking them “to trust that there are some undisclosed limits on Essayli’s authority that render it valid.”

“The buck should stop here, and it should stop now,” they wrote.

The U.S. attorney’s office in L.A. did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

H. Dean Steward, a defense attorney, first kicked off the renewed effort last week, filing a motion asking Senior U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright to reconsider his prior ruling. Steward argued that Essayli should not be allowed to continue leading the office.

Seabright previously disqualified Essayli as acting U.S. attorney in October, finding he was “not lawfully serving” in the top role. But Seabright — who was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush — said the court had “no basis to preclude Essayli from performing the lawful duties” of first assistant U.S. attorney, which left the door open for him to remain in charge.

Seabright scheduled a hearing for Oct. 13 on the latest motion. At a Zoom hearing on Aug. 28, Seabright appeared to signal which way he is leaning.

“I’m not sure if the government is just saying my decision was different from Jackson and therefore it stands. I’m not sure that passes muster given how the 9th Circuit ruled in Jackson,” Seabright said. “I think there’s going to have to be more in-depth briefing than the government has given me to date.”

The federal appellate court ruling stemmed from a challenge to the authority of Nevada’s top federal prosecutor, Sigal Chattah, whom the Justice Department had designated “first assistant” U.S. attorney. With no one above her in the office, Chattah has seemingly been calling the shots on federal prosecutions in the state, handling cases referred by the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration and other law enforcement agencies.

The Justice Department previously said it disagreed with the 9th Circuit’s decision and plans to appeal it to the Supreme Court. The agency did not respond to questions about what effect the ruling could have on Essayli.

The Trump administration has used a similar workaround to keep Essayli running the U.S. attorney’s office in L.A. without going through the Senate confirmation process, where he likely would have faced strong opposition from California’s elected representatives.

Essayli, 40, has continued leading the federal prosecutor’s office in the Central District of California as “first assistant” despite a federal judge’s ruling last year that said he was unlawfully serving as the acting U.S. attorney. The Justice Department did not appeal that ruling.

Instead, Essayli’s office has maintained that he can prosecute and supervise cases as first assistant. He also was appointed as a “special attorney” by the Trump administration, a title similarly held by Chattah in Nevada.

“To be sure, First Assistant Essayli may be the highest-ranking DOJ lawyer in the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and (like many in the office) he supervises others,” Assistant U.S. Atty. Alexander P. Robbins said in a filing last month. “But that cannot make him a “de facto” U.S. Attorney, and he does not purport to exercise “all of the functions of [that] office.”

Flynn and Sarsour pushed back on that claim in their motion, arguing that the government “is asking this Court to accept a theory that the Ninth Circuit rejected, nearly verbatim less than three weeks ago.” The government, they wrote, “appears to be asking this Court to consider and approve a hypothetical delegation to Essayli of some subset of the U.S. Attorney powers.”

“For over a year, this illegal exercise of prosecutorial powers has violated Mr. Ramirez’s constitutional rights and undermined the legitimacy of the criminal justice system in this district,” Flynn and Sarsour wrote. “In line with Jackson, two other Courts of Appeals have now affirmed the common-sense remedy that this illegality should be stopped.”

The deputy federal public defenders said a defense analysis identified invalid service as acting or de facto U.S. Attorneys in at least 16 districts across the country.

A former Republican member of the California state Assembly from Riverside, Essayli has used his position to act as one of Trump’s fiercest legal foot soldiers. He has pursued criminal charges against protesters, activists and immigrants while dropping cases involving administration allies and supporting lawsuits challenging transgender and environmental policies in California.

Essayli was sworn in as interim U.S. attorney in April 2025. Around the time he hit that role’s 120-day limit, he resigned from his interim role and was allowed to continue under his current titles by then-Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi.

Challenges to Essayli’s position were brought in several criminal cases, with defense lawyers arguing that charges filed under his watch are invalid and should be dismissed. The federal public defender’s office in L.A. had asked the judge to disqualify Essayli from participating in and supervising criminal prosecutions.

Both Russia and Ukraine vow not to strike each other’s capitals for three days during talks in Moscow and Kyiv.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has begun talks with United States envoys on ending more than four years of war in Ukraine, ahead of their first visit to Kyiv expected on Sunday.

Putin met Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner – respectively President Donald Trump’s special envoy and business ally, and his son-in-law – at the Kremlin on Saturday.

“Dear colleagues, I warmly welcome you to Moscow. The situation is, of course, not simple,” Putin told the envoys in a grand Kremlin hall in footage aired by Russian TV.

Both Russia and Ukraine vowed not to strike each other’s capitals for three days during the negotiations, as Washington tries to revive US-led talks to end Europe’s worst conflict since World War II.

Trump earlier said Kushner and Witkoff were bringing “a proposal to end the war”.

In Putin’s address to the two men, he said: “I would like to ask everyone to convey their best wishes and words of gratitude to US President Mr Trump”.

Witkoff said Trump had sent his best wishes to Putin and ⁠thanked him for ⁠the limited ceasefire during the delegation’s visit. Putin said ⁠Russia would do its ⁠utmost to ensure ⁠the safety of the mediators.

‘Refrain from strikes’

The talks come as the grinding war – which began with a Russian invasion in 2022 – has seen increasing civilian deaths and attacks this summer.

Putin has repeatedly said Moscow intends to seize the rest of east Ukraine.

Russian strikes on Ukraine on Saturday killed at least seven people, including in the Kyiv suburbs, Ukrainian officials said.

The Kremlin said it would not strike Kyiv from midnight on Saturday, while Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said he would halt strikes on Moscow “from now” until Monday.

“The Russian president, the commander-in-chief, has given the order from midnight tonight not to strike Kyiv for three days,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said.

Zelensky – who had offered a truce during the US visits – later said he had spoken to the US envoys and also promised Kyiv would not strike Moscow.

“From now through the end of Saturday, as well as on Sunday and Monday, Ukraine is ready to refrain from strikes on Moscow,” Zelensky said on social media.

The Ukrainian leader said he had spoken to the US officials and that he expected them in Kyiv on Sunday.

It will be the first time that Witkoff and Kushner visit Kyiv since Trump returned to office last year with a pledge to resolve the conflict.

BERLIN  — Leaders of an extremist, far-right party in Germany have quietly borrowed pages from President Trump’s playbook to cast doubt on the integrity of absentee voting — alleging without evidence that residents of nursing homes have had their ballots manipulated and calling for an end to postal voting.

The attack on mail ballots comes as Germany approaches a potentially historic state election that could shatter one of the taboos of its postwar political order by opening the door to a far-right government.

Politicians across the ideological spectrum, mindful that polls show Trump to be widely unpopular, don’t invoke his name.

But the specter of the American president nevertheless hangs over the election that could have reverberations across Europe if the Alternative for Germany, or AfD, party — tacitly echoing Trump’s attacks on migrants, the media and the integrity of elections — pulls off an unprecedented political shock in postwar Germany.

In a country where the guilt of its Nazi past is never far from the surface, the AfD has unapologetically campaigned against what it portrays as the shackles of Germany’s history and won over many new supporters, in part by adopting Trump’s hard-line stance on migrants and his drumbeat of attacks on mainstream news outlets.

The AfD leader, Tino Chrupalla, surprised Germans recently with warnings of voter fraud in the Sunday election in Saxony-Anhalt state, telling a national television audience that some senior citizens in nursing homes had had their absentee ballots cast and signed for them without their knowledge.

This week, in neighboring Mecklenburg-Vorpommern state, the AfD candidate for governor, Leif-Erik Holm, declared, “Postal voting is more vulnerable to potential attempts of manipulation.”

Election officials and organizations representing nursing home caregivers have rejected the allegations and say there is no evidence of voter fraud.

The AfD, considered one of the most extreme far-right parties in Europe, has surged so far ahead in opinion polls that it could emerge as the dominant political force in Saxony-Anhalt and potentially lead a German state government for the first time, either with an absolute majority or with a junior coalition partner.

Trump has spent years attacking mail-in voting as vulnerable to fraud, despite scant evidence of widespread abuse. Trump himself has voted by mail in recent elections. His administration continues to fight court battles to limit voting by mail.

“Sowing distrust in political institutions is part of the strategy of right-wing populist parties,” said Marcel Lewandowsky, a political scientist at Martin Luther University in Halle, Germany.

“The ‘rigged election’ lie is a powerful narrative within the MAGA movement,” he added, “and serves as a crucial element that fosters a shared identity” with far-right parties in Europe. (Such messaging has also been employed by many rightist politicians in Latin America.)

An AfD victory in one of Germany’s 16 federal states would in one fell swoop obliterate a central tenet of the postwar order: that the far right must never return to power in the country responsible for the Holocaust and the devastation of Europe in World War II.

Many fear that taking power there could serve as a springboard for the ostracized party at the national level, where it is leading opinion polls with about 29% support, putting it far ahead of the other four parties with seats in the federal Parliament.

“Trumpism and the MAGA movement have undoubtedly been an inspiration and model for many European radical right parties,” said Lars Rensmann, a political scientist at the University of Passau who has studied the far right. “In many ways, Trump has been the successful model many European radical right parties try to follow while adopting it to European conditions.”

The AfD’s ascent has parallels across Europe, from Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and her Brothers of Italy party to Britain’s Nigel Farage, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands and Herbert Kickl in Austria. In France, the far-right Rassemblement National is looking to the 2027 presidential race with its candidate, Marine Le Pen, having perhaps her strongest chance yet of winning after reaching the runoff in 2017 and 2022.

Meloni`s relationship with Trump has cooled during her nearly four years in power, due in part to the war in Iran, tariffs and security policies that have strained U.S. relations with Italy and all of Europe.

President Trump greets Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni at a summit Egypt in 2025. Their once warm relationship has since cooled.

(Evan Vucci / Pool via Associated Press)

Yet there is no pan-European alliance of the far right, in part because these parties champion their own national interests.

“Some components of Trumpism can be shared and exported, such as hostility towards migration and ‘wokeism,’ but it is very clear that national interests that the far-right champion cannot be defended the same way as the American national interests,” said Giovanni Orsina, head of the political science department at LUISS University in Rome.

“If you put your nation first and do so aggressively, you have diverging national interests and so it’s not possible to have an international network of nationalists,” Orsina added.

But many far-right leaders are united in one sense. They admire not just Trump’s tactics, but the “boldness of his transgressions, dismantling liberal and civil norms by repeating things that were once deemed unacceptable for someone seeking public office,” said Rensmann.

“Trump is unpopular in Germany, even across the political right,” Lewandowsky said. “It would be risky for the AfD to embrace him openly, especially because he failed to keep his promise not to start any further wars and large segments of the public feel threatened by the United States under Trump.”

The AfD was created in 2013 as a small anti-euro party before morphing into an anti-migrant force that tapped into voter frustration over immigration and the strains many Germans perceive on housing, jobs and public services.

Despite being ostracized by mainstream parties and kept out of coalition cooperation, it has survived and thrived as a disruptive force.

In the last decade Germany has sheltered millions of refugees, mainly from Syria and other troubled countries in the Middle East. It provides housing, medical care and generous financial support to refugees that AfD politicians say serve as a magnet. Trump once accused former German Chancellor Angela Merkel of “ruining” her country by allowing in so many refugees.

“I think this could be a watershed moment for Europe,” Orsina said of the upcoming election.

An election poster touts the far-right Alternative for Germany party, AfD, right, in Berlin in 2025. It reads “Now AfD.”

(Michael Sohn / Associated Press)

He said the election in 2022 of Meloni and her Brothers of Italy party, which traces its origins to Italy’s postwar neo-fascist movement, sparked fears across Europe that, in hindsight, may have been exaggerated. But Germany is a different story when it comes to the far right.

“Some said she is a neo-fascist and a danger to democracy, but most people in Italy didn’t believe that,” he said. “Italy isn’t a better democracy after four years of Meloni but it isn’t any worse either. But Germany isn’t Italy. And Germany’s relationship with its past is a lot different.”

David Bebnowski, an author who has written books on far-right populism and who is a history instructor at the Free University in Berlin, said there is another important connection among far-right voters across Europe that the AfD is tapping into — a yearning for change in countries where establishment parties have struggled to respond to voter frustration.

Trump’s success as a force for disruption, he said, has provided a powerful example.

“You can’t really trace a grand MAGA strategy adopted by the far right, but you can see that they are, in part, very much in line with the ‘spirit of Trumpism,’” Bebnowski said. “What aligns them is a sense of disruption and optimism that they will be able to change the way politics are done in a way the other parties can’t.”

Kirschbaum is a special correspondent.

Thousands of low-income patients, some seriously ill, are scrambling to find new doctors as they lose access to UCLA Health physicians after a longtime Medi-Cal contract was not renewed.

Under the contract that expired June 30, UCLA had been providing specialty care to 9,000 medically frail patients from Health Care LA, an association of nonprofit clinics that serve patients covered by Medi-Cal, the state program for the poor.

“Many of these patients have been waiting for months to be seen by UCLA specialty medicine providers and are now being told they cannot receive the care they desperately need,” Health Care LA said in a Thursday news release.

The patients had gone to UCLA for cancer and infectious-disease treatments, high-risk women’s services, major organ transplants and other specialty medicine care, the association said.

A Friday news conference that Health Care LA had scheduled to detail the problems patients faced in getting care was abruptly canceled when the two sides said they had reached a tentative agreement on how to transition the patients to other doctors over the next year.

“To help ensure a smooth transition for patients, both organizations have agreed that established UCLA Health patients, individuals with existing appointments, and patients requiring other agreed-upon services will continue to be cared for at UCLA Health facilities,” Phil Hampton, a university spokesman, said in a statement.

Although some patients will continue to be seen by UCLA doctors, he said, “accepting an unlimited number of new referrals presents challenges given existing capacity constraints and the need to preserve timely access for existing patients.”

Sabra Matovsky, chief executive of Health Care LA, said in an interview on Thursday that UCLA had declined to renegotiate the contract.

“They never even asked us for a raise,” she said, “They just want us out.”

She said that university officials had pointed to “capacity issues” at Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center in Westwood, including in the emergency room and dozens of specialty clinics.

“To solve this by pushing out Medi-Cal patients while you continue to expand and market and take on other patients is not a solution,” Matovsky said.

Hampton said UCLA had offered to extend the contract, but Health Care LA rejected the offer.

The end of the Medi-Cal contract disappointed some UCLA medical professionals who have been urging the public university to provide care to more of L.A. County’s low-income residents.

“It feels like this is profits over patients,” said Dr. Patrick Samones, a fellow at UCLA Health, who trained at the university in family medicine.

“UCLA is one of L.A.’s most important healthcare institutions,” said Samones, who represents members of the Committee of Interns and Residents, which is part of Service Employees International Union. “We feel it has a duty to serve all Californians.”

In recent years, UCLA Health has been expanding fast and now has almost 300 locations throughout Southern California, including in wealthier places such as Montecito, Malibu and Westlake Village.

At the same time, it provides less care to Medi-Cal patients than its sister university health systems: UC Irvine, UC San Diego, UC San Francisco and UC Davis, according to university statistics.

Last year, about 15% of UCLA Health’s net patient service revenue came from Medi-Cal, according to the university health systems’ annual report. The four other UC health systems each received about 22% of that revenue from Medi-Cal.

About 40% of L.A. County residents are insured by Medi-Cal, according to a recent report by the California Health Care Foundation.

Hampton said the net patient service revenue data from the annual report doesn’t capture UCLA’s “extensive contributions to caring for Medi-Cal patients” and isn’t “a fair basis for comparing academic health systems.”

He added that with the university’s expansion of clinics, “we are providing substantial specialty care to Medi-Cal and Medicare patients” throughout L.A. County.

“Unlike county-owned hospitals, UCLA Health relies almost exclusively on patient care revenue to fund operations, expand access, recruit clinicians and invest in facilities and technology,” he said.

Hampton said UCLA has other contracts to serve Medi-Cal patients, which will continue. The health system also provides more than $270 million in unreimbursed care for low-income patients each year, he said, as well as primary and urgent care for people experiencing homelessness.

In addition, UCLA is spending $500 million to create a new neuropsychiatric hospital in Los Angeles’ Mid-Wilshire neighborhood, he said.

“We continue to fortify our region’s safety net despite growing access demands and challenges,” Hampton said.

In the most recent fiscal year, he said, Medi-Cal patients comprised 26% of 336,600 inpatient days and 34% of 156,000 emergency department visits.

“UCLA Health’s long-standing commitment to serving vulnerable populations in Southern California is well-established,” he said.

Hampton said the net patient service revenue data doesn’t reflect the complexity of care delivered by UCLA and is affected by Medi-Cal reimbursement rates and payment policies, which vary by region and health plan.

“Over time, Medi-Cal reimbursement has not kept pace with the cost of providing care, and UCLA Health has experienced increasing payment denials and delays,” he said.

UCLA specialists had been caring for Health Care LA’s seriously ill patients under the contract since 2009.

“They were the provider that did all the complicated care,” Matovsky said. “UCLA was our go-to.”

The Victorians’ love of seaside resorts inspired a developer to try and build a ‘mega resort’ for the rich and powerful of the time, but many of the plans for this seaside town never came to fruition

Victorians loved the seaside. Time at the beach was the perfect antidote to the dirty, smoggy cities that were rapidly expanding, and the sea air was touted as a cure for everything from respiratory problems to exhaustion.

Another thing that was expanding at the time was Britain’s railway lines, and entrepreneurs were quick to build seaside resorts to accommodate Victorians’ love of beaches. One such visionary was Sir Robert Perks, a politician who looked at a stretch of Kent coast and decided it would make an incredible resort for the wealthiest in society at the time.

The spot was given the name Littlestone-on-Sea, named after a nearby headland called Little Stone, and initially it comprised of a home for Robert, accommodation called the Grand Hotel, a church, and some terraced houses. However, the Grand Hotel didn’t turn out nearly as grand as planned, and it was just the first project that didn’t quite live up to the vision.

Robert teamed up with a surveyor named Henry Tubbs to launch Littlestone Golf Course in 1888, which is still open to this day, and at one end there’s a distinctive local building the Littlestone water tower, which was supposed to supply fresh water to the golf course and the impressive seaside town that was envisioned.

Unfortunately, the water from the 120ft tall tower was too salty to use, and over time it was abandoned. However, in the Second World War, the structure found a new purpose. It became a lookout post that protected Kent’s shores, and the addition of platforms meant guards could keep lookout from many levels. Nowadays, it has been turned into a unique home.

Other plans for Littlestone included a large housing development, a lively promenade, and a favourite of Victorians – a pier. However, parts of the design for the pier were eventually used in Eastbourne, so it wasn’t a total waste of time.

Nowadays, Littlestone is far from the bustling resort that was imagined by the Victorian entrepeneurs, but it certainly has its own charm. Its vast shingle beach is lined with colourful beach huts, and the long flat promenade is popular for families and dog walkers.

From the shore you can spot the Mulberry Harbour Phoenix Caisson, a temporary breakwater that was built during the D-Day Normandy landings in World War 2. Few of these structures remain, making it a popular site for those interested in military history.

The town itself has a handful of shops, cafés, and restaurants. There’s a small selection of seaside hotels, as well as a caravan park that’s much loved by families looking for a peaceful break at the seaside.

So, while Littlestone may not have become a playground for the rich, it developed its own character over time and is still much-loved by visitors who want a more low-key seaside experience.

Have a story you want to share? Email us at webtravel@reachplc.com

WASHINGTON — The widow of an airman killed on a combat mission in the Middle East said it took a viral social media post to get resolution from the Pentagon on issues related to her husband’s benefits and basic pay months after his death.

Maj. Alex Klinner, 33, was one of six crew members of a KC-135 refueling aircraft that crashed in western Iraq in March while supporting operations against Iran. He’s one of 18 U.S. service members killed, along with 790 wounded, since the war began more than six months ago.

The Air Force reached out to his widow, Libby Klinner, this week to clarify that his final paycheck would include hazard pay and combat-related tax breaks. This occurred after she voiced frustration on social media at being told by a military officer assigned to support her after her husband’s death that he was ineligible for those benefits because “we were not at war.”

“My husband lost his life because we’re in a war, and then I was told that because it’s not technically a war, we lose out on something,” Klinner told the Associated Press. “It all comes down to principle.”

Trump administration is rejecting the ‘war’ label for current Iran operations

Her post, made over the weekend, gained national attention. Vice President JD Vance promised to look into her case after being asked about it during a White House briefing on Thursday.

“We want to be as helpful as we can and ensure she gets everything that she is entitled to,” Vance said. “My message to her would be, ‘We love ya, we’re grateful for the sacrifice and we very much take very seriously our commitment to get you what you need to get.’”

In response to a separate question, Vance rejected the use of the word “war” to characterize U.S. fighting in Iran, saying that “there is no active shooting.” The military has launched strikes against targets in Iran twice this week, and Iran has retaliated by firing on U.S. allies in the Gulf.

On Friday, President Trump called U.S. strikes “intermittent” and defended Vance’s comments.

“I call it a military conflict because it’s small potatoes for us,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.

In late July, the Trump administration created a new, separate category in the Pentagon’s casualty count system for those killed and wounded in renewed U.S.-Iran fighting. Pentagon officials said the change was necessary because “Operation Epic Fury,” the original name for combat operations against Tehran, had ended. Since July 7, all U.S. casualties in the Middle East have been tallied under “Overseas Operations.”

Widow says the Air Force has clarified the issues about her husband’s pay

Libby Klinner said Air Force officials contacted her this week to say they were initiating a review of her husband’s pay. The Air Force acknowledged to her Thursday that it had initially provided inaccurate information and clarified that she was receiving the full pay and benefits her husband was owed, she said.

She said she was told that her husband’s paycheck had already included but incorrectly itemized the combat-related hazard pay and tax breaks.

The pay incentives commonly known as “combat pay” are $225 per month and are conditioned not on a formal war declaration, but on the service member being in an area where there is “grave danger of physical injury” or of being “killed, injured, or wounded by a hostile fire event,” according to a military website.

Alex Klinner’s final paycheck would have included half that amount since troops are paid twice per month. It is difficult to calculate how much in federal tax breaks Klinner would have been receiving without more information.

Klinner declined to specify the amount of money she was initially told her husband, an eight-year Air Force veteran from Birmingham, Ala., would be ineligible to receive.

The Air Force says it’s committed to offering information and support

The Air Force said officials spoke with Klinner this week to “ensure all her questions are fully addressed” and confirmed that “all eligible combat theater benefits were included” in her husband’s pay.

“We remain committed to providing clear information and continued support to Mrs. Klinner, as well as all the families of the Airmen who died in the KC-135 crash,” the Air Force added.

Broadly, errors in pay in the military are very common because service members can often gain or lose eligibility for a variety of payments depending on their deployment status, duty location or even family factors. As a result, unlike their civilian counterparts, some troops can see their paychecks change many times a year, depending on many factors — something that also increases the likelihood of errors.

A GoFundMe for Libby Klinner and her three young children, launched in the days after her husband’s death, has raised more than $1.5 million.

Klinner said she hoped that by speaking out, she could ensure other grieving families receive clear information from the outset.

“I am very fortunate to have a significant support system around us and a platform to advocate for myself and for my kids. Other families may not have those resources,” she said. “If I can do anything to make this awful situation a little bit easier for someone else to navigate, then I am more than willing to do so.”

Brook and Toropin write for the Associated Press. Brook reported from New Orleans.