FBI Director: Islamic State Still the Main Threat Facing the U.S.

The director of the FBI said Tuesday that the Islamic State group is currently the main threat facing the United States, both in its efforts to recruit fighters to join its members overseas and to have others carry out violence in America.

Director James Comey said the IS group poses a third potential threat: a “terrorist diaspora” that he said will eventually flow out of Syria and Iraq and end up in Western Europe, where members will have easy access to the U.S.

“There’s three prongs to this ISIL threat,” Comey said. “The recruitment to travel, the recruitment to violence in place, and then what you saw a preview of in Brussels and in Paris — hardened fighters coming out, looking to kill people.”

He said officials are “laser-focused on that.”

Comey took questions from reporters Tuesday in the FBI’s Minneapolis office as part of a two-day visit to the region that included meetings with community leaders and local law enforcement. Comey responded to questions about the heroin epidemic, shootings involving officers and surveillance issues, but the bulk of his comments were about the Islamic State group.

Last week, three Minnesota men who were accused of plotting to join the IS group were convicted of conspiring to commit murder overseas — which carries a potential life sentence — as well as conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization and other charges.

The defendants — Guled Ali Omar, 21; Abdirahman Yasin Daud, 22; and Mohamed Abdihamid Farah, 22 — were among a group of friends who prosecutors say recruited and inspired each other to travel to Syria. A total of 10 men were charged in the conspiracy; six pleaded guilty and a seventh is at large, believed to be fighting in Syria.

Comey said the FBI is continuing to focus on the Islamic State group, and there are close to 1,000 open cases nationwide involving people at various stages of recruitment. He said the group’s slick videos and propaganda can resonate with people of all ages, but seem to draw in people under 30 who are “unmoored” in some way.

He said he hopes the FBI’s work, including the convictions in Minneapolis, will send a message that “there will be severe consequences for people who go down that path.”

Comey added that the number of active IS-related cases hasn’t decreased, but the number of people seeking to travel to Syria has dropped since the end of last summer — going from about six to 10 attempted travelers each month to about one or two.

He said he can’t pinpoint the reasons for the trend, but it’s possible people are traveling to other Islamic State outposts, have been deterred by the outcomes of other criminal cases, or have been stopped by families and community members.

Another — and more disturbing — possibility is that some are staying in the U.S. and looking to carry out violence here, Comey said.

“It’s good news the traveler numbers have come down,” he said. “I don’t know exactly what to make of it yet.”

Comey was in Williston, North Dakota, on Monday to open a new FBI office that will focus on crime in the Bakken region, which has spiked with the oil boom. The FBI’s Minneapolis division covers Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota. (For more from the author of “FBI Director: Islamic State Still the Main Threat Facing the U.S.” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Clinton Tech Aide Reveals to Judge the Immunity Deal He Got From Prosecutors

The ex-staffer who set up Hillary Clinton’s home email server has filed documents under seal in response to a judge’s directive that he reveal his immunity arrangement with the Justice Department . . .

[Bryan] Pagliano last week said he would not testify in an upcoming deposition sought by conservative legal advocacy group Judicial Watch, which has sued for information about Clinton’s email server.

In response, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan gave Pagliano until Tuesday evening to file with the court a copy of his immunity agreement. (Read more from “Clinton Tech Aide Reveals to Judge the Immunity Deal He Got From Prosecutors” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Issues What He Says Will Be His Last Statement on Trump U Controversy

Responding to the controversy involving his remarks about the Hispanic judge presiding over the Trump University fraud case, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump issued a lengthy statement Tuesday on Facebook.

Trump has said U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel could not be impartial in the case because of his “Mexican heritage.” Curiel was born and raised in the United States.

In his Facebook statement, the billionaire businessman writes, “It is unfortunate that my comments have been misconstrued as a categorical attack against people of Mexican heritage. I am friends with and employ thousands of people of Mexican and Hispanic descent.”

“The American justice system relies on fair and impartial judges,” he continues. “All judges should be held to that standard. I do not feel that one’s heritage makes them incapable of being impartial, but, based on the rulings that I have received in the Trump University civil case, I feel justified in questioning whether I am receiving a fair trial.”

Defending the university, Trump writes, “Throughout the litigation my attorneys have continually demonstrated that students who participated in Trump University were provided a substantive, valuable education based upon a curriculum developed by professors from Northwestern University, Columbia Business School, Stanford University and other respected institutions.”

Trump points out that after completing the real estate course, Tarla Makaeff, the original plaintiff, completed several surveys in which Trump University was given an “excellent” rating. He goes on to imply that when the attorneys for the students realized Makaeff would not be a good witness for the plaintiffs, they decided to drop her from the case.

Referring to other students involved in the lawsuit, Trump says they also completed surveys, rating the university as “excellent.”

Trump writes that when asked what Trump University could do to improve programs, one student suggested that sandwiches be brought in and the lunch break be expanded to 45 minutes. Another student suggested “more comfortable chairs.”

Continuing, Trump draws attention to the program’s “generous” policy of giving a full refund to students when requested within three days of signing up for a program, or by the end of the first day of a multi-day program, whichever came later.

Citing his position as the presumptive Republican nominee as well as a campaign that has focused on illegal immigration, Trump questions whether a fair trial is possible.

Trump concludes his post by saying, “While this lawsuit should have been dismissed, it is now scheduled for trial in November. I do not intend to comment on this matter any further. With all of the thousands of people who have given the courses such high marks and accolades, we will win this case!” (For more from the author of “Trump Issues What He Says Will Be His Last Statement on Trump U Controversy” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama Commutes Sentences of More Violent Criminals

The fundamental transformation continues to roll on as scheduled. As always, Obama waited until late Friday afternoon, when reporters largely pack up for the weekend, to announce the commutation of sentences for 42 more drug traffickers in federal prison.

President Obama defended this move as a common sense gesture to low-level nonviolent drug offenders, but as we’ve explained over the past few years, most people in federal prison are anything but “nonviolent.” MRC has posted the names of 10 of the individuals who were convicted of firearms violations in addition to drug trafficking charges. This at a time when Obama wants to crack down on law-abiding gun owners and dealers.

In addition to this list of 10 violent drug dealers, let’s take a look at one of the other 32 names on the list of commutations from Friday:

Sherman Ray Meirovitz – Minneapolis, MN
Offense: Possession with intent to distribute cocaine; conspiracy to distribute and
possession with intent to distribute cocaine; District of Minnesota
Sentence: Life imprisonment (January 5, 1990)

On the surface this doesn’t appear to warrant a life sentence. After all, wasn’t Mr. Meirovitz just a “nonviolent” cocaine dealer? I took a look at his sentencing history from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and found the full story:

After a three-day jury trial, Meirovitz was convicted on both counts of conspiracy to distribute and possession with the intent to distribute. The United States Probation Officer calculated his offense level at thirty-eight and his criminal history category at VI due to his status of career offender. Therefore, Meirovitz’ appropriate sentencing range was thirty years to life. Judge Devitt sentenced Meirovitz to the maximum sentence because of his substantial criminal record which included a history of drug-dealing and the shooting death of his mother-in-law.

This is a microcosm of much of the federal prison population. Many of the individuals who are currently serving time for drug trafficking were either originally in prison for more serious charges, but released in the revolving door of already-lenient safety valves, or they were arrested for robbery and even murder but the charges were pleaded down, leaving only the conviction on drug charges in place.

In total, Obama has commuted 348 federal sentences, more than the past six presidents combined. He has essentially used the presidential power to pardon as a back-door jailbreak to categorically remake the criminal code. This comes at a time when, contrary to myths propagated by “public policy” NGOs, more criminals are being released early by “the system” than ever before. According to the most recent data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission, 62.4% of all drug traffickers sentenced in FY15 received a sentence below that which is recommended in the sentencing guidelines. The average sentence was only five and a half years. Less than half of all drug traffickers were convicted of an offense carrying a mandatory minimum and half of those were not even sentenced to the mandatory minimum because of the safety valve or substantial assistance.

This is under current practice, before passing the jailbreak bill pushed by the pseudo intellectuals in Washington. Taken in totality, Obama’s dismantling of the law and order regime of the past few decades will release thousands of violent criminals onto our streets. And they will be committing offenses over and beyond drug trafficking As victims’ rights activists Kimberly Corban wrote in her column for Conservative Review last week, “We live in a society that is so hell bent on redeeming those who are undeserving of second chances that we choose to overlook blatant red flags.”

It would be nice if we had an opposition party putting out the flames instead of fanning them and providing Obama with cover. (For more from the author of “Obama Commutes Sentences of More Violent Criminals” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The GOP Plan to End Wall Street Bailouts

House Republicans are priming the pump for the next president to overhaul much of the financial regulation enacted in the aftermath of the 2008 global market downturn. The GOP plan would repeal and replace most of the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul with a more market-based regulatory scheme.

As part of the GOP’s “A Better Way Agenda,” House Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, was scheduled to unveil details of the simpler, yet stricter, regulation Tuesday morning at the Economic Club of New York.

“In a phrase,” he said, summarizing the Republican plan in prepared remarks obtained by The Daily Signal, “we need economic growth for all and bank bailouts for none.”

Hensarling blames Washington, not Wall Street, for that downturn.

“It wasn’t deregulation that created the great financial crisis of 2008, it was mostly dumb regulation by the Washington elite,” Hensarling told The Daily Signal on Monday before the speech. “And there were none dumber than those compelling Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to loan money to people for homes they couldn’t afford to keep.”

Originally proposed by President Barack Obama and heralded by proponents as the greatest expansion of government control of banking and financial markets since the Great Depression, the mammoth Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 was supposed to prevent another fiscal crisis.

Named for its principal authors, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., the law imposed more government regulation on nearly all aspects of the financial services industry. It passed along party lines: by a vote of 237-192 in the House and 60-39 in the Senate. Neither Dodd nor Frank remains in Congress.

Citing economist Friedrich Hayek’s book “Fatal Conceit,” Hensarling described the law’s 2,300 pages as an example of “Washington’s elite deciding they’re smarter and can somehow manage the economy better than the rest of us.”

Central to the Republican replacement for Dodd-Frank is a regulatory offramp. Under the Hensarling plan, banks that “hold high levels of capital and maintain a fortress balance sheet,” he said in his speech, can escape much of the Dodd-Frank regulation.

Though larger banks would have to raise more capital, Hensarling said, the requirement wouldn’t have much of an impact on the books of smaller, more local lending institutions. Either way, he argued, control remains with the bank.

Hensarling’s plan represents a test balloon, a dry run at achieving permanent reform should a Republican win the White House in November. The newly released plan is just one plank of House Speaker Paul Ryan’s promised “bold, pro-growth agenda.”

Ownership of risk is the biggest difference between the new GOP plan and the Dodd-Frank regulatory scheme, Hensarling told The Daily Signal.

The plan would encourage market discipline, what he described to The Daily Signal as “having your own money at risk as opposed to having a taxpayer backstop which provides privatization of profits and socialization of losses.”

Without government loan guarantees and under the new capital requirements, Hensarling told members of the Economic Club of New York they may see more failure for financial institutions once deemed too big to fail.

In an ironic twist, Hensarling told The Daily Signal, he believes the GOP plan will do away with bailouts—something the Dodd-Frank law purported but failed to do. Instead, the GOP plan creates new avenues for controlled bankruptcy.

Troubled megabanks with more than $50 billion worth of assets would qualify for an entirely new bankruptcy process, not multibillion dollar packages given to lending institutions such as Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley.

“Some large firms will likely become smaller because the credit they now obtain will be priced according to their inherent risk of failure without implicit government guarantees,” Hensarling said in his New York speech. “As a result, failure—when it does happen—will be more contained.”

The Hensarling plan takes steps to more aggressively enforce laws against fraud, self-dealing, and insider trading by instituting new penalties, like doubling and tripling fines in some cases.

It also would change the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a government agency created by the Dodd-Frank that Hensarling described in an advance copy of his speech as Orwellian.

“We know the best consumer protections are competitive, transparent, and innovative markets, vigorously policed for fraud,” Hensarling said. “So the penalties we have in our plan go way further than anything Dodd-Frank conceived of.”

In the current political climate, Hensarling’s plan is a political impossibility. Even if the proposal advanced out of Congress, it wouldn’t make it past the White House.

Last week in Elkhart, Indiana, Obama described any plan to do away with Dodd-Frank as “crazy.”

“I don’t care whether you are a Republican or Democrat or an independent, why would you do that?” Obama said. “Less oversight on Wall Street would only make another crisis more likely … How can you say you are for the middle class and then you want to tear down these rules?”

Hensarling responded by calling the president a “liberal ideologue” and accused him of trying “to turn America into a European social democracy.”

“The ultimate goal of the left is to turn our large, money-centered banks into the functional equivalent of utilities so that Washington can politically allocate credit,” Hensarling told The Daily Signal.

Increased regulation has hurt smaller banks in particular, he said, and the left is “very happy to let community-centered banks wither on the vine.” (For more from the author of “The GOP Plan to End Wall Street Bailouts” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Conservative Senator Is Trying to Keep Women out of the Draft

To Sen. Mike Lee, the battle over whether women should have to register for a draft that does not exist is more consequential than it sounds.

Though the U.S. has had an all-volunteer force since 1973, some Republicans are using this year’s defense policy bill to try to require women to sign up for the Selective Service System, compelling them to serve in the military if a draft were ever reinstated.

Supporters of the provision of the National Defense Authorization Act expanding Selective Service to women are doing so in the name of inclusivity, arguing that if women are able to serve in combat—which they can—they should naturally be eligible for the draft if it were brought back.

But as senators debate the annual defense policy bill this week, conservatives like Lee are fighting back, arguing that forcing women into the Selective Service would actually restrict their freedoms.

“It’s one thing for women who want to be in combat and have earned it to do that, but forcing women to fight is a totally different matter,” said Lee, R-Utah, in an interview with The Daily Signal.

Lee added:

This has nothing to do with opportunities for women in the military. This has to do with whether we should put women in a position where they are forced to register for the Selective Service, and when you are doing that, you are submitting them to a future draft. That’s a totally different question and that’s a question that has yet to be adequately studied or considered by Congress in a manner I think it deserves. My amendment preserves choices that women currently have—choices that would be taken away if the language in the base bill were to become law.

Lee wrote an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would remove the provision that requires women to register for the Selective Service. The amendment also forces the Pentagon to prepare a report for Congress by July 2017 about whether the Selective Service is even necessary and if registration should be required regardless of gender.

The amendment, one of nearly 400 proposed to the defense policy bill, is also sponsored by GOP Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas, James Inhofe of Oklahoma, Mike Rounds of South Dakota, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, and Roger Wicker of Mississippi.

Extending the Selective Service to women has powerful Republican backers, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

In addition, military leaders from the Army and Marine Corps testified before Congress in February voicing support for requiring women to register with the Selective Service.

The Selective Service System was created to ensure the military has enough manpower when it is short-handed in a time of war.

The Selective Service System currently requires registration of men ages 18-25 only. But when the Obama administration opened military combat roles to women in December 2015, supporters saw gender neutrality in draft eligibility as a logical next step.

“Because the Department of Defense has lifted the ban on women serving in ground combat units, the committee believes there is no further justification in limiting the duty to register under the Military Selective Service Act to men,” wrote the Senate Armed Services Committee, which drafted the National Defense Authorization Act, in its executive summary to the bill.

When the House passed its version of the National Defense Authorization last month, opponents of expanding the Selective Service to women were successful in stripping the provision from the bill.

Lee hopes for a similar result in the Senate, and not just because he disagrees with the underlying policy.

The Utah senator is also concerned with a separate provision of the National Defense Authorization Act that would create a “National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service” to review the future of the Selective Service System. The commission would also “consider methods to increase participation in military, national, and public service in order to address national security and other public service needs of the nation.”

While backers of that provision, including McCain and Graham, say the commission is meant to increase interest in the U.S.’ system of an all-volunteer military force, Lee alleges his colleagues are trying to “open the door” to mandatory service making a comeback.

“I think the current NDAA calling for a study on national service is laying the groundwork for a mandatory national service draft,” Lee said. “Based on my reading of the language of the base bill, I certainly think that is a risk. I have some concerns about that. Voluntary service is an indispensable part of what makes America exceptional and mandatory service would destroy all of that.”

An aide to a senator who supports the commission denied Lee’s accusation.

“That’s an absurd argument,” the aide said. “No one is suggesting that we bring back mandatory service except for Senator Lee. The provision that would create the commission was included to study if we even still need a draft due to the success of the all-volunteer force.”

No matter the intent of the commission, and the push to require women to join the Selective Service, Lee agrees the nature of how the U.S. assembles its military is due for fresh scrutiny.

“One of the things facilitated by my amendment is a conversation that if you aren’t ever going to have a draft, taking a look at the need — or lackthereof — of Selective Service in general,” Lee said. “If we aren’t going to have a draft at some point in the future, it would defy logic and reason to expand the Selective Service requirement.”

It’s still unclear when — or if — Lee’s amendment stopping the expansion of Selective Service to women will be voted on. McConnell has said he hopes to finish work on the National Defense Authorization Act this week. (For more from the author of “Conservative Senator Is Trying to Keep Women out of the Draft” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Latest Primary Has Big Impact on Clinton Campaign

Though the primary election did not play out as the coronation many pundits initially forecast, Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton has reportedly amassed the 2,383 delegates needed to become her party’s presumptive nominee. Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who has proved a popular alternative among left-leaning voters, was not able to make up for the deficit he faced among Democrat-exclusive superdelegates.

Reports indicate the Puerto Rico primary, along with late support from uncommitted superdelegates, put Clinton over the threshold.

According to the Associated Press, 571 of the 714 Democratic superdelegates — a group made up of influential party leaders — supported Clinton, with less than 100 still uncommitted. These members of the Democratic Party’s elite have played a pivotal role in securing Clinton’s presumptive nomination.

One superdelegate, Alabama Democratic Party chairwoman Nancy Worley, pledged her vote to Clinton recently in an effort to wrap up the primary election and allow Clinton to focus on her race against presumptive general-election rival Donald Trump.

“We really need to bring a close to this primary process and get on to defeating Donald Trump,” she said.

Another superdelegate, Michael Brown of Washington, D.C., explained the reason for his late-in-the-game support for the former first lady.

“It’s time to stand behind our presumptive candidate,” he declared. “We shouldn’t be acting like we are undecided when the people of America have spoken.” (For more from the author of “Latest Primary Has Big Impact on Clinton Campaign” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Bashes His Own Campaign Staff on Call With Surrogates: ‘You Guys Are Sometimes Getting Stupid Information’

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump bashed his own campaign staff during a call with supporters on Monday, telling his surrogates that his staff sometimes gives them “stupid information,” according to Bloomberg Politics.

During the call, Trump ordered his surrogates to defend his attacks regarding a federal judge’s Mexican heritage according to “two supporters who were on the call and requested anonymity to share their notes with Bloomberg Politics.”

Trump has directed a series of personal attacks towards the Hispanic judge hearing the Trump University lawsuit. Trump told The Wall Street Journal that U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel has “an absolute conflict of interest” due to his heritage and Trump’s position that a wall should be built on the Mexican border.

According to Bloomberg Politics, during the call, former Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer interjected to tell Trump that she received a memo from his staff telling her not to discuss the lawsuit.

“Take that order and throw it the hell out,” Trump said before demanding to know who sent the memo. (Read more from “Trump Bashes His Own Campaign Staff on Call With Surrogates: ‘You Guys Are Sometimes Getting Stupid Information'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Judge Rules in Favor of Christian Student Group Against NC State’s ‘Speech Permit’

North Carolina State University infringed on the free speech rights of a student-led Christian group, a federal judge has ruled.

Chief U.S. District Judge James C. Dever III, calling his action “in the public interest,” issued a preliminary injunction Saturday against NC State’s speech permit policy, saying it violates the students’ First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

“The judge pretty much granted the entire request that we asked for,” a lawyer for the students, Tyson Langhofer, told The Daily Signal. “Essentially, everything in the final order that we requested was granted.”

The group Grace Christian Life, which meets on the NC State campus, sued school administrators on April 26 for requiring they obtain a permit before holding a meeting for fellow students in Talley Student Union.

Dever heard the case, Grace Christian Life v. Woodson, on June 2. W. Randolph Woodson is the chancellor of North Carolina State University.

In a statement provided to The Daily Signal, NC State said:

NC State appreciates the court’s review of this matter, and we will follow the court’s preliminary ruling. The university remains an environment that fosters and enables the healthy and free exchange of ideas and viewpoints by our students and academic community. The ruling is not in response to a concern over the university’s actual application of the policy, which is content neutral.

The judge’s order will not prohibit university officials from regulating student speech or behavior that is disruptive to campus activities, violates school policies, or interferes with the learning of others, Langhofer told The Daily Signal. He said:

Any kind of speech that would interrupt or interfere with the university’s educational activities or that would potentially prohibit or disrupt or block traffic, they can ask you to stop that. Any other speech that doesn’t disrupt otherwise, you don’t have to have a permit to engage in that. … The injunction order is final in that it’s the order that will last for the remainder of the case about the policy.

Langhofer is a senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal aid group that represents people who have reason to think their religious liberties have been compromised.

NC State has the option to appeal, but Langhofer said that is “unlikely.”

“It means that now, students at NC State have the ability to speak freely to one another without having to obtain a permit first,” he said of the ruling. “It means they can fully exercise their First Amendment rights.” (For more from the author of “Judge Rules in Favor of Christian Student Group Against NC State’s ‘Speech Permit'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

California Could Become the First State to Expand Coverage to Illegal Aliens Under Obamacare

California state lawmakers are one step closer to expanding coverage under Obamacare to illegal immigrants, sending a bill to Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk that would allow those living in the state illegally to buy health insurance on the exchange with their own money.

The California Legislature passed a bill last week setting in motion a process to eventually allow illegal immigrants living in the state to purchase private health insurance through its state-run exchange, Covered California.

Illegal immigrants cannot and would not qualify for federal subsidies available to lower-income Americans under Obamacare.

The bill requires the state to request permission from the federal government to waive a provision of the Affordable Care Act prohibiting illegal immigrants from participating in Obamacare’s exchanges.

If Brown, a Democrat, decides to sign the legislation and receives the government’s blessing, California would become the first state to offer health insurance to illegal immigrants through Obamacare.

Though the health care law prohibits illegal immigrants from participating in Obamacare’s exchanges, California officials can seek approval from the Department of Health and Human Services through a Section 1332 “State Innovation Waiver” to bypass that prohibition.

California’s bill instructs the state to pursue a State Innovation Waiver from the federal government. Section 1332 of the health care law allow states to request five-year waivers from key aspects of the Affordable Care Act, including the individual and employer mandates, beginning next year.

To attain a State Innovation Waiver, a state must “pursue innovative strategies” to provide residents with health insurance, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The plan must not only ensure residents have access to “comprehensive and affordable” health care, but it also must provide coverage to either the same number of or more people covered under Obamacare.

Last, for the Section 1332 to be granted, the state’s strategy cannot add to the federal deficit.

The legislation, sponsored by state Sen. Ricardo Lara, a Democrat, was passed last week, and groups opposing illegal immigration are sounding off against the measure.

“With a legislature writing bills for people in our state illegally, this is incentive for the world to come to California illegally,” Robin Hvidston, executive director of the California grassroots group We the People Rising, told The Daily Signal. “California is in the United States of America, and our legislators should be focused on legislating for our U.S. citizens.”

Though illegal immigrants aren’t eligible for subsidies under Lara’s bill, Hvidston worries that in the future, more changes to the law will come.

“It is historically a progression in our state where the bill starts at a certain level, then increases the next year with a new benefit, and on and on,” she said.

Like Hvidston, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR, too believes the legislation on Brown’s desk is simply a first step.

“This follows a pattern in California. [The bill] is kind of being framed innocuously as ‘We’re not going to subsidize illegal immigrants and just give them an opportunity to buy insurance through the exchanges,’” Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for FAIR, told The Daily Signal. “Of course, there are few who are going to be able to buy coverage without subsidies. This is the first step in the process.

“First, you make it possible for them to buy policies through the exchange, and when nobody can do that because it’s too expensive, you say we have to give them subsidies.”

Regardless of how California’s policy could progress in the future, groups in favor of the bill argue the state should be working to ensure all Californians have access to quality coverage.

“People who have different viewpoints on immigration policy can come together in recognition that it is everyone’s interest to connect as many Californians with coverage, and prevent the health and financial issues for not just uninsured families, but the community as a whole,” Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access California, told the Washington Examiner.

The group did not return The Daily Signal’s request for comment.

California has the largest population of illegal immigrants—2.6 million—in the country. Covered California puts expected enrollment in private health insurance coverage through the exchange at 50,000 enrollees.

Other estimates place the number of illegal immigrants who would be able to head to the exchange at 390,000.

Lara proposed the legislation initially in 2014, and it recently earned a nod of support of Covered California board members.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the Democratic lawmaker is hoping the state sends the waiver to the Department of Health and Human Services for consideration while President Barack Obama is still in office.

If Brown signs the bill, the departments of Health and Human Services and Treasury can take up to 225 days to respond to the waiver.

Because the decision to determine if Lara’s bill qualifies for a Section 1332 waiver, which outlines specific provisions for proposals that pass muster, would ultimately fall to the federal government, Ed Haislmaier, a Heritage Foundation senior fellow in health policy studies, said it’s likely the legislation amounts to an “empty gesture,” in part because of the high cost of unsubsidized health care on the exchanges.

“I think it’s more symbolic than anything else because to the extent that people in the U.S. illegally are being treated, they’re either paying out of pocket, which some probably are, or they’re relying on charitable and publicly funded providers such as hospitals and federally qualified health centers to obtain their care,” he said.

“Given that the government is having difficulty getting legal, U.S. citizens in the same demographic to actually buy insurance even though it’s heavily subsidized, I don’t know how much success they’ll have,” Haislmaier continued.

However, Mehlman with FAIR, said the Obama administration’s actions regarding illegal immigration indicate they would be in favor of granting the waiver.

“Given the inclinations of this administration and the policies they’ve carried out over the past seven and a half years, you have to suspect they would really want to do this,” he said. “Whether they will do it, I don’t know. I suspect that if the opportunity presented itself and they thought it wouldn’t harm them and their party politically, they probably would do it.”

During a speech before a joint session of Congress in 2009, Obama attempted to debunk claims that under Obamacare, illegal immigrants would receive health insurance, which prompted a now-infamous “You lie,” from Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C.

“There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants,” he told lawmakers. “This, too, is false. The reforms that I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.”

Though California is the only state to consider a proposal expanding coverage to illegal immigrants under Obamacare, Colorado residents are considering a proposal that would require state officials to attain a Section 1332 waiver.

The proposal, which Colorado residents will vote on on the November ballot, would create a government-run health care plan in the Centennial State called ColoradoCare. (For more from the author of “California Could Become the First State to Expand Coverage to Illegal Aliens Under Obamacare” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.