Mediaboss Marketing

NorthJersey Published 12:09 a.m. ET Feb. 5, 2017 | Updated 7 hours ago

Chris Christie(Photo: Julio Cortez/AP)

What a difference nine years make. In 2008, U.S. Attorney Chris Christie said immigrants living in the United Sates without valid documentation were not in violation of the U.S. criminal code.

In 2013, when running for a second term as governor, Christie supported a bill allowing undocumented college-age immigrants who were brought into the United States as children so-called Dreamers to attend state colleges and universities at in-state tuition rates. He signed the bill into law.

But in 2017, Governor Christie is really willing to partner with President Donald Trump in punishing municipalities that proclaim a willingness to aid undocumented people.

The governor said that on Fox News Channels OReilly Factor Thursday night. Christie has been making the rounds of talk shows of late, perhaps a sign that he is looking to once again raise his national profile as the Trump administration stumbles in its first weeks.

Back in 2008, Christie was a gubernatorial hopeful and was pitching himself as a pragmatic Republican, someone who would govern a blue state with an even hand. Christie made a nuanced distinction between a violation of criminal law and a civil law. There are differences, from a legal perspective, between crossing the border illegally and entering legally but then overstaying a visa.

But to many Americans in 2017, this is a moot point. Trump campaigned heavily on building a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border, instituting some form or Muslim immigration ban and cracking down on so-called sanctuary cities.

What makes a municipality a sanctuary city is not well defined. Some city councils pass ordinances declaring an intention to not enforce federal immigration policy. Other cities just do not want to be forced into dealing with federal immigration policy. Many police departments rightly believe if they are forced to act as federal immigration agents, they compromise their relationships in the very communities federal officials need willing partners.

There was a time Christie understood this completely. Federal officials in New Jersey in the months following 9/11 built bridges. Now the Trump administration and a willing Christie want walls.

Writing today in the Sunday Opinion section about Trumps refugee ban, Newark Cardinal Joseph Tobin says, Scripture impels my brother bishops and I to call on the federal government to alter its executive actions, and instead craft a well-conceived and comprehensive approach to immigration and refugee resettlement reform that both protects our people and national security and treats newcomers and refugees with respect, mercy, love and kindness.

That approach has to also apply to how the federal government deals with the 11 million undocumented people living in the United States. Rather than punish cities, the Trump administration should be focused on how to reform U.S. immigration policies and forge a legislative compromise in Congress that separates individuals who should be deported from the millions of people who are contributing to U.S. society and need to be taken out of the shadows.

It is not an easy task. And it is one where Christie could play an important part on the national stage as a former U.S. attorney and a governor of a diverse state. It just depends on which Christie shows up the one from 2008 or 2017.

Read or Share this story: http://northjersy.news/2k8ZKhc

Go here to see the original:
Editorial: There are two Christies on immigration reform - NorthJersey.com

Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard, D-Calif., announced Feb. 2 that Indian American Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., will join her as co-chair of the Congressional Womens Working Group on Immigration Reform.

Women and children bear the brunt of our inhumane and broken immigration system. Yet, they have no seat at the table, said Jayapal in a statement. Im honored and humbled to be appointed as co-chair of the Womens Working Group.

As an immigrant woman of color, Ive been fighting for justice in our immigration system for years, Jayapal added. I pledge to bring the same passion and commitment to the group as we work to reform our nations laws. Im proud to be working with a leader like Congresswoman Roybal-Allard to defend and protect immigrant families from this presidents policies.

Roybal-Allard made the announcement during the groups 2017 kickoff meeting held at her Capitol Hill office with several Womens Working Group members, including congresswomen and representatives of immigration groups, in attendance.

I am so excited to have Congresswoman Jayapal join me as a co-chair of the Congressional Womens Working Group on Immigration Reform, said Roybal-Allard in a statement. As an immigrant to America herself, a longtime civil rights activist, and the first Indian American woman in the House of Representatives, her experiences and dedication will enrich our group and our mission, she added.

The Womens Working Group on Immigration Reform was formed in 2013 to ensure that womens voices are heard in the immigration debate, and that Americas immigration policies reflect the interests of women and children.

See the rest here:
Pramila Jayapal Named Co-Chair of Women's Working Group on ... - India West

President Trump came to the National Prayer Breakfast last week with cheering words about religious liberty. Together with his picks of Vice President Mike Pence and Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, he has made strong inroads among Christian conservatives.

But Trump needs to deepen his knowledge and broaden his interest in religious liberty.

When he talks about religious liberty, he almost always brings up the sole issue of the Johnson Amendment.

The Johnson Amendment is a 1954 law that prohibits religious organizations from participating in "any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office." Trump wants to scrap that, and congressional Republicans have a bill to do it.

Great. Freedom of speech is crucial. Passing and signing the Free Speech Fairness Act, a bill sponsored by Sen. Jim Lankford to repeal the Johnson Act, would be great.

But Trump needs to look wider at religious liberty, which was for years under attack by President Obama, and recognize that it is a far-reaching matter of conscience that extends to all manner of issues at the nexus of public and private life.

St. Augustine once wrote of a hypothetical man sentenced to death. "What does it really matter to a man whose days are numbered what government he must obey," Augustine asked, "so long as he is not compelled to act against God or his conscience?"

This is where the crisis is for the faithful in America today. Trump owes it to the religious conservatives who elected him to enter this fight.

The Obama administration tried to force Hobby Lobby's owners to pay for employees' morning-after birth control, which may function as abortifacients. They also fought the Little Sisters of the Poor to force the nuns to pay for birth control for convent staff. Obama's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has gone after a Catholic School that fired a gay teacher after he married another man.

Also from the Washington Examiner

Lawmakers race against a 60-day clock to repeal a slew of Obama administration regulations.

02/05/17 12:01 AM

Recently the ACLU sued Catholic hospitals in an effort to force them to perform abortions.

Wedding photographers, bakers and florists have all come under fire by state governments for not facilitating gay weddings.

These are cases where people were forced to choose between the law and a conscientious wish to follow the precepts of their faith. The Obama administration proposed the novel view that First Amendment protections of a person's free exercise of religion ceased the moment he or she entered into commerce.

Obama went out of his way to restrict the First Amendment, speaking regularly of the "freedom of worship," rather than to what the amendment actually refers to, which is the "free exercise of religion." In other words, he tried to pen religious liberty in so it could be exercised only on the Sabbath.

These are the threats to religious liberty that Trump needs to assault first. He needs to protect the conscience rights of believers.

Also from the Washington Examiner

Republicans are pushing back on claims that they are softening their language about Obamacare's future.

02/05/17 12:00 AM

He could start by making it clear that the Obama administration's view of the First Amendment was pusillanimous and he does not accept it. The freedom of worship is just a small part of the free exercise of religion.

Trump has a good role model in Judge Neil Gorsuch, his nominee for Supreme Court. In one of his many rulings, Gorsuch quoted court precedent to say, "The 'exercise of religion' often involves not only belief and profession but the performance of (or abstention from) physical acts."

Importantly, Gorsuch's rulings don't only include Christians, but also have covered Muslims and Native Americans.

Trump could also get to work undoing Obama's birth control mandate, a gratuitous culture-war assault on conscience. The president could make it clear across the executive branch that holding a traditional view of marriage is not bigotry, and those who hold these views thus don't deserve government prosecution or persecution.

Fights over the Johnson Amendment are worthwhile, but secondary, because politics are secondary. For the religious, the things of the world are nothing compared to the eternal. That means the most important thing Trump can do for those millions of Americans for who religious faith is pre-eminently important, is to make sure government isn't coercing them to do what God forbids.

Top Story

Notice sent about 24 hours after judge ordered the restraining order.

02/04/17 7:27 PM

Original post:
How Trump can sure up the First Amendment - Washington Examiner

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievances."First Amendment, U.S. Constitution

In the first two weeks of the Trump administration, the President or his staff have taken actions against, or complained about, the expression of each part of the first amendment. It's like they've never even read it.

Police departments in large cities have had to deal with protest crowds for years, and most of them, most of the time, do fairly well. Now, in the Trump era, departments in even small towns have had to engage in a crash course in how to respond. Most of them are also doing fairly well in respecting their citizen's first amendment rights. Visalia held a protest recently, where organizers expected maybe 80 or 100 people to show up. Imagine everyone's surprise, especially the Visalia Police Department's, when an estimated 500 were on hand to express themselves. VPD must have done a good job, we've not heard of any issues arising from the peaceful protest. (a lot of nonsense on Facebook about it, but that doesn't really count)

I think the protests are the only good thing I've seen happen as a result of Trump winning the Presidency. He's reminded the American people of their basic civil duty, and their right to engage in defending their country. I doubt he thought it would be in response to his actions (or just his presence), though.

We're going to be seeing a lot of this kind of thing in the future. I have no doubt that instigators will try to inflame things by engaging in violence and destruction (as we saw in Berkeley), and of course the Fox News and Breitbarts of the country will try to lay the blame on liberals and liberalism. They'll ignore hundreds of peaceful demonstrations, and focus on the few outliers. After all, that's how they drive their ratings and page clicks. I have no doubt that Robert Reich was correct when he stated on CNN that outside agitators invaded the Berkeley protests, set fires and broke windows, and that they are linked to right-wing organizations. Peaceful protests don't suit their agenda, so it's not unexpected that things like that happen.

I expect more events like Berkeley will happen, as the right wing begins to recognize how badly they're losing the hearts and minds of the public.

To qoute Scotty: "Hold on tight, lassie. It gets bumpy from here."

And since my recent posts have generated a lot of uniformed commentary on the Visalia Times Delta's Facebook page, here some important information:

This is not an "article". I am not a journalist. I am not employed by the Visalia Times Delta, and they do not edit or censor or otherwise control, my posts.

I am a "community blogger" and my blog is hosted at the Visalia Times Delta's page, on Gannett's servers. If you want to become a community blogger, contact the Times Delta. This has been available to the public for several years. Take advantage of it, it's fun!

First Amendment quote and image from

US Courts.gov

.

View post:
1st Amendment - Visalia Times-Delta

Protesters move off the Berkeley campus and onto the surrounding streets. (Screen shot via Twitter)

The University of California, Berkeley is known for its decades of progressive protest movementsso its no surprise that the campus experienced widespread protests earlier this week in response to an event that was to feature far-right commentator Milo Yiannopoulos.

The event was canceled after a faction of the demonstrators became violent, NPR reports:

Its far from the first time a Yiannopoulos speaking event was canceled because of protests, which occur regularly at his events.

In a statement, the university said: The violence was instigated by a group of about 150 masked agitators who came onto campus and interrupted an otherwise non-violent protest.

The cancellation of the event prompted President Trump to threaten to cut federal funding from the public university:

Trumps tweet sparked a debate about free speech at a time when many are already wondering if the new administration is suppressing the First Amendment.

Many Democrats were quick to respond to Trumps tweet. Rep. Barbara Lee, who represents Berkeley as part of the 13th District of California, issued a news release Thursday:

Milo Yiannopoulos has made a career of inflaming racist, sexist and nativist sentiments. Berkeley has a proud history of dissent and students were fully within their rights to protest peacefully. I am disappointed by the unacceptable acts of violence by outside agitators which were counterproductive and dangerous.

President Donald Trump cannot bully our university into silence. Simply put, President Trumps empty threat to cut funding from UC Berkeley is an abuse of power. As a senior member of the education funding subcommittee, I will continue to stand up to President Trumps overreach and defend the rights of our students and faculty.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi also defended the university. Berkeley is the center of the free speech movement, she said. I think that the protesters have a right to free speech as well. If there is an infiltration of the crowd by those that are less than peaceful, that should be addressed.

And numerous other California representatives jumped in via Twitter:

UC Berkeley students and officials were left reeling from the violence at a campus known for its determined yet peaceful protests. Local NBC affiliate KCRA reports:

It was not a proud night for this campus, school spokesman Dan Mogulof said, later adding, We are proud of our history and legacy as the home of the free-speech movement.

The school prides itself on its liberalism and political correctness, but many on campus pointed to the irony of the historical fight for free speech turning into a suppression of unpopular views today.

Berkeley has always stood for self-expression, said Russell Ude, a 20-year-old football player. Things like this discredit peaceful protest.

Philosophy professor John Searle, a leader of the free-speech movement and professor since 1959, called the cancellation an absolute scandal. He said most of what Yiannopoulos professes is disgusting but that hes entitled to be heard.

Free speech has to be allowed for everyone, Searle said.

Others seem to agree with Searle and have argued that the cancellation of Yiannopoulos event represents a threat to free speech.

Conservative students have the right to bring obnoxious bigots to speak on campus and other students have a right to protest, writes The Atlantics Peter Beinart. But controversial speakers should be allowed to speak.

Others, however, argue that Yiannopoulos doesnt represent a typical political speaker.

Milo is a very unique situation, one Berkeley student told NPR. Milo is an entertainer who has engineered a national tour around provoking college campuses, in order to feed into a narrative that supports this idea that liberal campuses are shutting down free speech.

A student at UC Daviswhere a recent Yiannopoulos event also was canceled after protestssaid that as a transgender person, she would fear for her safety if he came to the campus.

The fear is with the folks who are going to see him, the student told CNN. He leaves. But the folks who are attending [his event] are the folks that I have to sit next to in classrooms.

The First Amendment issue is unlikely to be resolved soon because incendiary far-right figures like Yiannopoulos are coming to the forefront of the political debate ever since former Breitbart chairman Steve Bannon joined the Trump administration.

Arguments about whether to label Bannon, Yiannopoulos and others of their ilk as white nationalists or neo-Nazis have also emerged in recent weeks.

While its unlikely that Trump would be able to cut off UC Berkeleys federal funding, the takeaway from this weeks protests is about more than fiscal issues.

I think we need to have a serious conversation about protests, one Berkeley student said. This is going to be a big part of our lives for the next four years.

Posted by Emma Niles.

More Below the Ad

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Originally posted here:
Emma Niles: UC Berkeley Protests Spark Debate Over First ... - Truthdig