Mediaboss Marketing

Those who support President Donald Trumps increased immigration enforcement frequently say that immigrants should get in line to come to America, rather than enter without authorization.

But, what line?

For most people who might want to come to America, there is no line. Potential immigrants generally need a family member or employer in the U.S. as a sponsor before they can seek entry. And those who have such a host face waits that many would consider unreasonably long.

Mexican brothers and sisters of American citizens who applied to come to the United States legally almost 20 years ago are just now getting green cards.

For siblings in the Philippines, the delay is even longer 23 years. Siblings from India have waited 14 years. Both sides in the immigration debate have used the concept of an immigration line in their rhetoric over the years. Those who want stricter limits on immigration say that unauthorized immigrants should wait their turn in line to come to the United States.

But even advocates of immigration reforms designed to accommodate unauthorized immigrants have talked about such a line. President Barack Obama pushed for allowing unauthorized immigrants to get in line to obtain legal status when Congress last considered an overhaul of immigration laws.

Some immigration attorneys took issue with the phrase when it was used in that context as well. Immigration attorney Edward Orendain said that the line is a misconception.

I can understand that some people feel they're frustrated that people are cutting in line, but there is no line for some people, and for those who can get in a line, the waits are ridiculously long in some cases, Orendain said by telephone.

There are a few legal options for people from other countries who want to move permanently to the United States:

Some people dont qualify for any of these options. For those who do qualify, the wait can take decades.

Karla Rivera, 34, was born in Mexico when her mother who held a green card in the U.S. gave birth a month early while visiting family in Mexico. Rivera has been waiting most of her life for legal entry to the U.S.

Riveras mother received her green card in the 80s as part of Ronald Reagans amnesty program. Rivera lived with her grandmother in Mexico until her mother was able to bring her to the U.S. at age 5 under a family unity program created for immediate relatives of amnesty green-card holders.

Riveras mother began trying to file the paperwork for Rivera to get a green card in 1991 and successfully filed all of the forms in 1998. Rivera is still waiting for her green card.

You want to get to the finish line, but it doesnt seem like youre ever going to get there, Rivera said.

Riveras attorney, Ginger Jacobs, said Rivera has a hybrid status because of the family unity program. She is neither unauthorized nor a resident.

Rivera excelled in school, but she was not eligible for any federal funding to go to college. She now works as a nanny.

Every two years, she has to renew her status with the family unity program, which costs more than $500 with each renewal.

When she finally gets her green card, Rivera said, shes going to apply to become a U.S. citizen as soon as she can.

When people say, The system is broken, and people say, Well, they need to obey the law - Karla and her mom obeyed the law, Jacobs said, and she still has no green card. Wheres the justice in that?

Family members fall into four categories, and most categories all of those besides immediate relatives, like spouses and unmarried children under age 21, of U.S. citizens are capped annually.

The cap for family-sponsored visas is 226,000 per year, and employer-sponsored is 140,000, according to the State Department. Those caps have created backlogs.

By law, no countrys citizens can have more than seven percent, or 25,620, of the capped visas given out each year. That means the wait for citizens of certain countries is, in some cases, much longer than others.

For a sibling, that's a ridiculously long amount of time to wait, Orendain said. Life doesn't stop just because you're waiting for a visa to become available. People, their lives change. They get married and have children. Some of them die.

How do we know where we're going to be 20 or 23 years from now? Orendain added. It's impossible for people to really make plans and be able to prepare for anything.

Waits for employer-sponsored visas are not as long as family-sponsored visas, but some are still more than a decade. Potential employee immigrants from India face the longest delay, at 12 years for a skilled and professional worker visa. Vaani Chawla, a local immigration attorney, said one of her clients who came to the U.S. on a temporary work visa has been waiting for his green card since 2005.

Because of a change in law in the early 2000s, Chawla said, her client has been able to stay working in the U.S. while he waits his turn. Living in that limbo can limit a persons ability to advance his or her career through changing jobs during that time period, Chawla said. Theyve been waiting for a very long time, Chawla said. Children grow up in that much time.

Rohan Bavadekars application for a green card has taken so long that his immigration attorney moved from Houston to San Diego during the process.

Bavadekar, 39, applied for an employer-sponsored green card in September 2010 and knows he likely still has years left to wait. The State Department is currently processing applications from 2008 for his visa category if the applicant was born in India.

There is this whole debate going on about immigration reform and everything. The people who get talked about more often are those people who came here illegally, Bavadekar said via telephone. I dont see a word being spoken about people like us who are already here, who have been paying taxes, who have been always in status, and nothing has been done for us or even spoken about our situation. That is the most disappointing thing.

Bavadekar, who lives in Houston, is originally from Mumbai and has lived in the United States since 2001. He came first on a student visa to get his masters degree in engineering in Texas. When he graduated, he switched to an H-1B visa, a temporary work visa.

He said he would like to see more priority given to those like him who have advanced degrees.

There are longer delays for employment visas for those born in China, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and the Philippines as well because of the annual caps.

Those who support Trumps immigration policies want more restrictions on who can stand in the lines to begin with. Many push for fewer visas for family members, a move away from the U.S.s historical emphasis on policies that prioritize family reunification. Some have suggested adding restrictions based on a hopeful immigrants economic situation or moving to a merit-based system.

Those who oppose Trumps immigration policies want the U.S. to offer more legal routes to residency to increase the options for lines to stand in and reduce wait times. No matter which direction policy ends up moving, there are likely to be people who do not qualify to come to the U.S. through any program.

Those who have no line to stand in may try to come anyway. Migrant advocates say that if people get desperate enough, they will come whether theyre allowed to or not.

Even U.S. Border Patrols union, which has vocally supported Trump, seems to agree with that sentiment.

When it comes to people, weve found that you build a 20-foot fence, they build a 21-foot ladder, said Shawn Moran, vice president of the National Border Patrol Council, shortly after the November election.

kate.morrissey@sduniontribune.com, @bgirledukate

More:
What does 'get in line' mean in immigration debate? - The San Diego Union-Tribune

We need immigrants. This country was built by immigrants. Irish, when they first came, were treated terribly. The same for Italians and many others.

What we need to do is keep the criminal aliens out. You cant throw illegals who have not been a problem and break up their families. Have them step up in declare they are illegally here. Then we can work and help these people to get their citizenship. These good aliens should not have to live in fear that someday somebody will knock on their door and haul them away. This is inhumane.

President Trump wants to stop immigration from six countries where we cannot get a good background check because the governments are very shaky. The countries were picked by President Obama. Some people would like you to believe Trump is trying to ban all Muslims. If this were the case, Egypt, India, Indonesia and many more would be banned.

Many Mexicans and Central Americans fill a lot of jobs like crop pickers, hotel workers, landscapers. They are not afraid of hard work. They came here to try to better their lives.

BRAD BELCHER

Braintree

Excerpt from:
BRAD BELCHER, Braintree: Immigration reform needed - Wicked Local Swampscott

Forbes

So Far US Courts Have Blocked Trump's Travel Ban -- But How Much Longer? Forbes Chaos. So far, that is the only word that comes to mind in describing President Trump's stumbling efforts to implement immigration reform. Thousands of lives have been affected by his errant steps, but they have been protected by U.S. courts that have ... and more »

See the original post:
So Far US Courts Have Blocked Trump's Travel Ban -- But How Much Longer? - Forbes

Is atheism protected under the First Amendment?

Yes. The First Amendment prohibits the government from punishing citizens for professing and exercising their religious beliefsincluding a lack of religious belief. So how are atheists, who by definition do not have religious beliefs or exercise a religion, protected by the First Amendment?

First, atheists are protected by the Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from establishing a government-sponsored house of worship or showing preference to one or all religions by passing laws to favor religion, or by forcing citizens to profess belief in religion or attend religious services.1This protects atheists from being forced to participate in government-sponsored religion and from government reprisal if atheists did not participate.

Second, the Supreme Court has held the Free Exercise Clause to mean that government may not express a preference for religion over irreligion.2In 2005, Justice OConnor, concurring with the majoritys conclusions in McCreary County v. ACLU, was more explicit:

The Religion Clauses . . . protect adherents of all religions, as well as those who believe in no religion at all.3

The statements in McCreary County were not the first time the Supreme Court had noted the First Amendments protections extend to atheists. In 1961, the Court referred to Secular Humanism as a form of atheism that is nonetheless protected by the First Amendment.4In yet another decision, the Court unambiguously concluded that the First Amendment requires equal respect for the conscience of the infidel [and] the atheist as it does to those who profess belief in God.5

Atheism is not a religion, but it does take[] a position on religion, the existence and importance of a supreme being, and a code of ethics.6For that reason, it qualifies as a religion for the purpose of First Amendment protection, despite the fact that in common usage atheism would be considered the absence, rejection, or opposite of religion. Put another way, discrimination on the basis of religious belief extends to all beliefs about religion.

The reach of courts characterization of atheism as a religion, or religion-like, is unclear. For instance, would atheists be able to utilize the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to seek exemption from generally applicable laws, as Hobby Lobby was able to do in the crushing Supreme Court decision Burwell v. Hobby Lobby?7At this time, the only court to have addressed this question is the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.8A group of atheists and secular humanists alleged the inclusion of In God We Trust on U.S. currency violated RFRA by requiring them to bear a statement that violated the central tenets of their beliefs.9The Second Circuit affirmed a lower courts dismissal of the case, finding that the appellants system of beliefs is not substantially burdened by the placement of the motto on currency.10

Though the Second Circuit ruled against the atheists RFRA claim, it is notable that the court was willing to entertain the challenge at all. Neither the Second Circuit nor the lower court which first dismissed the case questioned the ability of atheists to make a claim under RFRA.11If this posture is followed by other courts, it would appear that atheism/secularism may be treated as the equivalent of religion in most legal disputes.

1Everson v. Bd. of Educ., 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947). 2McCreary Cnty. v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844, 875 (2005). 3McCreary Cnty. v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844, 884 (2005). 4Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 n.11 (1961). 5Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 52-53 (1985). 6Kaufman v. McCaughtry, 419 F.3d 678, 682 (2005). 7Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014). 8Newdow v. Peterson, 753 F.3d 105 (2nd Cir. 2014). 9Newdow v. Peterson, 753 F.3d 105 (2nd Cir. 2014). 10Newdow v. Peterson, 753 F.3d 105 (2nd Cir. 2014). 11Newdow v. United States, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128367 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 2013).

Read the rest here:
First Amendment | American Atheists

The television industry has always wrapped itself in the First Amendment to protect its right to entertain and report the news. But networks are also increasingly usingthe Constitution to argue that it can hire whomever they want.

When ABCs The Bachelor wrapped its twenty-first season this week, it also wrapped a long, much-criticized practice of not letting an African-American star in thefranchise: An African-American woman, Rachel Lindsay, will be front and center when the spin-off The Bachelorette airs in May. But that casting comes after a legal fight that is just one clash between the First Amendment and laws aimed at preventing race, age and genderdiscrimination in the workplace.

The latest lawsuit brought into question whether local newscasts have a right to hire attractive, young, female weather reporters instead of olderweathermen. No, seriously.

Also Read: Lawyer Posts Free Porn Online, Blackmails Viewers for $6 Million

Wherever you live, you may have noticed that your local weather reporter has become younger and better-looking, as ratings-hungry news shows have gone from onecliche the wacky weatherman to another:the youthful, pretty weather woman. (Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia has made fun of this phenomenonwith thecharacter of model-beautiful weather woman Jacki Denardo.)

Theres nothing funny about the trend to middle-aged Los Angeles weather forecaster Kyle Hunter, who last year accused Los Angeles CBS stations KCAL and KCBS of passing him over for weatherforecasters Evelyn Taft and Jackie Johnson young women his lawsuit described as cut from the same blond, attractive, buxom mold.

Hunter said he wanted to follow in the mold of now-retired KCBS weatherman Johnny Mountain, but was told by KCALs station manager that KCAL catered to maleviewers and Hunter wouldnt be the type [that] men would want to look at.

Also Read: Too Many Liberal Profs? Lawmakers Want Equal Split of Democratic and Republican Professors

CBS retorted that it had a First Amendment right to hire whomever it wanted, because the Constitution protects its right to choose the content of the news and how thenews is delivered.Besides, the network said, it was allowed to hire weather anchors who were local celebrities to boost ratings.

But Hunters case wont decide the question of whether networks have a Constitutional right to hire weather reporters in the blond, attractive, buxom mold because theCalifornia Court of Appeal dismissed Hunters discrimination case last year based on a separate argument from CBS.

Last year, the court agreed with the networks contentionthat itemployed other middle-aged male weather anchors, not just young women leaving open the question of whether CBS would have had a legal right to hire only young, attractive women.

Also Read: Middlebury Professor Speaks Out About Mob That 'Gave Me a Concussion'

Outside of the news and entertainment industry, employers arerarely successful when they argue that they need to hire attractive young women to please their male customers.

Southwest Airlines, Pan American and other airlines were laughed out of court when they tried to make the argument in the1970s and 80s. Southwest argued that it needed to hire only women as flight attendants and ticket agents and dress themin in high boots and hot pants to attract the airlines predominately male Texan passengers. A Texas federal judge shot thatargument down, saying that the primary functions of ticket agents and flight attendants are to book flights, sell tickets,maintain cabin safety, and serve food and drinks and that all of those tasks could be done by men.

Congress gave employers permission to discriminate based on sex but not on race but only when gender is essential to the primary function of the job. Playboy was allowed to hire only female Bunnies, for example, because their dominant function is to sexually entice heterosexual male customers. Hooters has been hit with class-action lawsuits for hiring only Hooters Girls as servers, and settled by agreeing to hire men asbartenders and hosts, but has stuck to its all-women server policy.As the Hooters website says of its idealized Hooters Girl:a waitress she is not.

ABC is no Hooters. But its Bachelor case also forced it to defend its decisions about who to hire. And itwon a resounding courtroom victory when it used the First Amendment to defend itself against a race discrimination lawsuit claiming it intentionally hired only white Bachelors and Bachelorettes.(Age and looks werent an issue in this case, given that everyone involved in the dating franchise is young and almost universally regarded asattractive.)

Nathaniel Claybrooks and Christopher Johnson, two African Americans, sued ABC after being rejected as applicants to be the Bachelor in 2011.They said in theirNashville, Tennessee lawsuit that the complete lack of people of color in the two shows is no accident.

ABC responded by saying that the network shares the mens goals of reducing racial bias and prejudice and fostering diversity, and that it never discriminated based onrace in connection with the casting process for the Bachelor and Bachelorette shows.

But ABC said that the First Amendment gives the network carte blanche to make casting decisions based on race,listing numerous shows where race-based castingdecisions were made and should be allowed to continue under the First Amendment. It cited programs including The Cosby Show and the Shahs of Beverly Hills.

A federal judge in Tennessee agreed with ABC, dismissing the lawsuit in 2012. The judge praised the lawsuit for its laudable goals, but ruled that the First Amendmentprevented Claybrooks and Johnson from forcing ABC to deviate from its all-white casting.

Eventually, diversity won the day as Lindsays casting as the next Bachelorette shows. But the ruling was based on ABCs decision that she would be the bestBachelorette, not a judges order.

ABC has made a bigger commitment to diversity in recent years, as the country evolves and networks increasingly recognize the value of courting non-white viewers.Two of televisions biggest recent hits are ABCs Black-ish and Foxs Empire, both of which have majority African-American casts.

The bottom line? The legal forecast isnt clear when it comes to who networks can hire. But the demographic patterns and business decisions point toward a greatercommitment to on-air diversity.

Never in the history of television has your local weather person been so unlikely to be a weatherman especially an older white man.

As the end of "The Bachelor" Season 21 nears, let's take a look back at the long-running ABC reality show'sinfamous troublemakers. Here is our ranking of both "Bachelor" and "Bachelorette" villains, from bad to worst:

Nick Viall, "The Bachelorette," Season 10, Season 11; "The Bachelor," Season 21

This season's current bachelor didhis time as a bad boy in two past seasons of "The Bachelorette." He isolated himself from all other contestantsand also madea surprise, unwelcomed appearanceon a season in which he wasn't even cast.

Tierra LiCausi, "The Bachelor," Season 17

From several meltdowns to a hospital trip, LiCausi (left) fit the bill of nemesisperfectly, complete with her own evil laughter.

Olivia Caridi, "The Bachelor," Season 20

Olivias mouth, toes and aggression left viewers both cringing and laughing. Her transition from fan favorite to villain was rapid, and her legacy on the internet will remain for years to come. (And if you don't know what we're talking about, look up the nowinfamous meme.)

Chad Johnson, "The Bachelorette," Season 12

Chads obsession with working out and threatening fellow contestants made him a foe to remember. While many disliked him for his brash nature, his insults were wittier than most villains before him.

Corrine Olympios, "The Bachelor," Season 21

In the short span of the last two months, Corinne has established her legacy as one of the most entertaining villains in "Bachelor" history. From her dependence on her nanny Raquel, to napping through several events, fans were both relieved and sad to see her ousted toward the end of the 2017 season.

Kelsey Poe, "The Bachelor," Season 19

Sheused her story of being a widow to garner sympathy and screen time, and openly admitted to manipulating her season'sBachelor with her husbands death. She is also remembered for having a panic attack before a rose ceremony, and then immediately joking about how host Chris Harrison couldnt eliminate her.

Bentley Williams, "The Bachelorette," Season 7

This contestant was dubbed one of Chris Harrisons least favorite suitors of all time. Williams purposely set out to make his Bachelorette cry and faked many of his interactions with her.

Courtney Robertson, "The Bachelor," Season 16

With her own book I Didnt Come Here To Make Friends, Robertson clearly prides herself on achieving supervillain status. Mocking other contestants, lying to the Bachelor and sabotaging dates, Robertson cemented herself as one of the most hated of the entire series.

Juan Pablo Galavis, "The Bachelorette," Season 9; "The Bachelor," Season 18

Between making crude comments to his contestants, to being openly homophobic, Galavis tops this list of ultimate villains from the reality series.

Also Read: The Bachelor': 9 Most Awkward Hometown Dates (Photos)

Here are the baddies who have kept viewers hooked over the years

As the end of "The Bachelor" Season 21 nears, let's take a look back at the long-running ABC reality show'sinfamous troublemakers. Here is our ranking of both "Bachelor" and "Bachelorette" villains, from bad to worst:

Read more from the original source:
Is There a First Amendment Right to Hire 'Buxom' Weather ...