Mediaboss Marketing

A long-time area resident asked a question about immigrants who fear deportation. He wondered, when some people have been living and working here for many years, why they havent become citizens.

I am glad he asked that question. Because it has been on the minds of many Americans, its a good question. It has a good answer: Many cant.

There are very few routes to legal immigration. In some cases U.S. citizens can sponsor members of their immediate family to become legal permanent residents and then citizens. (This is not absolute -- the citizen must show a certain level of income and the citizens spouse, parent, son or daughter has to pass a background check to be admitted.) Under a few limited circumstances, an employer may sponsor an immigrant employee. (Again, the immigrants background is scrutinized.) Some victims of horrendous persecution from dangerous parts of the world -- a fraction of the total number of these victims -- have been able, after long waits and intensive investigation -- to enter as refugees.

If someone doesnt fit the short list of immigration categories, there is no way for them to come in as legal immigrants. Many of us are descended from people who left difficult situations, endured hardship to get here, got in line to come in, worked hard and eventually became citizens. Many people today are in equally (or more) difficult places, are willing to endure hardship and to work steadily and contribute to the community, but today there is no line. Most people who want to come to the U.S. to live, even if their familys lives are at risk (from war, crime, or famine) have no legitimate route to do so.

If someone is already here, no matter how long, if they have worked and paid taxes and followed the law, for almost everyone there isnt a line they can get into to legalize their status.

Some ask, didnt they come illegally? True, some did (some risking their lives to seek a better future for their families). Most of the so-called illegal immigrants in the U.S. today entered legally, with appropriate documents, but stayed, for one reason or another, after the documents lapsed. As we know, some were brought here as children; some know no other home.

Throughout its history our country has reaped enormous benefits from people who have come here from all parts of the world. Todays immigrants are an important part of our community.

Most people think there should be a line to get legal status, with criteria that allow law-abiding immigrants to stay. Thats what a path to citizenship is, like the path that was there for my great-grandparents.

As Rep. Walz said, a fair and effective policy could be passed and implemented very quickly if the political will were there. Its in all of our interests to allow our newest neighbors to come out of the shadows, to use his phrase, and become fully-recognized Americans.

See original here:
Letter: Immigration reform could, and should, be passed quickly - Daily Globe

Very fake MSM tries to set the narrative. The left wing disingenuous Old Gray Lady is upset along with very fake journalists. When I write a letter to this newspaper I am expressing an opinion based on facts collected from multiple sources. When journalists speak or write today they disseminate opinion instead of being objective reporting the truth. Theres a new sheriff in town, DJT, and he sets the narrative.

Celebrities, very fake forth estate, dedicated left wing crybabies and never Trumpers you can all whine until the cows come home. You see, while youve been acting out infantile temper tantrums, the Donald and his minions have been swamp draining in D.C. This is evident by all the leaking of sensitive information meant to embarrass or dissuade the administration.

As a former associate professor of management and an organizational development trainer for a large corporation, here are couple things I taught: 1) Dont put stuff in writing thats not factual or true lest it come back to bite you. 2) If you want to find organizational leaks, plant disinformation with the suspect leakers. Youll find out where the leaks came from. I had 17 different jobs with the same company for 25 years. Many of my assignments were spent as a fixer. Some of us, like DJT know that, in any organization, there are many imbeds that need a job change. That includes reporters with an agenda. When DJT scolds the MSM he is merely exercising free speech as protected by the First Amendment.

Read more:
Letter: Trump and the First Amendment - Twin Falls Times-News

Ronald Reagan

On MARCH 15, 1941, Franklin Roosevelt warned at the dinner of White House correspondents: Modern tyrants find it necessary to eliminate all democracies. A few weeks ago I spoke of freedom of speech and expression, freedom of every person to worship God in his own way. If we fail if democracy is superseded by slavery then those freedoms, or even the mention of them, will become forbidden things. Centuries will pass before they can be revived. When dictatorships disintegrate and pray God that will be sooner then our country must continue to play its great part. May it be said of us in the days to come that our children and our childrens children rise up and call us blessed.

The Senate voted down letting children voluntarily pray in public schools on March 15, 1984.

President Reagan said: I am deeply disappointed that, although a majority of the Senate voted for it, the school prayer amendment fell short.

On Sept. 25, 1982, Ronald Reagan said: Unfortunately, in the last two decades weve experienced an onslaught of such twisted logic that if Alice were visiting America, she might think shed never left Wonderland. Were told that it somehow violates the rights of others to permit students in school who desire to pray to do so. Clearly this infringes on the freedom of those who choose to pray, the freedom taken for granted since the time of our Founding Fathers.

Reagan continued: To prevent those who believe in God from expressing their faith is an outrage. The relentless drive to eliminate God from our schools should be stopped.

Ronald Reagan said Feb. 25, 1984: Sometimes I cant help but feel the First Amendment is being turned on its head.

Ronald Reagan stated in a Q & A session, Oct. 13, 1983: The First Amendment has been twisted to the point that freedom of religion is in danger of becoming freedom from religion.

Reagan told the Alabama Legislature, March 15, 1982: To those who cite the First Amendment as reason for excluding God from more and more of our institutions and everyday life, may I just say: The First Amendment of the Constitution was not written to protect the people of this country from religious values; it was written to protect religious values from government tyranny.

Discover more of Bill Federers eye-opening books and videos in the WND Superstore!

Ronald Reagan stated in a radio address, 1982: The Constitution was never meant to prevent people from praying; its declared purpose was to protect their freedom to pray.

Ronald Reagan stated in a radio address, Feb. 25, 1984: Former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart noted if religious exercises are held to be impermissible activity in schools, religion is placed at an artificial and state-created disadvantage. Permission for such exercises for those who want them is necessary if the schools are truly to be neutral in the matter of religion. And a refusal to permit them is seen not as the realization of state neutrality, but rather as the establishment of a religion of secularism.

Ronald Reagan told the Annual Convention of the National Religious Broadcasters, Jan. 30, 1984: I was pleased last year to proclaim 1983 the Year of the Bible. But, you know, a group called the ACLU severely criticized me for doing that. Well, I wear their indictment like a badge of honor.

Ronald Reagan worded it differently on the National Day of Prayer, May 6, 1982: Well-meaning Americans in the name of freedom have taken freedom away. For the sake of religious tolerance, theyve forbidden religious practice.

Ronald Reagan stated at an Ecumenical Prayer Breakfast, Aug. 23, 1984: The frustrating thing is that those who are attacking religion claim they are doing it in the name of tolerance and freedom and open-mindedness. Question: Isnt the real truth that they are intolerant of religion?

Brought to you by AmericanMinute.com.

Discover more of Bill Federers eye-opening books and videos in the WND Superstore!

Read more from the original source:
What the 1st Amendment does - WND.com

President Donald J. Trump's call for the press to cease using anonymous sources is a blatant attack on the First Amendment. Without the ability to use anonymous sources to provide crucial information, it could seriously undermine the media's efforts to get to the bottom of major stories. Take Watergate, for example. An explosive story like that would have likely never broken in a country without protected media sources. By scaring away the Mark Felts of this world from aiding in the exposure of truth, we really do ourselves a disservice.

As veteran newsman Dan Rather once wrote, "A free and truly independent press fiercely independent when necessary is the red beating heart of freedom and democracy." In my opinion, a country that lacks a free press isn't much of a country. So for the sake of democracy and survival of liberty, President Trump's remarks and the subsequent exclusion of several mainstream media outlets from a White House briefing is something we all should be deeply concerned about.

Ryan Curtis

Salt Lake City

See more here:
Letter: Anonymous sources a First Amendment right - Deseret News

One of the major threats to free speech today is not censorship. Its harassment.

Heres how it works. People join or give money to groups that support causes they believe in. Those groups attract the ire of government officials when they criticize them or take a position they oppose. Unable to ban the group from speaking, an angry bureaucrat does the next best thing: launch an investigation into how the group operates and who supports it.

The best part for the government? It doesnt matter how the investigation turns out or if no charges are ever pressed. The investigation ties up the groups resources and scares away supporters. The process is the punishment for speaking.

This scenario has played out countless times at both the federal and state level. For years, the IRS slow-walked applications for nonprofit status from conservative groups, and subjected them to much greater scrutiny than others. In Wisconsin, members of groups that supported collective bargaining reforms were subjected to an illegal investigation that included pre-dawn raids of their homes.

Thanks to victims who were willing to speak out, these abuses became national news. But no one knows how many other instances of government intimidation have gone unnoticed. The solution is not to deal with these scandals one by one, but to roll back the sprawling disclosure laws that allow government to spy on our political associations and punish us if they dont like what they see.

Donald Trumps nominee for the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch, appears to take seriously the threat to First Amendment freedoms posed by government intimidation. His ruling in a 2007 case should encourage defenders of donor privacy.

In Van Deelen v. Johnson, plaintiff Michael Van Deelen alleged that a sheriff deputy intimidated him during a meeting with a county appraiser. Van Deelen alleged that the sheriff deputy made intimidating gestures, bumped him, and warned, They told me to do whatever necessary to put a scare into you. If you show up for another tax appeal hearing, I might have to shoot you.

Van Deelen argued that these intimidation tactics infringed on his First Amendment right to petition government. Judge Gorsuchs discussion of the case demonstrates a deep understanding that First Amendment rights are harmed when citizens can be bullied out of exercising them. When public officials feel free to wield the powers of their office as weapons against those who question their decisions, they do damage not merely to the citizen in their sights but also to the First Amendment liberties and the promise of equal treatment essential to the continuity of our democratic enterprise, Gorsuch explained.

[A] reasonable government official should have clearly understood at the time of the events at issue that physical and verbal intimidation intended to deter a citizen from pursuing a private tax complaint violates that citizens First Amendment right to petition for the redress of grievances, Gorsuch ruled.

The decision reversed a lower court ruling that Van Deelens tax challenge failed to qualify as protected constitutional conduct because it did not implicate matters of public concern.

[T]he constitutionally enumerated right of a private citizen to petition the government for the redress of grievances does not pick and choose its causes but extends to matters great and small, public and private, Gorsuch wrote. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Although rulings from the Civil Rights Era strongly protect the privacy of individuals and groups engaged in advocacy, in recent years, the Supreme Court has neglected to clearly reiterate this stance. And as direct limits on political speech have been curtailed through cases like Citizens United and McCutcheon, would-be censors increasingly turn to disclosure as the best avenue to discourage speech. Thats led many states to implement disclosure requirements for advocacy groups and issue speech that extend far beyond any regulatory scheme ever endorsed by the Court.

This byzantine disclosure regime provides all the information a corrupt bureaucrat or off-the-wall activist needs to track down and harass citizens on the wrong side of an issue. Moreover, the public reaps no benefit from this disclosure. Were not talking about money given to candidates, political parties, or PACs. Were talking about donors to citizen groups that, in many cases, work exclusively on policy not elections.

If privacy fades from politics, politically motivated harassment is sure to rise. Judge Gorsuchs recognition of the harm done to First Amendment rights by government intimidation would be an excellent addition to the Supreme Court. Every American has the right to support causes they believe in without fear of harassment or intimidation. As a unanimous Court ruled in 1958s NAACP v. Alabama, It is hardly a novel perception that compelled disclosure of affiliation with groups engaged in advocacy may constitute as effective a restraint on freedom of association as [other] forms of governmental action.

The Court got it right then, and it needs to say so again now. States that abuse disclosure so government can monitor its citizens, rather than so citizens can monitor government, need to be set straight. There is a good chance that Neil Gorsuch understands that.

Luke Wachob is a Policy Analyst at the Center for Competitive Politics in Alexandria, Virginia. The Center is the nations largest organization dedicated to defending First Amendment political speech rights.

See the article here:
Gorsuch Understands How Bureaucratic Bullies Harm First Amendment Rights - American Spectator