Mediaboss Marketing

The Daily Banter

My Family Is Living In Hell Thanks To Donald Trump's Inhumane Immigration Policies The Daily Banter We could not fathom the thought of our child growing up without his father so we stopped the process and hoped Congress would pass immigration reform. Over the next decade we built a life together and our son grew into a well-adjusted, smartass pre ...

The rest is here:
My Family Is Living In Hell Thanks To Donald Trump's Inhumane Immigration Policies - The Daily Banter

OUR SYSTEM CAUSES THE VERY PROBLEMS WE ALL DECRY

I am against illegal immigration; I am for legal immigration and wish to widen the avenues toward legal immigration. However, under our current policy, sometimes the process of legal immigration could literally take 100 years. Some say that the illegals should get into the back of the line. Well, that completely ignores the fact that sometimes there is no line to get into the back of. Saying we must first secure the border before we pass immigration reform is like a doctor telling a cancer patient we must first wait for all the cancer symptoms to go away before we treat the cancer. Our immigration system causes the very problems we all decry.

I agree with former U.S. Senator Jim DeMint who during his 2004 U.S. Senate campaign supported a robust worker visa plan. Despite competing for some low-wage jobs against American born non-high school graduates, overwhelmingly as Mexicans move in Americans move up the income ladder.

Of course its not Republicans who are against a worker visa plan, it is the Democrats who oppose it at the behest of their financial backers the unions. The worker visa solution during the Bracero program of the 1950s reduced illegal immigration arrests by some 90 percent. It gave immigrants a legal path to enter the country whereby we could document and permit them and thus they were more than happy to choose a legal form of entry. In fact, if a border patrol caught an undocumented worker, he would simply drive that worker across the border into Mexico, document and permit him, and then drive him back north of the border and drop him off at his work site, usually to pick crops at some local farm.

I adamantly oppose welfare benefits for these workers for two reasons: Its both bad for the American taxpayers and bad for the recipients as welfare leads to government dependence and deprives workers of the opportunity to feel proud of themselves which comes through hard work not government handouts.

In addition, our current policy makes it much harder to find terrorists and other dangerous criminals. When youre looking for the bad guys, youre looking for needles in a haystack. Having over 10 million undocumented workers creates millions of forged documents, which provides plenty of cover for the bad guys.

I also agreed with Mitt Romney on the higher-skilled immigrants. He said we should staple an H1-B visa to every diploma we hand out to foreign graduates, many of whom are the worlds best and brightest, receiving PHDs in STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) fields which are needed by a growing, innovative, globally competitive economy.

We are educating the worlds best and brightest, people who according to a study commissioned by Bill Gates would have created five American jobs per high-end skilled immigrant we kick out of the country. Our country has an approximately 70,000 cap per year on H1-B visas and they are used up in three to four days. And only 13 percent of these go to actual workers, the balance is for their spouses and dependents.

This cap should be lifted to reflect the demands for these workers as well as the benefits to our economy. These would-be immigrants are very entrepreneurial. In fact, Sergey Brin, an immigrant from Russia founded Google which has created tens of thousands of high-paying jobs. Meanwhile Gates has opened an office in Vancouver, Canada just north of his Seattle, Washington office to hire these high skilled workers and they are contributing to the economy paying taxes in Canada not America.

Im against amnesty, but am open to realistic solutions.

With respect to the current borders crossings by Mexican youth, this problem is created by our disastrous War on Drugs which by one estimate puts $300 billion per year into the hands of the most violent criminals on the face of the earth. Not only that, weve given the Mexican government money to wage war with the drug cartels and now children are gettingcaught up in the crossfire. Many Mexican policemen are given the choice of plata o plomo, which means silver or lead. They can either accept hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes or they can refuse and be killed or have a member of their family killed. The effects of our disastrous drug policy are now spilling over onto U.S. soil.

Drugs are bad but as we learned in the aftermath of the only constitutional amendment ever repealed, prohibition is worse.

Thomas Ravenel is the former treasurer of South Carolina and one of thestars of Southern Charm, a Charleston, S.C.-based reality television show that airs nationally on Bravo TV.

WANNA SOUND OFF? Submit your guest column or letter to the editor via-email HERE or via our tip-line HERE

Follow this link:
Thomas Ravenel: On Immigration - FITSNews

Immigrant and civil rights advocates celebrated Friday as Daniela Vargas, a Mississippi Dreamer who was detained by federal agents minutes after speaking at a news conference about her plight, was released from custody.

The 22-year-old, who was brought to the United States from Argentina when she was 7, spent more than a week at the LaSalle Detention Facility in Jena, La., following her arrest in Jackson, Miss.

Daniela is really happy to be out right now, understandably, her attorney, Abigail Peterson, told reporters. "She was very surprised this morning, when all this happened, and very relieved. She was told to get her things, and she was given about five minutes to get out, and she took it.

Vargas case drew nationwide attention in part because she had been accepted for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, an Obama administration measure that allows so-called Dreamers, young immigrants brought into the country illegally as children, to obtain work permits and protects them from deportation.

She also won publicity because her attorneys claimed she was targeted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials in retaliation for speaking to the media about her hopes for immigration reform and the effect of enforcement raids on her family.

This is a moment for celebration in what has been a terrifying set of months for the immigrant community and their families, said Karen Tumlin, legal director for the National Immigration Law Center in Los Angeles. Today shows you what happens when a brave young woman stands up stands up and expresses her rights, the rights of her family and community and fights back.

After she was released at around noon, Vargas was driven back to Mississippi by a friend.

The deportation order against her has not been rescinded, however, and she is required to check in with her local ICE office in April, her attorneys said.

One of the worries is they could enforce it at any point, Peterson said, noting that the decision to release her seemed to be the result of prosecutorial discretion, based largely on community pressure and media attention.

At the beginning of the week, a coalition of civil rights and immigration attorneys filed a petition in federal court alleging that enforcement agents violated Vargas constitutional due process rights and her right to be free from retaliation for protected speech. The petition sought her immediate release, as well as a hearing before an immigration judge to challenge the decision to deport her.

On Friday, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana issued an order transferring that habeas petition to the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

According to attorneys, Vargas has two pending applications for immigration relief. First, although her DACA status expired in November 2016 while she says she was trying to save up the $495 needed to renew it, her attorneys filed a renewal application in February.

She also has a pending 2014 petition for a non-immigrant U visa based on her status as the child of a victim of a serious crime who has suffered mental or physical abuse and is cooperating with the investigation of criminal activity.

We will continue to challenge the unconstitutional actions of ICE agents in this case and will not rest until she is no longer under threat of deportation, Naomi Tsu, deputy legal director at the Southern Poverty Law Center, said in a statement. It is counterproductive and harmful to our communities for ICE to be targeting aspiring young people in this country.

Jarvie is a special correspondent.

Originally posted here:
Mississippi 'Dreamer' Daniela Vargas released from detention but deportation order stands - Los Angeles Times

Jack Greiner 7:04 a.m. ET March 10, 2017

John C. Greiner, attorney for Graydon Head Legal Counsel. He's a commercial litigator with an emphasis on communications and media law. He serves on the firm's Appellate Practice Group. (Photo: Provided, Provided)

The Supreme Court of the United States heard oral argument recentlyon a case that poses the question whether the First Amendment prevents a state from prohibiting a person from using certain designated social media sites. On its face, that question may elicit a question in response, e.g. why would the state prevent anyone from using social media?

And the answer is that North Carolina has a statute that prohibits registered sex offenders from accessing: a commercial social networking Web site where the sex offender knows that the site permits minor children to become members or to create or maintain personal Web pages on the commercial social networking Web site.

The statute defines commercial social networking site as one that:

That definition, of course, sweeps a lot of sites under its reach, including LinkedIn. And that poses a problem for people affected by the law. People use social networking for any number of reasons some trivial, some not. Job seekers no doubt use LinkedIn to search for opportunities and otherwise network. A law that shuts off that resource makes it tough to find work.

The law may or may not be good policy. But that isnt the issue for the Supreme Court. The question there is whether the Constitution permits it. And that decision may depend on a determination about what the statute actually prohibits. In upholding the law, the North Carolina Supreme Court concluded that the law did not restrict expressive conduct. And for that reason, the First Amendment did not invalidate the law, so long as the statute advanced an important government interest and wasnt substantially broader than it needed to be to achieve the interest. Applying this test, the North Carolina Supreme Court concluded that the governments interest in protecting children from sexual predators was important, and the statutes limited application (it didnt bar all internet usage) wasn't overly broad.

But the U.S. Supreme Court may conclude the statute in fact limits expressive conduct. If so, North Carolina would need to prove the ban is the least restrictive means to achieve the interest. That is a tougher test. And the Supreme Court may apply it. Justice Ruth Ginsburg, for example, noted that the First Amendment protects the right not only to speak but the right to receive information. A law barring access to a broad swath of social media sites would bar the receipt of information. If thats the case, and North Carolina has to prove the statute is the least restrictive means it will be in for an uphill fight. That standard allows the opposing party to effectively brainstorm all of the ways the law could be restricted. And if the court agrees with any of the ideas, it can invalidate the law.

We'll see how the Supreme Court resolves this one. There is still the prospect of a 4-4 tie (until Neil Gorsuch is confirmed). That would allow the law to stand. But if the Supreme Court applies the more strict standard, the odds are long for North Carolina.

It goes to show that we never know when the First Amendment will pop up. But it protects people we like as well as people who creep us out.

Jack Greiner is a lawyer with the Graydon Head law firm in Cincinnati and represents Enquirer Media in First Amendment and media issues

Read or Share this story: http://cin.ci/2msX0OZ

Continue reading here:
Is there a First Amendment right to LinkedIn? - Cincinnati.com

Vice President Mike Pence vow to go after WikiLeaks for "one of the most significant compromises of national security in recent memory" could run smack into a First Amendment wall, according to one legal expert.

Pence, in an interview with Fox News' Bret Baier Thursday night, promised that those responsible for the 8,000-plus-file dump of CIA secrets, possibly including WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, will pay a hefty price.

"Trafficking in national security information, as is alleged WikiLeaks has done, is a serious offense," Pence said in an exclusive "Special Report" appearance. "This president and this administration will take it very seriously and use the full force of the law, and the resources of the United States, to hold all of those to account that were involved."

"Assange is clearly a media entity, albeit an unorthodox one... so the thief, the person who hands it to WikiLeaks, is the criminal. Not WikiLeaks."

- Judge Andrew Napolitano

The idea of prosecuting Assange has been floating around since 2010, when WikiLeaks shared a massive trove of U.S. secrets leaked by Army Pvt. Chelsea Manning, then known as Bradley Manning. But to date, Assange has not been charged with any crime related to his website.

The Australian-born Assange remains holed up in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London where he was granted asylum in 2012, because of a European arrest warrant stemming from sexual assault allegations made by two women in 2010. Assange denies the claims, but risks deportation the moment he steps foot outside of that embassy.

Prosecuting Assange for the document dump would be an uphill battle for the U.S., according to Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano. In the modern, increasingly broad definition of press, WikiLeaks fits the bill, he said.

"If a stolen document containing state secrets gets into the hands of the press, which is loosely defined as any entity in the business of revealing things, and it is a matter of public interest then it can be exposed with impunity," Napolitano said. "Assange is clearly a media entity, albeit an unorthodox one... so the thief, the person who hands it to WikiLeaks, is the criminal. Not WikiLeaks."

Pence is not the only elected official who would like to see Assange behind bars.

"Assange should spend the rest of his life wearing an orange jumpsuit," Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., said in a Thursday statement. "He's an enemy of the American people and an ally to Vladimir Putin."

Tuesday's leak of more than 8,000 documents touched off an international uproar, as some of the spy agency's most closely guarded cyber tools were allegedly revealed to the world. The CIA, according to the files, has the ability to spy on people through their smartphones and certain TVs and computers, expressed interest in hacking into the electrical systems of automobiles and operates a clandestine hacking sites in Germany.

While the First Amendment may protect Assange, it would not cover anyone who illegally leaked the material to his organization. The FBI has already mounted an investigation aimed at finding the mole who divulged the material or any external hacker who retrieved it from CIA servers.

But U.S. investigators will get no help from Assange on that score.

"We're specialists in source protection," Assange said.

Adding to the difficulty in tracing the source of this leak is the fact that many of the tools the government would have used may have just been shared with the public, at least according to WikiLeaks.

"How can you use your full resources when they were just radically depleted?" cybersecurity expert Gregory Keeley wondered. "This is analogous to the nuclear football codes being posted on Facebook."

See the rest here:
First Amendment could protect Assange despite Pence's vow, says legal expert - Fox News