Mediaboss Marketing

Business groups are sounding the alarm over the need for reasoned immigration reform to provide the future success for outstate Minnesota.

There may be no more divisive issue at the moment than immigration.

Much of the rhetoric of the campaign leading up to the last election suggested that immigrants were a threat to the nations security and a major drain on the economy, taking away jobs from others.

The security risk was always overblown and the economic argument flat out wrong.

Businesses and community leaders across the state know very well that immigrants are taking jobs that would otherwise go unfilled and providing the economic growth that will keep communities and businesses growing and successful.

From time to time, throughout history, immigrants have been targeted as a threat to safety and economic growth by politicians who believe they can capitalize on raw emotions and fear. Many of the immigrants who settled in southern Minnesota in the late 1800s faced persecution.

Now, with a renewed focus on deportation and the construction of a wall on the border with Mexico, business leaders are trying to provide a level of reason amid the din of anger.

The Minnesota Chamber of Commerce and many other groups, including those in agriculture, are sending the message that immigrants must be welcomed if the states economy is to grow and rural towns are to survive. They note that the state will need immigrants to arrive at a higher rate than now in order to keep up with jobs opened by baby boomers retirements, not to mention any new job openings.

No one can accuse this groups members of being politically motivated in their criticism of the current state of affairs over immigrants. No one has ever accused the chamber or other business groups involved of being radical liberals.

The chamber said that the focus on immigration enforcement and a wall is diverting attention from the real need of overhauling the immigration system. They note that the outdated static immigration quota numbers should be replaced by a dynamic system that allows different numbers of immigrants to enter the country based on current economic needs.

And they know reform needs to address the 11 million undocumented people already in the country, providing them some route to citizenship, with whatever requirements Congress and the president believe necessary.

They intentionally list border security as their last goal, believing that if good immigration reform is passed, border security would mostly take care of itself.

Finding ways for more immigrants to legally enter, work and strive toward citizenship doesnt mean security or background checks need to be weakened.

At a time of overheated rhetoric, the message being delivered by Minnesotas business community is a breath of fresh air.

This editorial was distributed by The Associated Press.

Original post:
EDITORIAL FROM ELSEWHERE: Sounding the alarm for reasoned immigration reform - Crow River Media

In January, President Trump signed an Executive Order blocking sanctuary jurisdictions from receiving certain federal funding. Some 300 jurisdictions across the nation maintain policies that protect illegal aliens and/or impede the ability of the federal government to enforce immigration laws. These policies are expressly prohibited under federal statutes.

The Center for American Progress (CAP), which had a revolving door with the Obama administration and was a key player in formulating the former presidents immigration policies, has very helpfully quantified how much sanctuary jurisdictions stand to lose if they persist in these policies. It has also identified which programs and federal grants will be affected. By CAPs estimation, $870 million a year is at stake for state and local politicians as they decide whether keep the cash or preserve their ideological chastity.

Some jurisdictions, like Miami-Dade County, Florida, and Dayton, Ohio, immediately opted to keep the flow of federal dollars coming their way and dropped their sanctuary policies. Others, where coddling illegal aliens is not just an ideology, but their seeming raison dtre, have decided to play a very expensive game of chicken with a president who is not known for backing down.

Unsurprisingly, California, which is one big 163,696 square mile sanctuary jurisdiction and a fiscal mess, stands to lose the most federal money overall, $239.5 million. On a per capita basis, New Yorkers would be the biggest losers as their state would forfeit $191 million in federal program and grant money.

In the most hardcore sanctuary jurisdictions, local politicians are going to face some very difficult choices: abandon their cherished sanctuary policies and alienate their political base, or abandon hundreds of millions of desperately needed federal dollars and alienate voters who would rather their elected officials focused on keeping the lights on. The first such showdown is likely to come in President Trumps home town, New York City, where Mayor Bill de Blasio is up for reelection in November. Due in part to the citys unconditional welcome mat for illegal aliens, the Big Apple is staring at a $3.8 billion budget gap by FY 2019 (the second year of the mayors second term, if the voters decide to give him one).

Of course, its hard to feel too sorry for the political leaders who are going to be forced to make these hard choices. They knew that the policies they were adopting were a violation of federal law, but they did so anyway, believing that their political gestures would come without consequence. Now, it seems, there will be a price to pay $870 million a year, according to CAP and whatever they decide will make a lot of people very unhappy.

See the original post here:
The $870 Million Question | Immigration Reform Blog - ImmigrationReform.com (blog)

Sounding a bit annoyed, U.S. immigration and Justice Department attorneys deny that federal officers erased or changed a statement written by a Seattle Dreamer who is fighting to avoid deportation.

Nor did Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers make up claims about street-gang connections attributed to Mexico-born Daniel Ramirez Medina when he was arrested with his immigrant father in a Seattle suburb, Des Moines, on Feb. 5, the government says in newly filed responses to Ramirezs civil lawsuit in federal court here.

Ramirezs case has garnered attention nationwide because he was enrolled in an Obama-era program that shields from deportation certain immigrants brought to the country as children. His detention also came after the Trump administration promised to crack down more forcefully on illegal immigration.

Now 23, Ramirez was brought to the U.S. illegally at age 7 by his parents, and later obtained protective status under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

Known as Dreamers, those who qualify can remain in the U.S. for renewable 2-year periods without worry of being deported unless they commit a crime. Then-President Obama approved the program as a goodwill gesture to offspring who would otherwise lack a homeland.

Ramirez says hed broken no law and his attorneys say the deportation case against him is untrue and unfair.

Similar claims have been raised by a Dreamer in Mississippi who is also facing deportation. Daniela Vargas, 22, says she was targeted by ICE after recently speaking at a news conference about her hopes for immigration reform. Danielas case is representative of the mean-spirited and misguided immigration policy of this administration, said her attorney, Michelle Lapointe of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

But the government, in its responses to Ramirezs legal actions taking place in federal district and immigration courts in Seattle, says other Dreamers have been arrested and deported in recent years and the action taken against Ramirez is not necessarily a change in policy.

Ramirez had claimed that a line of his post-arrest statement was altered.

A photograph appears to also show smudge marks left by an eraser. The full sentence, which refers to orange outfits given to gang members in custody, reads: I came in and the officers said I have gang affiliation with gangs so I wear a orange uniform.

Ramirezs attorneys allege the first seven words were erased, turning the remaining line I have gang affiliation with gangs so I wear a orange uniform into a confession of gang activity.

Jeffrey Robins, a Justice Department assistant director, said in the court filing that the appearance of the statement can be blamed on the use of two pens.

Ramirez wrote his entire statement in ink, the initial pen that Petitioner used did not write well, and there are no indications that anyone sought to tamper with the document, Robins wrote. Moreover, the claim that an ICE contractor erased the first seven words does not make any sense both because these seven words are legible. Even without the words, it is clear that Petitioner is denying, rather than admitting, to gang affiliation."

In any event, the government maintains that Ramirez has gang ties and that such affiliation ends his DACA status. The government alleges he has a gang tattoo, which Ramirez says is the name of his hometown, La Paz, in the state of Baja California Sur.

Robins said Ramirez also missed his chance at freedom, which is the goal of his district court action. He failed to request an initial bond hearing, but when the immigration court scheduled such a hearing, his attorneys requested it be cancelled.

Had his attorneys not taken this step, it is possible the immigration court would have ordered Petitioner released, mooting out this part of the case, states Robins. The issue may come up again in two weeks at the next scheduled immigration court session.

Last week, Ramirezs father, Antonio Ramirez Polendo, the original target of the ICE agents at the family apartment, was charged with illegal reentry into the United States. Since 2000, he has been arrested for similar violations seven times, and deported seven times. He also has a 2004 conviction for drug trafficking.

Anderson is a special correspondent.

ALSO

Obamacare overhaul faces resistance in Congress from right and left

'A Day Without a Woman' for many means a day without school

Trump's travel ban contains a tool that could change how the U.S. conducts foreign policy

Originally posted here:
Federal officials deny doctoring document central to case of 'Dreamer' facing deportation - Los Angeles Times

Whenever Donald Trump fumes about fake news or labels the press the enemy of the people, First Amendment scholar David L. Hudson Jr. hears echoes of other presidents but a breadth and tone that are entirely new.

Mr. Trump may not know it, but it was Thomas Jefferson who once said, Nothing now can believed, said Hudson, a law professor at Vanderbilt University.

But whats unusual with Trump is the pattern of disparagement and condemnation of virtually the entire press corps. Weve had presidents who were embittered and hated some of the press Richard Nixon comes to mind. ... But I cant think of a situation where you have this rat-a-tat attack on the press on virtually a daily basis, for the evident purpose of discrediting it.

Journalism marks its annual Sunshine Week, which draws attention to the medias role in advocating for government transparency, at an extraordinary moment in the relationship between the presidency and the press.

Advertisement

First Amendment advocates call the Trump administration the most hostile to the press and free expression in memory. In words and actions, they say, Trump and his administration have threatened democratic principles and the general spirit of a free society: The demonizing of the media and emphatic repetition of falsehoods. Fanciful scenarios of voter fraud and scorn for dissent. The refusal to show Trumps tax returns and the removal of information from government websites.

And in that battle with the Trump administration, the media do not have unqualified public support.

According to a recent Pew survey, nearly 90 percent of respondents favored fair and open elections while more than 80 percent value the system of government checks and balances. But around two-thirds called it vital for the media to have the right to criticize government leaders; only half of Republicans were in support. A recent Quinnipiac University poll found that Americans by a margin of 53-37 trust the media over Trump to tell the truth about important issues; among Republicans, 78 percent favored Trump.

Were clearly in a particularly polarizing moment, although this is something weve been building to for a very long time, says Kyle Pope, editor in chief and publisher of the Columbia Journalism Review, a leading news and commentary source for journalism.

I think one of the mistakes the press made is we became perceived as part of the establishment. And I think one of the silver linings of the moment were in is that we have a renewed sense of what our mission is and where we stand in the pecking order, and that is on the outside, where we belong.

Hudson, ombudsman of the Newseums First Amendment Center, says its hard to guess whether Trump is serious or bloviating when he disparages free expression. He noted Trumps comments in November saying that flag burners should be jailed and wondered if the president knew such behavior was deemed protected by the Constitution (in a 1989 Supreme Court ruling supported by a justice Trump says he admires, the late Antonin Scalia).

Hudson also worries about a range of possible trends, notably the withholding of information and a general culture of secrecy that could close a lot of doors. But he did have praise for Trumps pick to replace Scalia on the court, Neil Gorsuch, saying that he has showed sensitivity to First Amendment issues. And free speech advocates say the press, at least on legal issues, is well positioned to withstand Trump.

We have a really robust First Amendment and have a lot of protections in place, says Kelly McBride, vice president of The Poynter Institute, a nonprofit journalism education center based in St. Petersburg, Florida. That doesnt mean that attempts wont be made. But when you compare our country to what journalists face around the world, I still think the U.S. is one of the safest places for a journalist to criticize the government.

The First Amendment, which states in part that 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, is far broader and more uniquely American than when ratified in 1791.

At the time, free expression was based on the legal writings of Britains Sir William Blackstone. The First Amendment protected against prior restraint, but not against lawsuits once something was spoken or published. Truth was not a defense against libel and the burden of proof was on the defendant, not the plaintiff. And the Bill of Rights applied to the federal government, but not to individual states, which could legislate as they pleased.

The most important breakthrough of recent times, and the foundation for many protections now, came with the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan case of 1964.

The Times had printed an advertisement in 1960 by supporters of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. that noted King had been arrested numerous times and condemned Southern violators of the Constitution. The public safety commissioner of Montgomery, Alabama, L. B. Sullivan sued for libel. He was not mentioned by name in the ad, but he claimed that allegations against the police also defamed him. After a state court awarded Sullivan $500,000, the Times appealed to the Supreme Court.

Some information in the ad was indeed wrong, such as the number of times King was arrested, but the Supreme Court decided unanimously for the Times. In words still widely quoted, Justice William Brennan wrote that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials. He added that a libel plaintiff must prove that the statement was made ... with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.

It was breathtakingly new, First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams said of Brennans ruling. It was an extraordinary step the court was taking.

But freedom of speech has long been championed more in theory than in reality. Abraham Lincolns administration shut down hundreds of newspapers during the Civil War. Woodrow Wilson championed the peoples indisputable right to criticize their own public officials, but also signed legislation during World War I making it a crime to utter, print, write, or publish anything disloyal or profane about the federal government. During the administration of President Barack Obama, who had taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, the Wilson-era Espionage Act was used to obtain emails and phone records of reporters and threaten James Risen of The New York Times with jail.

Predicting what Trump might do is as difficult as following his views on many issues. He often changes his mind, and contradicts himself.

During the campaign last year, he spoke of changing the libel laws to make it easier to sue the media. But shortly after the election, he seemed to reverse himself. He has said he is a tremendous believer of the freedom of the press, but has worried that Our press is allowed to say whatever they want and get away with it.

Trumps disparagement of the media has been contradicted by high officials in his administration. Secretary of Defense James Mattis said recently that he did not have any issues with the press. Vice President Mike Pence was an Indiana congressman when he helped sponsor legislation (which never passed) in 2005 that would protect reporters from being imprisoned by federal courts. In early March, he spoke at a prominent gathering of Washington journalists, the Gridiron Club and Foundation dinner.

Be assured that while we will have our differences and I promise the members of the Fourth Estate that you will almost always know when we have them President Trump and I support the freedom of the press enshrined in the First Amendment, he said, while adding that too often stories make page one and drive news with just too little respect for the people who are affected or involved.

EDITORS NOTE One of a package of stories marking Sunshine Week, an annual celebration of access to public information.

Read more:
Advocates say First Amendment can withstand Trump attacks - New Haven Register

Regarding the letter to the editor in Amarillo Globe-News (Letter: AGN needs to serve its conservative readers, Feb. 23, amarillo.com), I am astonished that a conservative (as the letter writer appears to be) would assault the First Amendment rights of the press or anyone else.

Once elected to public office, you are fair game for criticism.

Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush were caricatured as big-eared monkeys or elfin creatures, and most public figures have drawn criticism in print and editorial cartoons.

I hope AGN will continue to furnish their readers with timely and entertaining news and commentary, including the brilliant observations of (syndicated editorial) cartoonist Jeff Stahler and others.

The First Amendment was first for a reason.

When an individual in this society can tell someone else what to think, and tell the press what to print, we are in trouble.

Steve Close

Amarillo

Original post:
Letter: First Amendment was first for a reason - Amarillo.com