Mediaboss Marketing

President Donald Trump's Rust Belt-fueled victory in 2016 sprang from his staunch commitment to protecting American jobs, in part by curbing and controlling immigration. Trump has swiftly begun to follow through on one of his key promises -- to construct a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. He also issued two executive directives for the Homeland Security Department detailing a new administrative launch and expansion of deportation policies for undocumented residents.

The consequence of Trump governing almost exactly as he campaigned is that his job approval rating is hovering not too far below his 46% level of support in the popular vote. To maintain even this modest approval rating, however, he will need, at a minimum, to hold his currently broad Republican base. That will involve satisfying the interests of two different educational camps within the party that don't always agree. There is an upper-educated group of Republicans that consists of those with a four-year college degree or at least some postgraduate education -- about 30% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, according to 2016 Gallup data. The remaining 70% are what we might call the "average educated" -- those with, at most, a high school degree or some college experience but no college degree.

The Democratic Party has a similar divide: 35% are upper educated and 65% average educated. The average educated dominate both parties in numbers, if not always in policy influence. Journalists working the 2016 presidential campaign generally referred to the average educated as "working-class voters" and deemed them pivotal to Trump's success, although Gallup research shows that less than a third of Americans overall label themselves working class.

The two Republican educational camps largely agree with Trump's premise that the nation cannot support the current level of new immigrants -- whether legal or undocumented. More than six in 10 upper-educated Republicans and seven in 10 average-educated Republicans told Gallup in January 2016 that they were dissatisfied with the overall level of immigration into the U.S. This contrasts with 75% of upper-educated Democrats and 62% of average-educated Democrats feeling either satisfied with the current level of immigration or wanting it expanded.

Satisfaction With Level of Immigration Into the U.S.

Republicans are similarly unified on the grand priority for immigration -- whether the main focus should be on securing the border or addressing the status of immigrants already here illegally. Gallup polling finds Republicans in both educational groups agreeing strongly with Trump's emphasis on first halting illegal immigration at the border before dealing with immigrants already living in the country illegally: 63% of upper-educated Republicans and 61% of average-educated Republicans say this should be the priority.

Democrats are united around a completely different view on this matter, as both upper- and average-educated Democrats prioritize dealing with the illegal immigrants already residing in the U.S. -- presumably by offering some type of amnesty and citizenship (69% and 61%, respectively, both favor dealing with illegal immigrants already here).

Main Focus in Dealing With Illegal Immigration

Trump must now turn to the difficult and complex task of formulating an actual policy for immigration reform that carries campaign politics and cultural history as "nervous passengers."

In terms of building a wall along the entire U.S.-Mexico border (California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas), both upper- and average-educated Republicans favor its construction (51% and 66%, respectively). Average-educated Republicans, however, are nearly twice as likely as upper-educated Republicans to "strongly favor" a border wall: 41% vs. 23%. Meanwhile, the vast majority of upper- and average-educated Democrats oppose such a wall (95% and 83%, respectively).

The second part of immigration reform has to do with handling illegal immigrants currently living in the U.S. The Trump administration has already initiated new deportation orders, with priority being given to deporting illegal immigrants who have criminal records or who have been accused of crimes but not yet convicted. However, if Trump moves beyond this and tries to deport all undocumented immigrants as he promised during his campaign, he could face internal backlash. Only a slight majority of average-educated Republicans (55%) support deporting all illegal immigrants, while a slight majority of upper-educated Republicans (56%) oppose it. Majorities of both educational groups of Democrats (79% of upper educated and 60% of average educated) also oppose.

Achieving comprehensive immigration reform will depend on how Trump navigates this issue. While upper-educated Republicans are generally aligned with Democrats against mass deportation, a slight majority among Trump's all-important average-educated base view the matter differently. Keeping this campaign promise could present a real political challenge for Trump, to say nothing of the cultural chaos that would result if large numbers of illegal immigrants were removed from their jobs, communities and, in some cases, their families. It could affect Republicans' chances of holding both chambers of Congress in 2018 as well as their occupancy of the White House in 2020.

Trump's way forward may be to play to Republicans' support for the American value of cultural pluralism. Although a slight majority of average-educated Republicans side with deporting all illegal immigrants, they still believe that immigration in general is good for the U.S. and indicate a willingness to provide a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants currently living here.

Contrary to the deep partisan divides that surfaced in the campaign on the general direction for immigration reform, both Republicans and Democrats seem to honor the country's long-standing positive view of the value of immigration, saying that immigration is mostly good for the country rather than bad. This includes 54% of average-educated Republicans and 72% of upper-educated Republicans -- along with most Democrats, regardless of education.

Views on Immigration Being Good or Bad for U.S.

When asked if illegal immigrants should be given the chance to become U.S. citizens, large majorities of all four party/education groups agree they should. While that may seem to contradict average-educated Republicans' support for mass deportation, it indicates a degree of ambivalence that gives Trump room to maneuver.

Allowing Illegal Immigrants a Chance to Become U.S. Citizens

Bottom Line

Donald Trump won the presidency on a strong anti-illegal immigrant platform. His success in office -- both on this issue and others -- may depend on how well he satisfies the policy desires of the two educational segments within his own party: the large group of average-educated Republicans who tend to mirror his ideological leanings, and the smaller group of upper-educated Republicans whom he may sometimes have to tow along. Trump has the unified backing of both Republican groups for focusing first on halting illegal immigration (over dealing with immigrants currently here). Both Republican groups are also broadly dissatisfied with the current level of immigration into the country, meaning they may welcome Trump's attempts to limit it. At the same time, upper-educated Republicans are not as supportive as average-educated Republicans in terms of building a border wall and deporting illegal immigrants.

Given unified Democratic opposition to both policies, Trump risks trouble (both in passing legislation, and politically in 2018 and 2020) if he only sticks with his comparatively less-educated base on these policies. On the other hand, straying too far from those positions could risk "going back on his campaign promises" and thus anger his core supporters.

Trump can likely hold his Republican base together as he refashions U.S. immigration policy so long as he doesn't follow through with mass deportation. He could possibly go even further and bring the two parties together by bending to many Americans' celebration of immigration and their willingness to extend the opportunity of citizenship. Reaching consensus on immigration policy could be the first of many compromises by this deal-making president.

V. Lance Tarrance is a Gallup contributor.

Read the rest here:
Can a 'Nation of Immigrants' Reform 21st-Century Immigration? - Gallup

LAS VEGAS (KSNV News3LV)

A group of Rancho High School students organized a rally this afternoon to promote the passage of the BRIDGE Act.

Its a bill that would allow children brought to the United States illegally at a young age to stay in the country. Those children are now referred to as DREAMERs.

Supporters say they believe it would be a more permanent solution than the current executive ordered signed by former President Barack Obama.

"We believe that our voices should be heard and, although we don't have DACA, we have family members that have DACA and we've seen how hard they work," said Rancho sophomore Joanna Conchas, who helped set up the rally.

"I have a sister myself, who has DACA, she's a DREAMer herself."

RELATED LINK | Trump's border, immigration actions worry Las Vegas 'Dreamers' and activists

Joanna says the culture in recent weeks of deportations and immigration roundups have left her in a state of fear.

"It's scary to not know maybe by the day of tomorrow, my parents will not be home or my sister will have no job and she'll be gone," she said.

Familiar chants of "Si se puede" translated to "Yes we can" filled the streets in front of the high school and drew about 40 students, teachers and supporters.

Rancho High School teacher Reuben D'Silva says he was undocumented when he was growing up in Las Vegas.

"It was something you kept to yourself. It was something that shamed my family a lot. The fact that we were quote-unquote illegal," D'Silva said.

The teacher sympathizes with students dealing with the same struggles he did and feels the BRIDGE Act can make it through a divided Congress.

RELATED LINK | Young DREAMers wait and worry on the next move from Donald Trump

"John McCain supports this bill, Senator Lindsey Graham supports this bill. These are conservative icons. There is growing bipartisan support for this bill," D'Silva said.

The BRIDGE Act still has a long way to go before the students can claim victory. It has just been referred to a committee.

Originally posted here:
Rancho High School students conduct rally for immigration reform ... - News3LV

Subscribe today for full access on your desktop, tablet, and mobile device.

5

Let friends in your social network know what you are reading about

Elected officials must be held accountable

Try Another

Audio CAPTCHA

Image CAPTCHA

Help

CancelSend

A link has been sent to your friend's email address.

A link has been posted to your Facebook feed.

Poughkeepsie Journal Published 1:00 p.m. ET March 7, 2017 | Updated 15 hours ago

Letters to editor(Photo: Poughkeepsie Journal)Buy Photo

Before President Trump's recent address to Congress, he suggested that he might reconsider his controversial stance on immigration policy.

Those of us whosupport an inclusive view of America will be watching the presidents next move, as will the nations business leaders.

It is well known that immigrant workers play a critical role in many U.S. industries, including technology, hospitality, constructionand agriculture.

We should also be concerned about the impact to the U.S. tourism industry, which was highlighted in a March 1 New York Times article, New York Expects Fewer Foreign Tourists Saying Trump Is to Blame, (Feb. 28).

As noted by The New York Times, New York Cityexpects tourism from foreign visitors to drop for the first time in years, with an estimated loss to citybusinesses of at least $600 million.

According to a recent Forbes article, international visitors spent $246 billionin the US in 2016, which is greater than exports of autos ($152 billion), agriculture ($137 billion), and petroleum products ($97 billion).

Lets hold our elected leaders accountable to enact immigration reform that will strengthen our industries, keep families together and attract more foreign visitors to the US.

Nora and Jon Sweet

LaGrangeville

Read or Share this story: http://pojonews.co/2mBU3Nc

2:43

3:27

12:39

0:50

1:40

1:49

1:18

1:25

7:51

0:55

0) { %>

0) { %>

See the original post here:
US needs immigration reform that won't hamper commerce, culture: Letter - Poughkeepsie Journal

Apart from the establishment clause, the Supreme Court has for the last decade taken a strong view of the First Amendments protections. Judge Neil Gorsuchs decisions on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit align with that trend. In many ways, Gorsuchs opinions in this area are similar to those of the late Justice Antonin Scalia with the possible exception that Gorsuch has been more willing to find not only that the First Amendment has been violated, but also that defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity in those cases. It is unclear whether Gorsuch will continue that trend if he is confirmed, because cases in front of the Supreme Court tend to be closer than cases in the courts of appeals, and so qualified immunity is typically easier to get. I focus on cases in which Gorsuch has written a majority opinion, concurrence, or dissent, without regard to whether the decisions in question were precedential, on the theory that Gorsuchs writings will provide the greatest insight into his mindset.

Freedom of speech, the press and assembly

With few exceptions, Gorsuch has been willing to find in favor of First Amendment plaintiffs and against defendants attempting to assert immunity against a First Amendment claim.

In Walton v. Powell, in 2016, Gorsuch wrote a unanimous opinion affirming a district courts decision to allow a government employees Section1983 claim alleging that she was fired for her political affiliation to proceed. The court held that the McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting framework does not apply to First Amendment retaliation claims, which are governed by a more plaintiff-friendly standard. It then applied that standard to uphold the employees claim, and deny the defendants qualified immunity defense.

In 2007, in Casey v. West Las Vegas Independent School District, Gorsuch wrote an opinion finding that a school district superintendents statements to her own school board were not protected citizen speech, but her statements to the state attorney general were. The court further held that qualified immunity was not available because it had been long established that when public employees speak to outside authorities on matters of public concern for reasons that are not job-related, their speech is protected.

In Rounds v. Clements, in 2012, Gorsuch wrote an opinion holding that a state prisoners First Amendment retaliation claim, which sought prospective relief, did not run afoul of the Eleventh Amendment. The prisoner, an electrician by trade, alleged that he suffered retaliation because he had reported to prison superiors that other prison officials were asking him to perform shoddy electrical work. The court held that the prisoner stated a claim, and that the claim fell under the Ex Parte Young exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity insofar as the electrician sought to be restored to his former status as a privileged prisoner.

In a notable 2016 dissent in A.M. v. Holmes, Gorsuch argued that a New Mexico statute prohibiting disruption in school did not apply to a seventh-grader who had pretended to burp in class. Distinguishing classroom antics from actions that substantially interfere with the actual functioning of the school, Gorsuch argued that the statute had been interpreted more narrowly than its text suggests, and disagreed with the majoritys decision to read it more broadly. The dissent did not rely on the First Amendment, but it suggests that Gorsuch may be willing to protect a substantial amount of on-campus speech.

Although these decisions all strongly suggest that Gorsuch will happily allow free speech claims to move forward, there are some open questions about how protective he will be of speech at the margins.

In Mink v. Knox, in 2010, Gorsuch wrote a concurrence in a case allowing a Section1983 claim against a deputy district attorney who had pursued a criminal libel charge against the publisher of an Internet-based journal. The court held, and Gorsuch agreed, that because the journal was engaged in parody, the speech was protected even as it related to matters of private concern. Gorsuch wrote separately to argue that the result was compelled by circuit precedent, chiding his colleagues for going further to defend that precedent. Although he did not tip his hand, the separate opinion suggests that Gorsuch may be more willing than some of his colleagues to permit libel claims against a parody.

In 2016, in Alvarez v. Grosso, Judge Gorsuch wrote an unpublished opinion holding that civilians had no right to attend military court-martial proceedings. The court held that commanders have wide discretion to bar civilians from the base, and that civilians have no constitutionally protected right to speak on military bases or to observe court martial trials.

The First Amendment and campaign finance

In Riddle v. Hickenlooper, in 2014, the 10th Circuit struck down a Colorado statute that effectively limited individual campaign contributions to write-in candidates to $200 while permitting donors to give up to $400 to candidates who ran in primaries. The statute had been challenged principally on equal protection grounds, but the First Amendment status of campaign contributions was also front and center. In a concurring opinion, Judge Gorsuch argued that the act of contributing to political campaigns implicates a basic constitutional freedom, one lying at the foundation of a free society and enjoying a significant relationship to the right to speak and associateboth expressly protected First Amendment activities. That language may suggest that Gorsuch is broadly sympathetic to the idea that money in politics is just another form of expression, and would be skeptical of campaign finance limits. On the other hand, Gorsuch cautioned against adopting a level of scrutiny for campaign contribution cases, noting that it wasnt necessary to do so in order to resolve the case, and that the Supreme Courts decisions had been unclear about what level of scrutiny applies.

The petitions clause

In 2007, in Van Deelen v. Johnson, Gorsuch wrote an opinion reversing a grant of summary judgment to county officials who had allegedly retaliated against a taxpayer who had filed appeals and lawsuits to challenge property tax assessments. Defending the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, Gorsuch wrote that [w]hen 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. Good luck, President Trump.

The religion clauses

In American Atheists, Inc. v. Davenport, in 2010, a 10th Circuit panel had held that 13 12-foot crosses erected on public land to memorialize deceased Utah highway patrol officers ran afoul of the establishment clause because a reasonable observer would regard those memorials as endorsing Christianity. Rehearing en banc was denied, and Gorsuch dissented from that denial. In the dissent, Gorsuch argued both that the 10th Circuit had strayed from the Supreme Courts precedents, which had not recently applied the reasonable observer test to public displays, and that the 10th Circuit had applied the test in an expansive way by treating the reasonable observer as somebody who is biased, replete with foibles, and prone to mistake. The dissent sends a very clear signal that Gorsuch is on board with the more conservative understanding of the establishment clause embraced by the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

Gorsuchs views on free exercise issues are less clear because, to the best of my knowledge, he has not written an opinion in a case in which a constitutional free exercise challenge was brought unaccompanied by a statutory challenge under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) or Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). In 2013, he wrote a concurring opinion in Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, arguing that the individual owners of the Hobby Lobby stores (the Green family) were entitled to relief under RFRA. Gorsuch explained that because the Greens are the human actors who must compel the corporations to comply with the [Affordable Care Acts contraception] mandate, their own personal religious beliefs were burdened by the mandate. In the process, Gorsuch argued:

No doubt, the Greens religious convictions are contestable. Some may even find the Greens beliefs offensive. But no one disputes that they are sincerely held religious beliefs. This isnt the case, say, of a wily businessman seeking to use an insincere claim of faith as cover to avoid a financially burdensome regulation. See United States v. Quaintance, 608 F.3d 717 (10th Cir.2010) (an example of just that). And to know this much is to know the terms of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act apply. The Act doesnt just apply to protect popular religious beliefs: it does perhaps its most important work in protecting unpopular religious beliefs, vindicating this nations long-held aspiration to serve as a refuge of religious tolerance.

Although this case arose under RFRA, and not the First Amendment, Gorsuch nevertheless signaled that he might take a very strong view of free exercise principles, consistent with the Supreme Court majority that affirmed the 10th Circuits decision in Hobby Lobby.

On the other hand, in 2014, in Ali v. Wingert, Judge Gorsuch wrote an opinion denying relief to a prison inmate who wanted to use only his newly adopted Muslim name on mail envelopes, instead of using both his Muslim name and his former name. The claims were brought under RLUIPA and also the First Amendments free exercise clause. Rejecting the RLUIPA claim, Judge Gorsuch acknowledged that if a prisoners sincerely held religious beliefs forbade any mention of a former name, then there might be a substantial burden on the inmate, but found that the facts in the complaint did not make such an allegation. Federal courts certainly are not arbiters of religious scripture or dogma, but to establish a RLUIPA claim they do require from the claimant some well-pleaded facts suggesting a substantial burden on a sincere religious exercise. The First Amendment free exercise claim failed for the same reason.

Also, in Abdulhaseeb v. Calbone, in 2010, Gorsuch wrote a concurring opinion in a RLUIPA case where the inmate alleged that a halal diet was not available. Gorsuch acknowledged that the law does not permit an institution to force an inmate to choose between violating his religious beliefs and starving to death. But he made it clear that he would not go further to hold that RLUIPA prohibits the prison from taking action that requires a prisoner to occasionally miss a normal meal because he refuses to eat the food, or that the statute requires any other accommodation for religious diet other than accommodating major religious holidays and the need to eat enough to live.

Posted in Nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, A close look at Judge Neil Gorsuchs jurisprudence, Featured

Recommended Citation: Tejinder Singh, Judge Gorsuchs First Amendment jurisprudence, SCOTUSblog (Mar. 7, 2017, 11:16 AM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/03/judge-gorsuchs-first-amendment-jurisprudence/

See more here:
Judge Gorsuch's First Amendment jurisprudence - SCOTUSblog (blog)

Amazon has abandoned its legal battle to protect its Alexa assistant with First Amendment rights for now at least. The company filed a motion against a police search warrant in an Arkansas murder case earlier this month, but has now dropped the case after the defendant agreed to hand over the data contained on his Echo speaker to police.

In documents filed last Monday, defendant James Andrew Bates said that he was willing to allow law enforcement officials to review information contained on his Amazon Echo speaker, before the company handed the data over on Friday. Bates has pleaded not guilty to the murder of Victor Collins, who was found dead in Bates hot tub in November 2015.

Amazon said its search results were constitutionally protected opinion

Police had issued a warrant to seize subscriber and account information from Bates Echo, as well as all communication and transaction history from the device. Amazon provided the former, but argued against providing communication data, claiming that voice interactions with Alexa were protected by the First Amendment. That includes Alexas replies to a user Amazon claims that ranked search results are constitutionally protected opinion. Precedent for that argument was set by a 2014 case in which Google search results were classified as free speech by a San Francisco court, after a news website complained that its own pages were too far down the companys listings.

Amazon argued that police didnt have enough of a compelling argument in Bates case for it to hand over the data, with officials unable to prove that any potential information would not be available anywhere else. It remains to be seen whether Bates Echo does indeed have any pertinent information a hearing is scheduled for Wednesday this week. The defendants acquiescence also means that we dont yet have a definitive answer on whether Alexa is indeed protected by the First Amendment.

Go here to see the original:
Amazon gives up fight for Alexa's First Amendment rights after defendant hands over data - The Verge