Mediaboss Marketing

MORE THAN once, President Trump has enticed Democrats and some moderate Republicans and risked infuriating hard-liners in his base by expressing an openness to overhauling the nations dysfunctional immigration system. He did so again in a session at the White House with television news anchors Tuesday, saying hed consider a compromise that included legal status for millions of undocumented immigrants, and then wondering aloud whether he should float the idea to Congress in his speech that night. He did not but if he really wishes to bring about the unity and renewal of the American spirit he spoke of in his address, he should.

It is a fools game to guess whether the president will ultimately legalize or deport more of the nations 11 million undocumented immigrants; he himself may have no firm idea what he intends. But if he wants to soothe this festering political and social wound, he is well positioned to do it. Having established himself as a hard-liner on illegal immigration and proposed tough new measures to stop it, he might well persuade fellow Republicans to accept a compromise on the millions of noncriminal immigrants already in the country.

A good place to start would be the question of what to do about dreamers, the 2 million or so undocumented immigrants brought to this country as children. There Mr. Trump has been more consistent. After initially suggesting he would scrap the Obama administrations program granting them temporary protection from deportation, the new president has repeatedly expressed sympathy for the dreamers plight, making clear he is disinclined to target them for removal and telling the news anchors he would be open to forging a pathway to citizenship for them.

Fair enough, but will he have the courage of his apparent convictions? The test is whether he acts to dispel the uncertainty hanging over the heads of roughly 750,000 dreamers whose age, duration of residence in the United States and verified clean record enabled them to register for the program, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which provides work permits and temporary protection from removal. Registrants, who submit their names, addresses and other information, are now justifiably fearful that the government may use that data to track them down once their two-year DACA protections lapse. Hundreds of thousands of other eligible youngsters are unlikely to enroll given that peril.

Dreamers represent a pool of talent, brains and ambition that the United States should want to cultivate. Some 3,700 students in the University of California system are undocumented immigrants, and tens of thousands of dreamers are enrolled at other post-secondary institutions across the country. What possible benefit is there in deporting a promising cohort that is American in all but birth certificate?

With the stroke of a pen, Mr. Trump could extend the existing program, enabling dreamers to continue working, studying and living productive lives. He could go further by proposing permanent legal status or a path to citizenship for immigrants who, in many cases, have little memory of any country but the United States. That would lend weight to the presidents oft-stated assertions of his compassion.

The rest is here:
Trump's opportunity to do the right thing on immigration reform - Washington Post

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, says Trump's base would leave him almost immediately were he to support immigration reform, as he hinted ahead of his first address to Congress Tuesday night, rather than stick to the tough stance he espoused during the campaign.

During a lunch with television network anchors Tuesday, Trump said "the time is right for an immigration bill as long as there is compromise on both sides." And a senior administration official said that the president would consider a pathway to citizenship for so-called "DREAMers" and potential legal status for those already in the U.S. who have not committed serious crimes.

But King, who supports tightening border security, told ABC News Rick Klein and Jonathan Karl on the Powerhouse Politics podcast that Trumps Tuesday address was exactly consistent with the policies he touted on the campaign trail.

The thing that gave Donald Trump traction was enforcing immigration law and of course building a wall, King said, and that if he were to support immigration reform not only would the conservatives start to leave him, I dont know if anybody in the foreseeable future could run for the presidency on...securing our border.

King also said he didn't support the president's stance on paid family leave, espoused by Trump's daughter, Ivanka, and didn't applaud that portion of his speech.

That to me says borrowing money from China in order to pay people to babysit our children here, King said, adding that refundable tax credits might allow for Obamacare to be rebuilt back into statute.

Nonetheless, King gave the speech a very high grade.

When I heard him say the investment in infrastructure...it gave me a measure of hope if theres going to be some private capital invested in that, King said.

Trumps address was punctuated by an emotional moment where Carryn Owens -- the wife of Navy SEAL William "Ryan" Owens, who was killed in a raid in Yemen authorized by Trump in January -- received a standing ovation.

The president discussed why he considered the raid successful, lauded Ryan Owens and acknowledged his widow.

Some lawmakers said that Trump should have stuck to praising the fallen SEAL and left the success of the raid out, but King disagreed. I think if you ask Carryn Owens in one year, or five years or ten, or two or three generations from now they will look back on last night with great pride in their family, King said.

As for the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, King said that a GOP plan that espoused refundable tax credits is not a viable replacement because it implies that every American is entitled to a health insurance policy.

There should not be that entitlement. We need to make sure that we take care of people and we cant let them not have care, King said, but added that a gap in insurance coverage could be covered by programs like public clinics and market competition.

King said its necessary for congress to make a clean break and fully repeal the Affordable Care Act and then send the components of reform one at a time from the House to the Senate.

Go here to see the original:
Republican congressman Steve King says Trump's base would abandon him for immigration reform - ABC News

President Trump is not likely to back a compromise on immigration reform, despite suggesting he's that open to such a proposal, Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez said on Wednesday.

"I judge a person by their actions. And everything that Donald TrumpDonald TrumpTrump Jr. likely paid K for event hosted by Russian allies: report MSNBC president: Ratings on rise because we give smartest coverage out there Whats next for Latinos priorities under a Trump administration? MORE has said about immigration has been immigrant-baiting," Perez said on CNN's "New Day." We've seen it from the campaign, we've seen it through the election, we talk about the wall again last night."

"What he doesn't talk about are the people he's deporting," he added. "He claims to only be deporting immigrants who have been convicted of a serious crime. That's simply not accurate."

But the president did not talk about such a proposal during his speech to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday night. Instead, he discussed his administration's efforts to crack down on undocumented immigrants who commit crimes.

As we speak, we are removing gang members, drug dealers and criminals that threaten our communities and prey on our citizens, he said. Bad ones are going out as I speak tonight.

Read the original:
DNC chair: Trump unlikely to back immigration reform compromise - The Hill (blog)

Traditionally, I avoid using this column to discuss issues that directly relate to my role as an attorney, as I find such practice self-serving and of dubious value for you, dear reader.

Yet, for every rule there is an exception, and the issue soon to be debated in a New York City court has such profound implications for businesses throughout the state that it is worth the time to examine the matter.

Simply distilled, a state law applicable only to NYC currently makes it unlawful to advertise occupancy or use of dwelling units where that occupancy would violate the Multiple Dwelling Law. This improper gag law is so broadly written that it covers literally any form of communication. If a similar statute is adopted with state wide application it would threaten literally any company or individual that seeks to contract for goods or services, whether through traditional mediums or the Internet. This was a law the state legislature granted to the city with the power to enforce, so the potential for this legislation to spread like a toxic weed throughout New York is real (although how it was enacted may be fatally flawed).

Originally designed to constrain Airbnbs widely successful business model of allowing apartment owners and tenants to briefly rent out their dwellings, the city capitulated in enforcing the law against the multibillion dollar Airbnb corporation and even stipulated in Federal Court that City Hall will permanently refrain from taking any action to enforce it against Airbnb.

What New York City forgot is that, irrespective of whether you are up against Airbnb or the lonely apartment owner or tenant, you cant violate the First Amendment. By prohibiting rental advertisements, the city imposes a content-based speech restriction subject to what the law calls heightened judicial scrutiny. It attempts to create, in essence, a legal house of mirrors that the city hopes defendants wont possibly navigate in their attempt to defend themselves.

More threatening for the rest of us who arent looking to offer short term rentals, the city law chills protected commercial speech. The threat of fines and liability would likely impose a form of self-censorship in the marketplace as the interpretation of what is permitted and what is prohibited becomes vague, blurred and problematic. If I ran a magazine, newspaper, broadcast operation or advertising agency, I would be extremely concerned about this laws draconian reach.

The city law also violates the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it seeks to impose strict civil and criminal liability against alleged violators. Specifically, there is no requirement in the statute that an alleged violator know that an advertisement is unlawful. Fortunately, there is precedent here. The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected such efforts to impose strict liability for the dissemination of information, even where, unlike here, the content itself lacks First Amendment protection.

Of course, the City could simply go after those who actually rent units unlawfully, rather than those that merely advertise such rentals, but they seem to have decided there is far easier to pick up a lot of money by just spotting the ads than by actually knocking on the doors of alleged violators to see if a violation has in fact occurred. In fact, the city has recently allocated several million dollars to fund inspectors whose task is to identify and fine apartment owners and tenants who post illegal listings. It is a fair bet they expect to make back that investment quickly by tabulating illegal ads and then sending notices costing $1,000 per first violation, $5,000 per second violation and $7500 per third violation gotcha.

Prohibition taught America that flawed laws and ill-conceived enforcement breeds nothing but contempt for government, for trying to make criminals out of all of us. The City of New York, and by extension the New York State Legislature, would better serve the public if they would promptly review their illegal assault on freedom of commercial speech and strike this improper unconstitutional statute from the books before the courts do it for them.

Rosenberg, a graduate of St. Johns University Law School and resident of Old Westbury, is senior founding with Rosenberg, Calica & Birney LLP, a Garden City law firm.

More:
Rosenberg: Airbnb law amounts to a first Amendment violation - Long Island Business News (subscription)

After assembling, however, an irate motorist pulled up and yelled go home. Protesters responded cooly with Well pray for you! The motorist drove off only to return moments later yelling more abuses. To be heard over the insults, the protesters yelled back, Well pray for you! The exchange was brief and nonviolent. Nevertheless, two Bemidji Police vehicles soon arrived. One officer entered the bank. Another officer approached the protesters. The officer acknowledged their peaceful assembly and thanked them for exercising their First Amendment rights. After polite discussion, the officer shook hands with protesters. They even took a group photo! Hallelujah. Libertys light stills shines. But for how long?

The right to peaceful assembly is protected under the First Amendment. It is the cornerstone to a healthy democracy. Yet to date, 18 states have introduced legislation stiffening penalties for peaceful demonstrators. In Minnesota, HF 322 represents such a threat. Although the wording appears benign, its intent is perhaps less innocent. If demonstration activity is deemed unlawful, governmental units could sue individuals to recover public safety response costs. Minnesota Statute 609.705 defines unlawful as disturbing or threatening the public peace. Who decides an assembly is disturbing the peace? Will HF 322 dissuade law-abiding citizens from public demonstration? Yes, probably. Is that the true intent of the bill? Probably, yes.

If protesting raises awareness, perchance increasing others willingness to demonstrate, then unprincipled politicians may seek to deter this right. James Madison, co-author of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, recognized this threat. I share his words, ...there are more instances of abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment (by those in power) than by violent and sudden usurpations. HF 322 is such an encroachment representing the gradual effort to criminalize protesters.

This is a defining chapter in American democracy. It is my hope, despite our partisan differences, we fight to maintain this fundamental freedom. Whether you are a water protector or a pro-lifer, this bill should concern you and motivate us to collectively defend our most rudimentary rights.

Susan Kedzie

On behalf of Indivisible Bemidji, a local effort to raise awareness on social and environmental issues.

Original post:
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: We must defend our First Amendment rights - Bemidji Pioneer