Archive for April, 2017

PsstPaul Ryan, Mitch McConnell: Jump In, the Water’s Warm on H-1B Reform – ImmigrationReform.com (blog)

Bold leadership is not a trait often associated with House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, which is largely why the establishment GOP leadership was marginalized in the last election. For years, they have known that the H-1B guest worker visa program was not merely passively broken, but was actively undermining American workers. Heck, they could have found that out just by watching 60 Minutes.

On Tuesday, President Trump used his executive authority to change the parts of the broken H-1B program that were within his constitutional power to fix. The Executive Order calls for ending the allocation of H-1B visas by lottery and suggests that those visas be allocated to the most-skilled or highest-paid foreign workers. In addition, it seeks to curtail foreign labor contractors from turning the H-1B program into a cash cow by snapping up the majority of visas available each year and then subcontracting workers to American businesses.

The presidents Buy American, Hire American Executive Order turned out to be a no-brainer. Normally, any action on anything related to immigration evokes howls of protest from some interest group. That was not the case with regard to Trumps H-1B changes. Groups that have fought for protections for American workers offered approval for the president. Those, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, that have advocated for greater access to foreign labor avoided direct criticism of the H-1B provisions of the Executive Order and instead obliquely reaffirmed their stance that it would be a mistake to close the door on high-skilled workers from around the world.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), which has been a sharp critic of the H-1B program, called the presidents Executive Order a step in the right direction toward fulfilling the campaign promise of having an immigration system that serves the national interest.

FWD.us, a mass immigration lobby group funded by Mark Zuckerberg and other Silicon Valley titans, offered guarded approval for the presidents effort to shove foreign labor contracting firms off the H-1B gravy train (although they did renew their demand for increases in H-1B visas). The AFL-CIO, which has been largely AWOL when it comes to protecting American workers against immigration policies that undermine their interests, saw the presidents move as a boost for American minorities seeking a foothold in science and technology.

Even leading Democrats in Washington limited their criticism of Trumps ordered changes to the H-1B program by asserting that the president did not go far enough in protecting American workers. We already know H-1B visa abuse displaces American workers. President Trump already missed a chance to deliver on his promise of bold action to put American workers first, said Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), ignoring the fact that President Obama, who was not shy about using executive policy directives to protect illegal aliens, did nothing to address the H-1B visa abuse Durbin laments.

Sen. Durbin is correct: President Trumps actions do fall short of what is needed to protect the interests of American workers. Thats Congresss job. The flawed, loophole-ridden H-1B program that allows for the displacement and wage depression of American workers was created by Congress and must be fixed by Congress. Based on the initial responses from business, labor, Democrats, and immigration reform advocacy groups like FAIR, there is very little reason why the risk-averse Republican leadership in Congress should not follow up the presidents executive order with legislative reforms that actually protect American workers while continuing to provide American companies access to guest workers who truly possess unique skills that will benefit our country.

Go here to see the original:
PsstPaul Ryan, Mitch McConnell: Jump In, the Water's Warm on H-1B Reform - ImmigrationReform.com (blog)

Chuck Schumer on Trump’s H-1B visa reforms study: Revive 2013 immigration bill, instead – Washington Times


Washington Times
Chuck Schumer on Trump's H-1B visa reforms study: Revive 2013 immigration bill, instead
Washington Times
Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer on Tuesday dismissed as window dressing President Trump's pending executive order to study H-1B visa program reforms, urging him instead to take up the bipartisan 2013 comprehensive immigration reform bill ...
Schumer upbeat on funding deal, blasts Trump on tax returnsCNN
Democrats divided on H-1B visa issueEconomic Times

all 17 news articles »

See original here:
Chuck Schumer on Trump's H-1B visa reforms study: Revive 2013 immigration bill, instead - Washington Times

The First Amendment Gave This Neo-Nazi The Right To Be Vile But Then He Went Too Far – BuzzFeed News

Andrew Anglin Wiki Commons

ID: 10918809

The right to free speech protected under the U.S. Constitution gives Americans broad allowances to say extremely bigoted, mean-spirited and disgusting things online about other people. Perhaps nobody understood just how broad hose allowances were than leading neo-Nazi blogger Andrew Anglin who refers to Jewish people on his site as kikes, black people as niggers, gay people or those he perceives as gay as faggots, and has a whole section called The Jewish Problem.

Last last year, the self-proclaimed white supremacist decided to take his hateful rhetoric a step further. On December 16, Anglin authored a post on the Daily Stormer goading his readers to engage in a troll storm. The target: a Jewish realtor in Montana named Tanya Gersh, who Anglin was convinced was extorting Sherry Spencer, the mother of leading white supremacist Richard Spencer.

In the post, titled Jews Targeting Richard Spencers Mother for Harassment and Extortion TAKE ACTION!, Anglin writes, Lets Hit Em Up. Are yall ready for an old fashioned Troll Storm? Because AYO - its time, fam. The post contains a substantial amount of contact information for Gersh who he calls a whore her husband, and one of her sons, a 12-year-old who Anglin calls a scamming kike and creepy little faggot.

Anglin asks his readers to contact the Gershes and make your opinions known. He asks them to call them, email them, tweet them, or if youre in the area, maybe you should stop by and tell her in person what you think of her actions. He explicitly writes that no one should do anything violent, but adds, It is very important that we make them feel the kind of pressure they are making us feel.

And hit em up his followers did, which legal experts said could land Anglin in trouble in court.

In a lawsuit filed this week, Gersh alleges more than 700 instances of harassment directed at her and her family in connection with the troll storm orchestrated by Anglin. These include emails to her reading, Ratfaced criminals who play with fire tend to get thrown in the oven, and This is the goylash. You remember the last goylash, dont you Tanya? Merry Christmas, you Christ killing Jew, and one that simply reads Death to Tanya repeated in the message about 100 times.

In the months after Anglins call for harassment, Gersh also received phone calls at home. According to complaint, when she picked up one caller said, You should have died in the Holocaust with the rest of your people. Another call consisted only of the sounds of guns being fired.

And how did Daily Stormer readers respond to Anglins call to target her son? One person tweeted at him, psst kid, theres a free Xbox One inside the oven and included a photo of an oven.

On a call with reporters on Tuesday, Gersh said that the threats have caused her to gain weight, her hair to fall out, and said shes had to quit her job. At one point during the troll storm campaign, she said she came home to a dark house, her husband waiting inside with the bags packed. We really thought we had to run for safety in the middle of the night, Gersh said.

Since the first post on December 16, according to the lawsuit, he has published 30 posts calling for actions against Gersh. This was really terrorism, Gersh said Tuesday. We didnt get teased, we got terrorized.

According to court records, Anglin has not responded yet to the lawsuit. One of Gershs attorneys, Richard Cohen, the legal director at the Southern Poverty Law Center, told BuzzFeed News on Wednesday that they havent served Anglin with the suit yet. Anglin is a resident of Ohio, but reportedly could be residing in the Philippines or somewhere in Europe.

When he does respond, legal experts expect Anglin will raise some sort of First Amendment defense. However, in order to win in court, he will have to prove to a jury that the speech he engaged in was not intended to cause harm.

Speech that a reasonable person would construe as harm, thats not protected. In our system, you can hold discriminatory views, you cant act on them, David Schulz, a partner at Levine, Sullivan, Koch, Schulz, who has 35 years of First Amendment litigation experience.

If [Anglin] can say, Im just expressing an opinion and try to pull this into the sphere of free speech, it gets back to what a reasonable person would understand as protected speech Schulz says.

To prove that he was just expressing his opinion, Anglin might argue that he was merely republishing Sherry Spencers Medium blog post in which she accuses Gersh of attempting to extort her as part of a real estate deal to sell off a piece of property in Whitefish, Montana.

In November 2016, according to the lawsuit, Gersh reached out to Sherry Spencer about a planned protest outside a building that Spencer owns in downtown Whitefish. Gersh claims that she informed Sherry Spencer about the demonstrations, which were being planned in response to a viral video of her son, Richard, leading a Hail Trump! chant, and offered to help Spencer sell the building. According to the lawsuit, Gersh and Sherry Spencer began to discuss working together to sell the property. But then a month later, Sherry Spencer apparently had a change of heart, and published the Medium post accusing Gersh of extortion.

Montana Law School Professor Eduardo Capulong points out that if Anglin could prove that he was merely commenting on this purported feud between the Spencers and Gersh, he would be protected. But using it as basis to attack without verifying is reckless, he added.

Its one thing, if Anglin said: Oh, look at this blog post, and fuck them. Thats arguably protected by free speech, Capulong said. But then, you go beyond that and say: target this family.

Asked if Anglins calls for his readers not to be violent would protect him, Capulong said, I dont think so. Given everything that he was doing, and invoking Nazi ideology, images, I think any reasonable person would see that as a call to violence.

In this case, Anglin is accused of four charges invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, malice, and violation of Montanas Anti-Intimidation Act. All four carry the possibility of damages that Anglin may have to pay to Gersh if the case goes in her favor.

But in order to obtain punitive damages meant to punish Anglin in a substantial way that deters others Gersh will have to prove malice, which has a higher standard in court. However, Capulong believes that Gersh has a good case for malice. I was shocked to see those emails. Thats really malicious I think, he said.

Gershs attorneys have called for at least $75,000 in damages for each count the minimum amount necessary to file the case in federal court.

Cohen says that they have no idea how much money Anglin has which could factor into the judge or jurys final decision on how much he would have to pay out. However, if he loses and regardless of the award amount the law dictates two key things. One, Anglin will not be able to seek bankruptcy against a judgment against him. And two, a judge can enforce a judgment for 20 years essentially going after future money he makes off the Daily Stormer.

Well follow him wherever he goes, Cohen said.

Read the original post:
The First Amendment Gave This Neo-Nazi The Right To Be Vile But Then He Went Too Far - BuzzFeed News

First Amendment Day arrives at Iowa State | News | iowastatedaily.com – Iowa State Daily

The 15th annual First Amendment Dayswill take place Wednesday through Friday to celebrate what is arguably the most revered amendment enshrined in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution.

The First Amendment guarantees five natural rights to the American citizen. It protects freedom of speech and expression, keeps the government from establishing religion and likewiseprotects the free practice of one's religious beliefs. It ensures a free and openpress, thefreedom of association and freedom to petition the government.

Each right is regarded as an integral part of a free Americansociety.

These rights are not onlyestablishedin law,forbidding government infringement, but arealso an ideal to strive toward in widersociety.First Amendment Days celebrate those rights and freedoms.

Events will begin Wednesday with "Depth and Dialog Sessions." Discussion topics will range from "Free Speech vs. Hate Speech," "Free Speech considerations for Faculty and Staff," "Diversity and Inclusion and the First Amendment" and "Think Like a Journalist."

The day will close with "Freedom Sings!" celebrating provocative music.

Festivities will continue Thursday with the "Democalypse March" and "Feast on the First."

Closing the night, keynote speaker Glenn Smith will speak on the importance of individual journalists and news outletsexposing falsehoods, speaking the truth and giving a voice to those who would otherwise wouldn't have one in a time when news is hard to trust and many feel unrepresented.

First Amendment Days 2017 will close with the First Amendment Teaching Workshop seminar on Friday, where faculty and staff ofuniversitiesand high schools will be shown new ways to better teach their students about the value and importance of the First Amendment.

Read more:
First Amendment Day arrives at Iowa State | News | iowastatedaily.com - Iowa State Daily

DAVID ROSMAN: Supreme Court must uphold the First Amendment – Columbia Missourian

It is Easter Sunday, and I cannot sit here on this most holy of Christian holidays without talking about the separation of church and state. More specifically, the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court case Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer and actions taken by our governor in an attempt to sway the court in favor of Trinity Lutheran.

For those of you unfamiliar with the case, here is the short summary: The Missouri Department of Natural Resources has a program that provides chopped-up used tire rubber to non-profits to help make playgrounds safer for the kids through a grant process. In 2012 Trinity Lutheran Church preschool made application for such a grant, and though "qualified," were denied based on Missouri constitutional law.

"That no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect or denomination of religion, or in aid of any priest, preacher, minister or teacher thereof, as such; and that no preference shall be given to nor any discrimination made against any church, sect or creed of religion, or any form of religious faith or worship."

Trinity Lutheran is suing on First Amendment grounds. The guiding principle of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause has been made clear in case law and in the writings of those who helped draft the First Amendment to our Constitution that every person has the right to worship the way they feel is correct and the state will not interfere or support any established religion.

According to Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, "While the preschool has an open admissions policy, it functions as a self-described 'ministry of Trinity Lutheran Church.'" The DNR believed that because Trinity Lutheran is a religious institution and they expound religious teachings as part of the daily instruction at the preschool, allowing the grant would be in violation of Article 1,Section 7.

Trinity Lutheran's position was that the position taken by the DNR is in violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution more specifically, the Establishment Clause. They enlisted the Alliance Defending Freedom, a religious right-wing legal counsel, to represent them in this case.

The alliance claims that 14 other Missouri 501(c)(3) non-profits were awarded the grant for their playgrounds and that Trinity Lutheran, also a 501(c)(3) non-profit institution and otherwise qualified for the grant, was unfairly excluded from the program.

The executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, Jeffrey Mittman,said of the case: "Its about settled constitutional law that protects individuals rights to practice their religion from government interference and ensures that tax payers are not forced to support any specific religion or religion over non religion."

Two federal courts have already ruled against the church. This week the case will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, including the newly confirmed Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch. It will be his first test as a justice to see if he will follow longstanding precedent established by the court or arrive at some other position.

We know that he sided with the religious institutions in two other high profile cases: Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius and Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell.

Here's the rub. Last week, Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens issued a directive that allowed "religious organizations to apply for state Department of Natural Resources grants," and in turn the DNR is to consider such applications without prejudice. This appears to be an attempt to circumvent the state's long-established constitutional position and the First Amendment. In other words, it's an attempt to influence the court in its deliberations.

Former Missouri Supreme Court Justice Mike Wolff believes it does. He told St. Louis Public Radio that because of Greitens' directive, the court may have nothing to decide, seeing that the position of the state has been reversed.

Nothing can be further from the truth. The governor cannot change the state Constitution simply with a wave of his pen.

This is not a question of anti-Christian sentiment. I am sure that the DNR would have come to the same conclusion if the application came from a Muslim or Jewish preschool that includes the teaching of religious principles as part of the curriculum.

This is a question of state constitutional law concerning an amendment that is clear and direct: There is to be no action by the state to financially support a religious institution.

Original post:
DAVID ROSMAN: Supreme Court must uphold the First Amendment - Columbia Missourian