Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON Lorella Praeli, formerly an undocumented activist, has experience in putting political pressure on the White House.

She fought former President Barack Obama over high deportations during his first term and lobbied Congress on immigration reform. If 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had won, she may have worked on the inside, after serving as the candidates the national director of Latino outreach.

Instead, President Donald Trump is in the White House and shes going back to activism now with a new job as director of immigration policy and campaigns at the American Civil Liberties Union, starting Monday.

I refuse to look at the next four years and say the only thing we will do is defend, she told HuffPost, ahead of her job announcement. It also has to be how do we defend and expand and advance the rights of the community.

The ACLU is ramping up its on-the-ground advocacy in response to Trump, along with its litigation efforts over some of his highest-profile executive orders on immigration those to block refugees and nationals of certain Muslim-majority countriesfrom the U.S.

Praeli will work on policy and advocacy, both nationally and in states and localities, where parallel fights are playing out over immigration, such as an anti-sanctuary city bill that passed in the Texas House of Representatives on Thursday.

She vowed tolook for ways that advocates can not just defend against deportation efforts but also enact pro-immigrant policies where they can, such as laws that allow undocumented immigrants to get drivers licenses and in-state tuition. On the defense, she said the ACLU would do a lot of work on immigration enforcement, including agents going into courthouses and schools.

Praeli offers an important perspective as a former undocumented immigrant herself. She moved to the U.S. with her family without authorization when she was 10 years old, making her one of the so-called Dreamers that came to the country as a child. She was undocumented up until 2012, when she married and received a green card. Praeli became a citizen in 2015 and voted in her first presidential election in 2016.

Being able to bring that experience into the room is incomparable, she said. You can talk about what undocumented people are going through or you can say I know this is whats happening because I myself was undocumented.

Praeli worked for United We Dream, a nationwide network of undocumented youth-led organization, as an advocacy and policy director until 2015, when she left to join the Clinton campaign.

Her history with immigration advocacy groups around the country and reputation in the advocacy community as a Dreamer was important in making the hire, said ACLU National Political Director Faiz Shakir.

What were building toward is being able to tell Trump not just See you in court but also see you in the streets, he said.

Praeli, who spoke at the Democratic National Convention that nominated Clinton, said her November loss was devastating and unexpected. But she did expect what happened next: A Trump crackdown on undocumented immigrants that he promised during the campaign but some people thought he wouldnt follow through on.

Still, its caused many people to engage in advocacy for the first time, which Praeli said she hopes to tap into in her new role.

I was devastated by the outcome of the election, she said. But Ive also known that our country would rise to the moment.

See more here:
Dreamer Lorella Praeli To Be A Leader Of Trump Resistance On Immigration - Huffington Post

The Texas Major Cities Chiefs and the Texas Police Chiefs Association would like to take this opportunity to respectfully oppose Senate Bill 4 as amended by the Texas House of Representatives.

SB 4 requires law enforcement agencies to become more involved in the enforcement of federal immigration laws.

No one believes in the rule of law more than the agencies represented by these two organizations. We work tirelessly to make our communities safer within the confines of the Constitution by arresting those who commit crimes that threaten our communities. We specifically target individuals committing violent crimes and arrest anyone who threatens the safety of our communities regardless of their immigration status.

Members of these organizations work extremely hard to build and maintain trust, communication and stronger relationships with minority communities through community-based policing and outreach programs. Broad mandates like those imposed by SB 4, require local law enforcement to take a more active role in immigration enforcement and will further strain the relationship between local law enforcement and the diverse communities we serve. Officers will start inquiring about the immigration status of every person they come in contact with or worse, only inquire about the immigration status of individuals based on their appearance. This will lead to distrust of police, less cooperation from members of the community and will foster the belief that they cannot seek assistance from police for fear of being subjected to an immigration status investigation.

Distrust and fear of contacting or assisting the police has already become evident among legal immigrants as well. Legal immigrants are beginning to avoid contact with the police for fear that they themselves or undocumented family members or friends may become subject to immigration enforcement. Such a divide between the local police and immigrant groups will result in increased crime against immigrants and in the broader community; create a class of silent victims; and eliminate the potential for assistance from immigrants in solving crimes or preventing crime.

It should not be forgotten that by not arresting criminals who victimize our immigrant communities, we are also allowing them to remain free to victimize every one of us. When it comes to criminals, we are in this together regardless of race, sex, religion or nation of origin. SB 4 will have the unintended consequence of making our communities more dangerous not safer, as we presume the Texas Legislature had intended.

Law enforcement in Texas works cooperatively with federal law enforcement agencies including Immigration and Customs Enforcement to disrupt violent street gangs and others who threaten our communities. If federal agencies file criminal charges or obtain judicially reviewed warrants on any person, local law enforcement officers arrest the person regardless of immigration status.

SB 4 reinforces the call by some for local police to become more involved in enforcing federal immigration laws; however, to comply with these constitutionally questionable requirements means stretching already-limited resources. At a time of strained law enforcement budgets and critically low jail space, narrowing the focus to violent criminals, human traffickers, gun traffickers and members of organized crime syndicates is critical. Requiring local law enforcement to prioritize immigration efforts without adequate funding or increased support from involved governmental agencies will hinder an agencys ability to focus its limited resources on the unique needs of the community it serves.

Immigration enforcement is first and foremost a federal obligation. Any immigration reform must begin with the federal government. While the federal government has not been able or willing to address this issue, any effort by the state of Texas to address immigration reform will be ineffective.

SB 4 is not the answer to comprehensive immigration reform; it is political pandering that will make our communities more dangerous. If the Texas Legislature is intent on passing legislation to address immigration reform, passing laws like SB 4 that require local law enforcement to become immigration agents is not the answer.

If the Legislature were serious about removing undocumented people, there are better ways to address this issue than forcing law enforcement to become immigration agents. The Texas Legislature could easily start by addressing the businesses that hire undocumented workers, which is why the majority of the honest, hard-working people emigrate to this country with or without documentation. By addressing the primary reason undocumented persons enter this state, it would free law enforcement to address those persons who are committing crimes.

Our organizations respectfully request that the members of the Texas Legislature withdraw the amendments to SB 4 that was passed by the Texas House of Representatives. This legislation is bad for Texas and will make our communities more dangerous for all.

By Austin interim Police Chief Brian Manley; Chief Will Johnson of Arlington; interim Chief David Pughes of Dallas; Chief Joel Fitzgerald of Fort Worth; Chief Art Acevedo of Houston; Chief William McManus of San Antonio; and James McLaughlin, executive director of Texas Police Chiefs Association.

See the article here:
Texas police chiefs: SB 4 is not comprehensive immigration reform - MyStatesman.com

This past week, an ABC News/Washington Post survey revealed that, if the election took place again today, Donald Trump would still win, and possibly by a wider margin. Many in the mainstream media, including ABC News George Stephanopoulos, expressed disbelief by these results. But it shouldnt take them by surprise. If members of the media are truly surprised, its because they are deceived by the biased language of many polls.

Polling on immigration exemplifies an inherent bias that produces skewed results. Over the past few weeks, media outlets have touted the idea that Trumps immigration policies counter the will of the people because support for immigration is at an all-time high. The Wall Street Journal went so far as to conclude that their latest poll on immigration suggests backlash to Trump administration policies. A number of other news agencies are also quick to note that their polls apparently signal opposition to Trumps policies.

However, if you take time to investigate the wording of these polls, a different picture becomes obvious. The same Wall Street Journal poll, which reports that 60 percent of likely voters support immigration, is tailor-made for a pro-immigration response. The wording specifically required that respondents decide if immigration as a whole generally helps or generally hurts the nation. As could be predicted, the survey harvested a generally positive view on immigration. Similarly, when Gallup asked voters on the whole, do you think immigration is a good or bad thing for this country? during this past election cycle, a whopping 72 percent cited immigration as a good thing.

Wording poll questions like this leaves likely voters without the ability to expound on their opinions of the American immigration system. If they want to voice displeasure with the current system, they are required to condemn immigration as a whole, which is unfair and illogical.

Surveys mainly non-mainstream media polls that are willing to ask specific questions related to immigration, paint a different picture. While many news organizations reported on the Gallup poll question signaling support for immigration as an overall practice, most ignored a more specific question in the same poll that revealed a vast majority of voters (76 percent) want to reduce immigration levels or leave them the same. In addition, a recent Rasmussen poll that shows only 15 percent of voters oppose Trumps recent Executive Order that includes reforming the H-1B worker program.

Very few Americans believe that immigration, as a practice, is evil and/or entirely without benefit. Neither does President Trump. What Americans do oppose, however, is a broken and out of control immigration system that favors those who violate or abuse the law. Honest surveys show this. However, even if the mainstream media avoids reporting on them, the American people still back President Trumps efforts to enact meaningful immigration reform that serves the best interests of American citizens.

See original here:
Don't Fall For the Mainstream Media's Polling on Immigration - ImmigrationReform.com (blog)

That's it. That's the entirety of our Constitution's First Amendment, the central animus of our American way of life that gets dragged out every time someone's banned from Twitter.

There's a lot going on in those few sentences, and it's important to know when and how it applies to common situations -- and, equally as important, when it doesn't.

Let's look at some common First Amendment arguments; illuminated and debunked by a constitutional expert.

If it's a private institution, it's probably not a First Amendment issue.

If it's a public institution, the lines can get blurry.

"If you invite someone to speak on your campus and are a public university, you have to respect their First Amendment rights," Nott says. That doesn't mean you can't put regulations on a speech, like dictating the time, place, venue and suggestions for subject matter. It just means you can't do so in a way that discriminates against a certain point of view.

If students protesting play a hand in moving or canceling a speaker, that presents a different free speech challenge.

"If a speaker were to take legal action for being blocked from speaking, they can't do it against the students. You can't take constitutional action against a group of private citizens," she adds.

Such a complaint would have to go against the school, for allowing the constitutional breach to happen.

This is not a First Amendment issue though plenty of people think it is.

This scenario illustrates one of the biggest misconceptions people have about the First Amendment. Bottom line: It protects you from the government punishing or censoring or oppressing your speech. It doesn't apply to private organizations. "So if, say, Twitter decides to ban you, you'd be a bit out of luck," Nott says. "You can't make a First Amendment claim in court."

However, while it's not unconstitutional, if private platforms outright ban certain types of protected speech, it sets an uncomfortable precedent for the values of free speech.

If you work for a private company, it's probably not a First Amendment issue.

"It's the company's right to discipline their employees' speech," Nott says.

If you're a government employee, it's complicated.

Institutions like police departments, public schools and local government branches can't restrict employee's free speech rights, but they do need to assure that such speech doesn't keep the employee from doing their job. It's definitely a balancing act, and the rise of social media has made it harder for such institutions to regulate their employee's speech in a constitutional manner.

Definitely a First Amendment issue.

But, like pretty much everything in law, there are exceptions and nuances.

"It's definitely unconstitutional, unless you are trying to incite people to violence with your speech," Nott says. Even then, it needs to be a true threat -- one that has immediacy and some sort of actual intent.

It's a private company, so it's not a First Amendment issue.

There's that refrain again: Private companies, like social media sites, can do whatever they want.

But regulating conversations and posts online is a delicate balance for social media giants like Facebook.

"That says, if you are an internet company and you have some way for people to post or leave comments, you are not liable for what they do," Nott says. This covers things like obscenity, violence and threats.

The problem is, this protection often butts up against the enforcement of basic community standards.

"Facebook is under enormous pressure to take down, not just violent and illegal content, but fake news," Nott says. "And the more it starts to play editor for its own site, the more likely it is to lose that Section 230 protection."

This is a First Amendment issue, at the very least in spirit.

"Symbolic speech is protected by the constitution," Nott says. "In essence, you have the right to not speak. You have the right to silence."

In theory, a private employer could require you to stand for the anthem or say the Pledge of Allegiance, but such a requirement may run afoul of the Civil Rights Act. Even in schools, where there have been some cases of students being singled out for sitting or kneeling for the anthem, it would be hard to provide justification for punishment.

"This is an act of political speech, the most protected type of speech," Nott says. "It's completely not disruptive because it's silent." Plus, it is buttressed by court cases that have decided there is no requirement to salute the flag.

A First Amendment issue -- usually.

You are fully within your rights to record the police doing their job in public. And if you get arrested while doing so, your constitutional rights are being violated.

This is, unless you were doing something unlawful at the time of your arrest.

In a heated situation with police, that can also become a gray area. Physical assault or threats could obviously get you arrested, but what about if you were just yelling at the police while recording, say, to get them to stop an act or to pay attention?

"That's tough," Nott says. "If you were disturbing the peace, you can get arrested for that, or for other things. But the bottom line is it's not a crime to record police activities in a public space."

If it's a student publication, it's a First Amendment issue.

Nott points to a landmark Supreme Court cases from 1969 that has acted as a standard for cases involving free speech at public universities and colleges. That's Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, which you can read more about below.

Another case, Bazaar v. Fortune from 1973, helps tailor these guidelines to the student press by stating that schools cannot act as "private publishers" just because they fund a student publication or program. In other words, they can't punish the publication -- whether it be through student firings, budget cuts or withdrawals or a ban -- just for printing or broadcasting something they don't like.

Now, a gentle reminder that this is just for PUBLIC schools. All together now: Private institutions can (usually) do what they want!

More:
The First Amendment doesn't guarantee you the rights you ...

That's it. That's the entirety of our Constitution's First Amendment, the central animus of our American way of life that gets dragged out every time someone's banned from Twitter.

There's a lot going on in those few sentences, and it's important to know when and how it applies to common situations -- and, equally as important, when it doesn't.

Let's look at some common First Amendment arguments; illuminated and debunked by a constitutional expert.

If it's a private institution, it's probably not a First Amendment issue.

If it's a public institution, the lines can get blurry.

"If you invite someone to speak on your campus and are a public university, you have to respect their First Amendment rights," Nott says. That doesn't mean you can't put regulations on a speech, like dictating the time, place, venue and suggestions for subject matter. It just means you can't do so in a way that discriminates against a certain point of view.

If students protesting play a hand in moving or canceling a speaker, that presents a different free speech challenge.

"If a speaker were to take legal action for being blocked from speaking, they can't do it against the students. You can't take constitutional action against a group of private citizens," she adds.

Such a complaint would have to go against the school, for allowing the constitutional breach to happen.

This is not a First Amendment issue though plenty of people think it is.

This scenario illustrates one of the biggest misconceptions people have about the First Amendment. Bottom line: It protects you from the government punishing or censoring or oppressing your speech. It doesn't apply to private organizations. "So if, say, Twitter decides to ban you, you'd be a bit out of luck," Nott says. "You can't make a First Amendment claim in court."

However, while it's not unconstitutional, if private platforms outright ban certain types of protected speech, it sets an uncomfortable precedent for the values of free speech.

If you work for a private company, it's probably not a First Amendment issue.

"It's the company's right to discipline their employees' speech," Nott says.

If you're a government employee, it's complicated.

Institutions like police departments, public schools and local government branches can't restrict employee's free speech rights, but they do need to assure that such speech doesn't keep the employee from doing their job. It's definitely a balancing act, and the rise of social media has made it harder for such institutions to regulate their employee's speech in a constitutional manner.

Definitely a First Amendment issue.

But, like pretty much everything in law, there are exceptions and nuances.

"It's definitely unconstitutional, unless you are trying to incite people to violence with your speech," Nott says. Even then, it needs to be a true threat -- one that has immediacy and some sort of actual intent.

It's a private company, so it's not a First Amendment issue.

There's that refrain again: Private companies, like social media sites, can do whatever they want.

But regulating conversations and posts online is a delicate balance for social media giants like Facebook.

"That says, if you are an internet company and you have some way for people to post or leave comments, you are not liable for what they do," Nott says. This covers things like obscenity, violence and threats.

The problem is, this protection often butts up against the enforcement of basic community standards.

"Facebook is under enormous pressure to take down, not just violent and illegal content, but fake news," Nott says. "And the more it starts to play editor for its own site, the more likely it is to lose that Section 230 protection."

This is a First Amendment issue, at the very least in spirit.

"Symbolic speech is protected by the constitution," Nott says. "In essence, you have the right to not speak. You have the right to silence."

In theory, a private employer could require you to stand for the anthem or say the Pledge of Allegiance, but such a requirement may run afoul of the Civil Rights Act. Even in schools, where there have been some cases of students being singled out for sitting or kneeling for the anthem, it would be hard to provide justification for punishment.

"This is an act of political speech, the most protected type of speech," Nott says. "It's completely not disruptive because it's silent." Plus, it is buttressed by court cases that have decided there is no requirement to salute the flag.

A First Amendment issue -- usually.

You are fully within your rights to record the police doing their job in public. And if you get arrested while doing so, your constitutional rights are being violated.

This is, unless you were doing something unlawful at the time of your arrest.

In a heated situation with police, that can also become a gray area. Physical assault or threats could obviously get you arrested, but what about if you were just yelling at the police while recording, say, to get them to stop an act or to pay attention?

"That's tough," Nott says. "If you were disturbing the peace, you can get arrested for that, or for other things. But the bottom line is it's not a crime to record police activities in a public space."

If it's a student publication, it's a First Amendment issue.

Nott points to a landmark Supreme Court cases from 1969 that has acted as a standard for cases involving free speech at public universities and colleges. That's Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, which you can read more about below.

Another case, Bazaar v. Fortune from 1973, helps tailor these guidelines to the student press by stating that schools cannot act as "private publishers" just because they fund a student publication or program. In other words, they can't punish the publication -- whether it be through student firings, budget cuts or withdrawals or a ban -- just for printing or broadcasting something they don't like.

Now, a gentle reminder that this is just for PUBLIC schools. All together now: Private institutions can (usually) do what they want!

More:
The First Amendment doesn't guarantee you the rights you think it does - CNN