Mediaboss Marketing

From the moment of Donald Trumps election, immigration advocates in Illinois have been looking for ways to not just survive the next four years but to keep advancing an immigrant-friendly agenda.

On Monday, they unveiled the Illinois TRUST Act, which seeks to extend some of the same local protections enjoyed by undocumented immigrants in Chicago and Cook County to the rest of the state.

A key provision in the legislation would bar state and local police in Illinois from engaging in immigration enforcement unless presented by federal immigration agents with a warrant issued by a judge, supporters said.

Another provision would bar federal immigration agents from entering schools or hospitals without a court-issued warrant.

OPINION

The legislation will likely be portrayed by opponents as an attempt to make Illinois a sanctuary state that runsthe risk of being susceptible to Trumps threats to withhold federal funding.

For that reason, organizers led by the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights intentionally avoided use of the word sanctuary and argued the legislation would not violate federal law.

The TRUST Act takes its name from the idea that immigrant communities are more likely to report crimes and cooperate with police if they trust their immigration status will not be made an issue.

Similar legislation has failed in the past because of concerns from local law enforcement officials, conceded Senate President John Cullerton of Chicago, the bills chief sponsor.

This time, Cullerton said, were hopeful the law enforcement community will be supportive, rather than wary.

Cullerton argued the measure would free up police to fight crime instead of enforcing immigration.

But many local jurisdictions are only too happy for their police to aid in the effort to remove those who entered the country illegally.

Cullerton was joined for the announcement by a handful of Democratic senators from the Chicago metro area, including Sen. Daniel Biss of Evanston, an announced candidate for governor.

Biss said he would welcome Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner joining the group at its next press conference to take credit for helping to pass the bill.

But Democrats would probably be just as happy if they could blame Rauner if the legislation fails.

Rauner has declared himself a supporter of comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

But the governor has been cautious about spending political capital on immigration issues, especially in the wake of Trumps anti-immigrant campaign, and Democrats have been looking to flush him out.

As of late Monday, the actual legislation had yet to be filed, so I must rely on supporters descriptions of what it would do.

In addition to barring local police from enforcing immigration laws, the measure would also prohibit state or local governments from participating in any federal registry based on national origin or religion.

That is aimed at the Muslim registry Trump promised during the campaign but has since avoided.

Another part of the bill would require law enforcement agencies to complete paperwork certifying some undocumented immigrants as crime victims. The certification allows immigrants to apply for legal status in the U.S. if they can also show they also cooperated in the investigation of the crime.

Immigrant rights advocates, looking for legal ways to protect immigrants in the face of Trumps deportation threats, say many local law enforcement agencies either refuse to prepare the certifications or do so slowly.

This particular type of visa was originally intended to protect victims of domestic abuse. Ill admit Im puzzled by the logic of giving crime victims a leg up in the immigration process.

Lawrence Benito, the coalitions chief executive officer, said the group wants to make Illinois the most welcoming state for immigrants and refugees in the country.

The problem may be that part of Illinois is welcoming, and part of it isnt.

More here:
Brown: Advocates say TRUST us, immigrant bill gives no sanctuary - Chicago Sun-Times

I hope Coloradans can count on Sens. Cory Gardner and Michael Bennet and Rep. Jared Polis to refuse to pass any budget appropriating money toward President Donald Trump's wall. Using our money to build a wall is an irresponsible diversion of resources from real and important immigration issues impacting economic growth.

The executive order to build the wall is based on false premises. It assumes Mexicans come over the border in droves, when fewer Mexicans are immigrating than ever before due to fewer available jobs, increased border security during the Obama administration and changing demographics. The order assumes a wall is going to stop the flow of immigrants when 40 percent of immigrants enter the U.S. legally by air and overstay their visas. Finally, it assumes Mexicans are violent offenders and terrorists. Of 11 million undocumented immigrants, 2.7 percent have been convicted of a felony compared to 8.5 percent in the overall U.S. population. There are no documented acts of terror committed by Mexican nationals.

A real immigration issue is that our economy relies on immigrants to provide a flexible source of labor in many low-paying service jobs, yet there is no easy path to legal status for low-skilled workers. It is a myth that immigrants drain the system. In addition to filling low-paying jobs that keep down prices, undocumented immigrants contribute $139.5 million annually to Colorado's economy in state and local income taxes.

Immigration policy based on building a wall and deporting 11 million undocumented immigrants will take 20 years, cost $425 billion, and shrink GDP by $1.6 trillion. A policy based on sensible immigration reform providing a path to legalization for undocumented low-skilled workers would produce an annual increase in $25 billion for government coffers and increase GDP by $1.4 trillion over 10 years. It just makes sense.

Shelly Wells

Fort Collins

Read the original post:
Immigration reform needed, but a wall certainly isn't - Loveland Reporter-Herald

ACLU Launches Multilingual Ad Campaign in Defense of First Amendment Common Dreams The campaign kicked off with the unveiling of electronic billboards featuring the First Amendment in Arabic, English, and Spanish in New York's Times Square and at bus stops in Washington, D.C. The First Amendment in all three languages will also be ...

See the original post here:
ACLU Launches Multilingual Ad Campaign in Defense of First Amendment - Common Dreams

Gene Policinski, Gannett 11:59 a.m. ET April 4, 2017

A man looks over the front pages from newspapers around the country on display outside the Newseum in Washington in this file photo from November of 2014.(Photo: Susan Walsh/AP)

Who brings us the news? Mostly its still men, according to a new Womens Media Center study, Divided 2017.

The report says that among the major TV networks, online versions of CNN, Fox, The Huffington Post and The Daily Beast, and the nations 10 largest newspapers:

#EqualPayDay: What you need to know about women in the workforce

Editorial: First Amendment victory in Trenton

The gender disparity shown in the survey is obvious in terms of numbers and simple equity, considering that women make up 51 percent of the population. But its implications, including the impact on news credibility, may not be so clear to news consumers. Cristal Williams Chancellor, the centers director of communications, noted in an interview that many of our fellow citizens are comfortable with men in anchor chairs or dominating story bylines. But in an era in which a majority of people say they distrust the news media and its motives, the most credible news operations should have diverse staffs that represent both their subjects and their audiences, she said.

Clearly, the news industry still falls short of having enough women to meet that goal. Why?

Its not for a lack of qualified female job candidates-in-training: Women made up two-thirds of the student body enrolled in journalism and media-oriented degree programs during the fall 2013 semester, according to data from the most recent Annual Survey of Journalism and Mass Communication Enrollment.

One factor in the lack of overall visibility may come from the finding that lifestyle, health and education remain the topics where women most likely appear. I can recall that same circumstance in newsrooms of the 1960s.

Another bit of history: The American Society of News Editors annual newsroom census found in 2016 that the number of women leaders and employees has remained nearly the same since the 1990s. The survey that year reported that women made up about a third of newsroom employees overall, with a higher number employed at online-only sites than at newspapers. Women comprised 38 percent of daily newspaper employees in this years survey and nearly 50 percent of online-only news organization employees.

At a 2014 ASNE conference, women who were editors also called for changes in hiring and the review/promotion process to address old canards of how women in leadership roles are perceived. Fast Company senior editor Kathleen Davis referenced a study of 248 performance reviews of 180 men and women in media, prepared by both men and women, which showed the word abrasive was used 17 times for women and never for men.

None of these stats or biases is the sole province of newsrooms, to be sure. And going back to the mid-20th century, women in leadership roles in major news operations from the news desk to the corporate suite more often resulted from inherited ownership than from corporate diversity considerations.

But the profession that represents us all in gathering and reporting the news ought to be more of a leader in the 21st century in being representative of all of us.

Gene Policinski is chief operating officer of the Newseum Institute and senior vice president of the First Amendment Center, 555 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, D.C., 20001.

Read or Share this story: https://njersy.co/2nTrwB2

Read the original:
Inside the First Amendment: Men bring much of the news - NorthJersey.com

When free speech threatens government power, government has a tendency to get curious about the identity and funding of dissenting speakers. This was true in the civil-rights era, when the state of Alabama tried to force the NAACP to divulge its membership lists. It was true during the Obama administration, when the IRS targeted the Tea Party for illegal scrutiny not merely by asking in some cases for donor lists but also by inquiring about the political activities of family members of tea-party leaders and the login information of tea-party websites. And it was certainly true in the state of Wisconsin, when law enforcement used terrifying dawn and pre-dawn raids to gather information about First Amendmentprotected issue advocacy about labor-union reform.

But why threaten to batter down a door when you can just pass a law that batters away at the Constitution?

Thats the state of New Yorks approach, and its now facing one of the more important First Amendment challenges that youve likely never heard of. The case is called Citizens Union of the City of New York v. The Governor of the State of New York, and the law its challenging is a sprawling, complex monstrosity that imposes extraordinary regulations on speech about political issues, not just in support of political candidates. In other words, if nonprofits want to speak about life, gun rights, tax reform, or any number of issues that profoundly affect American lives, they will now find state bureaucrats watching and examining their activities closely.

Like many campaign-finance or so-called transparency regulations, devilish government intervention is hidden within a labyrinth of details that even lawyers struggle to decipher, but the bottom line is that the law guts donor confidentiality when a 501(c)(4) the kind of nonprofit at issue in the Tea Partytargeting scandal actively tries to influence public policy. In other words, if it tries to reach 500 or more people in the general public and refers to and advocates for or against a clearly identified elected official or the position of any elected official or administrative or legislative body relating to the outcome of any vote or substance of any legislation, potential legislation, pending legislation, rule, regulation, hearing, or decision by any legislative, executive or administrative body, then the law triggers extraordinary disclosure obligations.

Notice the incredible breadth of the law. If a nonprofit wants to advocate against even the position of an elected official (not even against their election or reelection), theyre going to be forced to disclose the identities of every management official in the nonprofit, describe the communications covered by the law, detail the key financial arrangements that facilitated their communications, and then disclose all of the organizations significant donors (those who gave $1,000 or more). The law even extends similar disclosure requirements to 501(c)(3) organizations when they make even minimal financial or in-kind donations (such as office space or office supplies) to covered 501(c)(4) organizations.

The end result is a law that gives government and hostile members of the public a splendid way to monitor private citizens who engage in speech on matters of public concern. This gets transparency and accountability exactly backwards, and it degrades the sanctity of anonymous speech, a right that was critical to the founding of our constitutional republic and has proven critical to public reforms ever since. Transparency is a government obligation. Anonymity is a First Amendmentprotected individual right.

While private citizens in the U.S. as a general matter dont face the same risks that members of the NAACP faced in Alabama in the 1950s, free speech still carries with it substantial and increasing perils. You name the hot-button political issue, and you can find people whove suffered from boycotts, job loss, harassment, and even physical threats (on both sides of the political aisle). Weve already stripped anonymity from direct donors to political campaigns, but if the new message to our nation and culture is you have free speech to address issues only if youre strong enough to deal with the consequences, then public discourse will tend to narrow into the lowest common denominator of inoffensive, irrelevant speech or remain the exclusive province of those few people willing to endure unacceptable risks.

Simply put, a robust First Amendment requires substantial protection for anonymous speech especially speech about political issues. Indeed, the First Amendment was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.

Supporters of the law will claim that theyre protecting individual rights through provisions that give the states attorney general discretion to restrict public disclosures when those disclosures may cause harm, threats, harassment, or reprisals, but this does nothing to preserve anonymity from the government, nor does it protect a right of anonymity from the public. Your right is now a privilege, granted to you by the very officials whose positions you may be attacking and whose priorities you may be frustrating.

If I want to give money to support the cause of life, thats not the governments business. If I want to give money to support gun rights, thats not the governments business. Indeed, its not anyones business. In the name of transparency, New York empowers Big Brother. It also empowers hostile mobs. The government isnt protecting citizens from corruption. Its corrupting the First Amendment to protect itself.

David French is a staff writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and an attorney.

READ MORE:

Read the original:
In New York, Big Brother Is Watching Your Free Speech - National Review