Mediaboss Marketing

SYRACUSE, N.Y. -- More than 200 Democratic committee members are casting a vote Thursday, choosing among the party's seven mayoral hopefuls.

"People are excited; there's a lot of energy," Onondaga County Democratic Chair Mark English said.

A candidate needs to win 50 percent plus one for a majority of the weighted vote. If that candidate isn't reached Thursday, the committee will vote again Saturday. If that vote doesn't lead to a majority, the top two candidates will go to a head-to-head vote. Committee members will evaluate everything.

"The personality and the quality of the person is the most important thing," English said.

Also important is the ability to raise money and win in November.

"We want to see energy; familiarity with the city, love of the city," English said.

Whoever comes out Saturday with the designation will have the financial backing and resources of the party, but with six other candidates in the race, a primary will almost be assured.

"We'll find out, English said. After the designations completed, we'll do everything we can to get people behind the designated candidate. If there's a primary, we'll deal with that too."

Candidates who don't get the party designation will have to find 1,000 signatures from party members to appear on the ballot. Some candidates have already said they will.

"It's just another part of the process," English said.

The Democratic candidates are Raymond Blackwell, Alfonso Davis, Chris Fowler, Marty Masterpole, Andrew Maxwell, Joe Nicoletti and Juanita Perez Williams.

More here:
Democrats Begin Process of Picking Mayoral Candidate - TWC News

Jim Bogart Published 7:00 p.m. PT May 10, 2017 | Updated 7:01 p.m. PT May 10, 2017

Jim Bogart Jim Bogart(Photo: The Salinas Californian)Buy Photo

As everyone knows, the need for significant and comprehensive immigration reform is long overdue. I personally have been going back to Washington D.C. for more than twenty years advocating for much-needed changes to our immigration laws. So have many of my colleagues in agriculture including, but not limited to: growers, shippers, processors, packers, harvesters, and fellow farm organization representatives.

A decade after the Immigration Reform and Control Act was passed and signed into law in 1986, we in agriculture realized major modifications and improvements were necessary to provide those who produce our nations fruits and vegetables access to a legal and stable workforce. Agriculture has been on the front lines of this fight since day one.

Yet, I continue to be amazed and disappointed when I read or hear: Where is ag on this issue? Why isnt ag doing more? Why isnt ag supporting its workers? Why isnt ag more visible and more engaged in this debate?

Let me set the record straight no one has worked longer or harder on immigration reform than those of us in agriculture. From the outset we have made clear that immigration reform must protect the workers already here by adjusting their legal status to allow them to stay here and be eligible to work here. Our members have not only communicated this message to the President (past and present) and Congress (past and present) but also to our workers.

Weve provided information and guidance to agricultural employers on what to do if U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) shows up for an inspection or audit of 1-9 Forms.

More importantly, weve provided a written summary of legal rights and protections workers have should they be questioned or detained by ICE or other federal officials.

The ag industry has been instrumental in forming the National Council of Agricultural Employers, the Agricultural Coalition for Immigration Reform, and the Agricultural Workforce Coalition. These three organizations are focused on one thing achieving comprehensive immigration reform.

And we may finally be making some headway. Recent developments and statements have given me some cautious optimism. For example, an Executive Order issued April 25 promoting agriculture and rural prosperity specifically charges the task force created to guide this effort to ensure access to a reliable workforce and increase employment opportunities in agriculture-related and rural-focused businesses. Translation: give agriculture access to a legal, stable, and experienced workforce.

Just a few weeks ago, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions stated that ICE will not focus its efforts on illegal immigrants who have, other than entering the country illegally, abided by our nations laws. The Attorney Generals comments confirm what we in the agriculture industry have understood to be the Administrations interior enforcement policy: ICE activities will be directed toward deporting felons, not farm workers.

Just last week, the Agricultural Worker Program Act was introduced in the U.S. Senate. While any solution to fix our broken immigration system must be comprehensive, this legislation elevates an issue often overlooked in the debate: Retention of the existing agricultural workforce.

If this bill can lead to a broader discussion that acknowledges the contributions and value of current farm workers while creating a workable program to enable the future flow of labor to American farms, I believe we are well on our way to an effective and, hopefully, bipartisan solution to this decades-long problem.

These comments and recent developments are a direct result of efforts made by agriculture. Yet, for some reason, this goes unnoticed, unreported, and overlooked despite repeated attempts by those of us in the industry to communicate these facts to elected officials, the media, and the community. My fear is that this is because ags message doesnt advance a particular narrative or square with a particular ideological agenda. Be that as it may, it will not prevent us from continuing to fight the good fight to protect our agricultural workforce. Its a battle that weve been waging and leading for a long time, but its well worth it.

Read or Share this story: http://bit.ly/2q4qjK9

See original here:
Ag leading fight for immigration reform - The Salinas Californian

In the wee hours of the morning on May 1, 2017, Congress passed a $1.1 trillion spending bill to fund the federal government through September 2017. However, while the pundits on Capitol Hill hailed this as a wonderful bipartisan bill that proves both parties can work together, further examination of the bill shows that illegal aliens win and American citizens loose again!

President Trump has signed 90 executive actions since he took office in January 2017 six of which dealt specifically with immigration. But most of the changes the president has tried to implement regarding immigration and refugee intake have been temporarily thwarted by activist judges, ignored by state and local government officials in sanctuary jurisdictions or shot down by Congress.

With President Trump in office, its supposed to be time to cut-off incentives for illegal immigration, beef up enforcement at the border and the interior of the country, and increase the threat of deportation for illegal aliens especially those who have committed heinous crimes against American citizens. It should also be high time to clean up the immigration mess left by the Obama administration. The spending bill was supposed to be part of that process but the Republican leadership in Congress gave up without a fight. So did the administration, although the president later hinted in a Tweet that he will be prepared to do so as the FY 2018 budget is negotiated. But that remains to be seen.

President Trump asked for money to build a wall in the spending bill. He also wanted to cutoff certain federal funding to sanctuary cities. The president has tried to deliver on some of his campaign promises through the use of executive action, but other much needed reforms require Congress to act.

American citizens must continue to keep the pressure on Congress and stand behind President Trumpto make sure hekeeps his promiseson immigration reform.

Go here to read the rest:
Congress Has Failed Again | Immigration Reform Blog - ImmigrationReform.com (blog)

Forbes

Department Of Labor's Fiduciary Rule Is Vulnerable On First Amendment Grounds Forbes Promulgated in April 2016, the Department of Labor's (DOL) highly controversial Fiduciary Rule drastically expands the universe of retirement investment advisors and employees who are deemed to be fiduciaries under federal law. Abandoning 40 years of ... Fiduciary Rule Violates First Amendment, Law Firm Argues ...Bloomberg BNA Financial Advisor IQ - Fiduciary Rule Slammed as First Amendment ...Financial Advisor IQ (registration) all 13 news articles »

See the rest here:
Department Of Labor's Fiduciary Rule Is Vulnerable On First Amendment Grounds - Forbes

The Bill of Rights surely ranks as one of the most difficult documents for us, as Americans, to contend with.

Theres enough in that list of 10 rights to make each of us a little uncomfortable, depending on your political persuasion.

Me? I get hung up on the Second Amendment. I dislike guns and I have seen how much damage they can unleash on families and communities. Just ask the parents at Sandy Hook.

But its there and like it or not we, as a community, have to follow the law as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court no matter how wrong-headed we think the opinion is. If I respect the Constitution, I respect the rule of law.

Then theres the Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful searches of your property and person. It provides great protection for me and my family if the police come pounding on my door and want to search my house without a warrant.

But it also means that even if my neighbor is the nastiest drug dealer in the city, the police cannot crash through their door without cause or a warrant. And if the police dont play by the rules? The evidence might get tossed out of court and that nasty drug dealer goes free.

Then theres the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, which led to the high court establishing the Miranda warning. You hear that in every TV cop show and again, if the police dont read defendants their rights at the time of arrest, a criminals statement just might get thrown out of court, even if it means a guilty person goes free.

Uncomfortable. But the law.

Perhaps the most vexing of all the amendments in the Bill of Rights is the first one you know, the one about free speech, a free press, freedom to worship or not, and the right to assemble.

I personally hope to never have to listen to the likes of white supremacist Richard Spencer talking about making white privilege great again as he did recently at Auburn University in Alabama. But as long as he wasnt inciting violence yes, there are restrictions that can be placed on speech he had a right to speak.

It should have been the same with Ann Coulter in Berkeley, Calif., where her speech was stopped because of a threat of violence. Whether you agree with her is beside the point. She and her followers have a right to free speech just as those who disagree with her have a right to protest peacefully.

That pesky First Amendment.

Indianas legislators showed this past legislative session that while they may love First Amendment protections for themselves, when it comes to high school journalists not so much. After pressure from principals, superintendents and the Department of Education, they refused to extend First Amendment protections to high school journalists and their advisers.

Order and control trumped the First Amendment.

Whats most disheartening about the failure of this piece of legislation is the way it undermines a real opportunity for students to learn from first-hand experience how the Constitution works.

What better civics education is there than to learn about our constitutionally protected freedoms than by living them?

Will there be mistakes? Yes, of course. Thats the price of a free press. And just as there are limits on speech there are limits on the press you deliberately print falsehoods and you can get sued.

Should that fear of students running amuck with their pens and notebooks override the chance to let them live the values we claim to extol in the Constitution? No, it shouldnt.

Some of our lawmakers would be much more comfortable allowing guns in school for protection, of course than would want a free and open student press.

Yes, the First Amendment is pesky and hard. And just because something is hard doesnt mean we quash it. Thats not how our democracy works.

Janet Williams is editor of TheStatehouseFile.com, a news website powered by Franklin College journalism students. She can be reached at jwilliams4@franklincollege.edu.

Read the original here:
WILLIAMS: Living the First Amendment is hard work | Opinion ... - Evening News and Tribune