Mediaboss Marketing

John Faso talks with the media voting Nov. 8 in Kinderhook, New York. Faso won the 19th Congressional District seat.(Photo: Mike Groll / Associated Press)

ALBANY -- After his vote in favor of the replacement to Obamacare, Rep. John Faso is under pressure from Democrats in his Hudson Valley district.

Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, D-Cold Spring, is making the rare move to hold an event in a colleagues district Monday night in Kingston, and Faso picked up a possible Democratic candidate for his re-election in 2018.

Gareth Rhodes, a former aide to Gov. Andrew Cuomo, on Monday said he is considering a run against Faso in the 19th District, which stretches from Dutchess County and into the Capital region.

"I am considering a run for Congress because our representative has sold out this community and has chosen Trump over us," Rhodes, 29, an Ulster County native, wrote on Medium.

"Its time to repeal and replace John Faso."

Faso brushed off the criticism Monday, knocking Maloney and claiming he is distorting the bill passed Thursday by the U.S. House that would repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.

The measure is now being debated in the U.S. Senate.

"There are many conflicting reports regarding what is covered and what is not covered under the American Health Care Act," Faso, a freshman from Kinderhook, said in a statement Monday.

"The claim that rape and sexual assault would be considered as a pre-existing condition. That claim is false."

He added that New York is one of 45 states that have consumer protections "that would prevent insurance companies from discriminating against those with pre-existing conditions.

Maloney visiting Kingston comes after he said he challenged Faso to visit Maloney's neighboring 18th District in Putnam and Westchester counties so Faso could explain his vote.

All New York Democrats in the House voted against the American Health Care Act, but all but two Republicans voted for it.

Maloney said in a news release he asked "Faso to attend the town hall in his district and answer questions for his constituents about his vote for TrumpCare."

When Faso refused, Maloney said he would "adopt the district and hold the 6:30 p.m. event in Kingston.

Faso called it a "political stunt."

"These things go beyond the pale, and it is really outrageous," Faso said on WGDJ-AM (1300) Monday about Maloney's criticism that certain conditions are not covered under the new bill.

"I didnt expect much from Maloney, and hes proving my instinct correct."

Read or Share this story: http://www.lohud.com/story/news/politics/politics-on-the-hudson/2017/05/08/democrats-target-faso/312816001/

Read the rest here:
Democrats target Faso - The Journal News / Lohud.com

It was said countless times during the 2016 US election cycle, but it bears mentioning again that the peoples votes represented a referendum on the status quo. Voters from all walks of life expressed deep frustration with the political elite on both sides of the aisle. However, Donald Trump was by far the biggest beneficiary of this sentiment.

As I reflect on last years election, it is clear to me that Trump saw something that no one else noticed. At least, not until it was too late for the other candidates to do anything about it. He knew that anger had built up to a boiling point in average ordinary adults across the nation. He also understood that this frustration cut across party lines but more importantly he understood why people were angry illegal immigration.

Some felt that by looking the other way as migrants crossed the U.S. border that our nations leaders were putting the priorities of others above its own citizens. Still, others are concerned for their families safety, while many blame illegal immigration for the soft labor market. But whatever the case, during the campaign Mr. Trump zeroed in on these sentiments and put illegal immigration at the center of his campaign.

It isnt the migrants fault that Mexico and several other Central American countries are collapsing under the weight of a brutal drug-induced crime spree. Left to choose between staying in a country where either you work for the cartels or you die, is it any wonder that so many flee for safety across the U.S.-Mexico border?

Just on this basis alone, theres a case to be made that at least those affected by the violence be allowed asylum in the U.S. However, there are other issues at play, as well. Such as the fact that many of these undocumented workers have lived here most or all of their lives. As such, asking them to go back is inhumane.

One of the reasons its been so hard to pull off a comprehensive immigration reform package in the past is that given the countrys lax enforcement, the will to get it done has been weak.

The so-called Gang of Eight was made of four Republicans and four Democrats and, including Mr. Rubio represents the most recent attempt. They teamed up in 2013, to draft an immigration bill. Although the bill made it out of the Senate, conservative opposition in the House prevented it from making its way to then President Obama.

The core framework of the immigration bill (S-744) proposed by Schumer and Rubio in 2013 was based on the failed KennedyMcCain legislation of 2005. On amnesty, for example, SchumerRubio granted illegal immigrants immediate provisional status.

One of the reasons opponents of the Schumer-Rubio voted against it is that while it included no immediate border security timetable, illegal immigrants were granted immediate amnesty, albeit through probationary status.

Indeed, the bill was so unpopular that former Tea Party darling, Marco Rubio, fell out of favor with conservatives and was unable to regain his stature within the Rights grassroots community. Its no wonder that many credit the failed initiative with rousing up the same anti-immigrant sentiment that got Trump elected.

Most of the DACA employment authorization documents (EADs) that former President Obama granted to undocumented minors expire within the next year. Their expiration represents a perfect opportunity for the Trump administration.

Although some within his party dont want President Trump to renew the status of the undocumented who came as minors, it may be in their best interest. If the publics lukewarm reception to the American Healthcare Act is anything to go by, the Republicans could use a solid win. And who wouldnt want to be seen as the side that solved this long-standing issue?

Thats what makes Trump the right person for the job. He can convince his party that hes serious about enforcing the law and that the right deal could gain the support of all sides, while make enforcing the law more cost-effective.

Wishful thinking? Consider this since Bannons influence in the administration began to wane, Ivanka Trump has emerged as one of Trumps most influential advisors. The result has been a steady move to the center on Trumps part.

A move towards comprehensive amnesty is certainly within Ivankas wheelhouse, not just because Ivankas a Democrat, but its consistent with many of her other positions. So, the only question is whether she could convince her father that its in his best interest to act.

Anyone who doubts her ability to do so need only recall the Syrian strike for proof that its indeed possible.

See the article here:
Why Comprehensive Immigration Reform May Be Next On Trump's ... - Huffington post (press release) (blog)

posted at 11:01 am on May 7, 2017 by Jazz Shaw

I had thought that the current agenda for any sort of immigration reform was pretty clear following the last election cycle. There would be no discussions of amnesty or any other priorities of liberals and open borders advocates until the border was secure and progress was being made on getting at least the worst offending criminal illegal aliens out of the country. Apparently I was mistaken. Ilya Somin, writing at the Volokh Conspiracy, is pitching a very different vision of reform this week in support of an immigration legislation package being put forward by Republicans Ken Buck and Ron Johnson.

In it, Somin describes a proposal which would revamp and potentially expand portions of the visa program by essentially turning control of issuing them over to the states. And he chooses to frame this argument by saying that its really what the authors of the Constitution had in mind.

For the last century or more, immigration policy has been dominated by the federal government. Thats an inversion of what most of the Founding Fathers expected. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, among many others, objected to the Alien Acts of 1798 in large part because the original meaning of the Constitution did not give Congress any general power to restrict immigration, but rather largely left the issue to the states.

We are unlikely to fully restore the original meaning of the Constitution. But earlier this week, Republican Senator Ron Johnson (Wisconsin), and Representative Ken Buck (Republican, Colorado), put forward a proposal under which states would exercise considerably greater power over migration. The proposal would allow each state to admit guest-workers from abroad for a period of up to three years, that could then be renewed by the state. The visas in question would still be issued by the federal government, but largely at the discretion of the states.

There are two major problems with this approach, one constitutional and the other practical. Lets start with the former. Somin claims that, the original meaning of the Constitution did not give Congress any general power to restrict immigration, but rather largely left the issue to the states.

To back up his claim that Congress has no power to restrict immigration Ilya Somin cites, well Ilya Somin, in a separate article he wrote for an outlet somewhat tellingly named Open Borders. Im afraid Im going to have to take issue with that somewhat daring interpretation which you can click through and read for yourself.

Its true that the Founders didnt seem to spend a great deal of time thinking about the question of immigration. Or if they did, the topic didnt get a lot of play in the final cut of the document they produced. But its not entirely silent on the subject either. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution actually says that Congress, not the states, shall have the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. Somin attempts to argue that naturalization is merely the process of becoming a citizen and not the physical act of entering the country, but thats fairly thin gruel for this debate. In order to become a citizen, the process most certainly involves coming to the country unless you were born here (thus nullifying any questions of becoming a citizen). This is a distinction which the Founders clearly understood when they mentioned similar criteria in Article II Section 1.

But we dont need to simply rely on those breadcrumbs to find out that the authors of the Constitution had already thought this through. The Founders had given the subject even more consideration, because they followed that up in Article I Section 9 by saying, The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person. Clearly they were giving the states the right to make decisions on immigration in the short term, but it was very short indeed. Those powers were designed to expire in a handful of years and they did so. Why on Earth would the Founders specifically reference the power of the states to regulate migration or importation (which obviously and absolutely describes immigration beyond any doubt) and put an expiration date on it unless they were talking about such power shifting to the federal government? Or, if we must dance on the same head of a semantic pin that Somin is relying on, even if the states had the power to regulate the migration or importation of aliens at the beginning, they were only assured that Congress would not prohibit it until 1808. After that, Congress could and did take charge. The premise being argued by Somin seems absurd in light of those facts.

Somins final argument seems to be that absent a clear mandate for the federal government to have this power it should go to the states. Thats an obvious reference to the Tenth Amendment and would clearly hold true were it not for the inconvenient fact that the Constitution does recognize the need for such authority and removes it from states following the year 1808. Enough about that.

On to the practical side of the discussion, which Ill keep short. Allowing the states to take charge of the number of H-1B style visas which are issued in the fashion described would be a disaster on several counts. First of all, we would need to also turn over the responsibility for tracking the visa recipients to ensure they didnt overstay their welcome. We cant even manage that at the federal level today, and thats with several massive law enforcement agencies already in place who are supposed to be taking care of it. Who at the state level will be put in charge of this task and what resources and manpower do they all have to tackle the job, to say nothing of experience in doing so? The answer is that none of them are prepared for the task.

Also, this proposed system wouldnt tie the H-1B visa to any single employer. Currently thats one of the only ways to find out if someone is no longer complying with the rules or is in an overstay situation. By allowing them to switch jobs (or go to having no job) youve lost the one thread you could pull in terms of keeping track of them. Its pretty much a red carpet invitation to abuse the visa system and disappear into the crowd.

Theres simply nothing about this plan which sounds either wise or practical and it opens up the system to even further abuse. We should stick with the program set forth in the conservative agenda. Secure the border. Track down and deport illegal aliens as much as is possible. And maybe then we can talk about various other reforms when the situation is more under control.

See the rest here:
A federalist approach to immigration reform would be a disaster - Hot Air

Immigration hard-liners whose fortunes are rising under the Trump administration have released a confidential year-old letter from the Justice Departments immigration court that blasted left-leaning lawyers for targeting them with derogatory name-calling based on a report by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

At issue was the SPLCs repeated claim that the Federation for American Immigration Reform is a hate group as well as its escalating efforts to prove that the federation, which favors stricter control over legal and illegal immigration, is racist.

The immigration courts letter sent during the Obama administration does not resolve that dispute. But the decision to release it illuminates the fight for credibility in the national immigration debate, with both sides emboldened after the election of President Trump.

[Read the letter from the immigration court]

Advocates for immigrants, who have won key victories to block Trumps immigration crackdown in court, would like the government not to consider the views of the federation and its allies, whose leaders have made statements that critics say evoke racism.

But the federation and other critics of illegal immigration say they do not discriminate and are fueled by concern about jobs and resources for Americans. Trump has embraced many of their views and is appointing top officials whom they count as allies, including former federation director Julie Kirchner, recently named ombudsman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

What [immigrant advocates] want is to delegitimize all skepticism of the open-borders, globalist immigration model, as if such a position can never be legitimate for America, said Dale L. Wilcox, executive director and general counsel of the Immigration Law Reform Institute, the federations legal arm.

They label as morally deficient concerned citizens who happen to worry that theres a connection between things like immigration and urban sprawl or increased labor supply and lower wages.

Wilcox released a letter dated March 28, 2016, from the immigration courts disciplinary counsel, Jennifer J. Barnes, that resolved a dispute about whether the federation should be allowed to file friend-of-the-court briefs on issues before the Board of Immigration Appeals. The board had asked the federation and the American Immigration Lawyers Association to weigh in on cases for years, including in 2014 and 2015.

Lawyers for the SPLC and for groups representing immigrants involved in the cases objected to the request for input from the federation, arguing that it is a hate group, white supremacist, eugenicist, anti-immigrant, anti-Semitic and anti-Catholic, the courts letter said.

The federation called those descriptions McCarthyite ad hominem attacks and asked the board to sanction the lawyers.

In response, Barnes issued a four-page rebuke of the SPLCs lawyer and three others from immigrant advocacy groups. She said their efforts were frivolous behavior that overstepped the bounds of zealous advocacy.

None of this language was related or relevant to the underlying factual or legal matters or FAIRs amicus briefs, and its sole purpose was to denigrate FAIR and its staff, she wrote, using an acronym for the federation. Such language is not appropriate in a filing before the Board.

Barnes asked the lawyers to keep the letter confidential, and did not open a formal disciplinary proceeding. The lawyers said they took the letter as an informal reprimand.

Wilcox said his organization, which wants to slash legal immigration from about 1million people a year to 300,000 a year, an idea also floated by Trump and conservative members of Congress, did not initially consider releasing the letter. Then the SPLC added the federations legal arm to its formal list of hate groups this year. In response, the federation filed a complaint with the IRS against the SPLC, accusing it of violating its tax-exempt status by engaging in political activity, which the SPLC denied.

Richard Cohen,president of the SPLC, saidhis group researched the published papers and remarks of foundation founder John Tanton and other foundation officials and published them on its website. Among the many examples are a 1993 Tanton letter that said he favored a European-American majority in the United States. He also published a journal that critics said featured racist texts.

Cohen said the SPLC typically labels as hate groups those that vilify entire groups of people based on characteristics such as race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation.

The question is whether they are a biased advocate. Are their positions infected with racism? Cohen said. We would say yes.

The four lawyers targeted by the foundations complaints to the appeals board said Barnes never notified them about the criticism or gave them a chance to respond.

The foundation also filed state bar complaints against the four lawyers. Cohen and the other lawyers said the bar complaints were dismissed.

See the original post:
Newly released letter shows growing battle between groups in immigration debate - Washington Post

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

President Trump is a man who prefers blunt instruments: He thinks he can solve America's complex immigration issues with a "big, beautiful wall." Meanwhile, two members of his party Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Rep. Ken Buck of Colorado have come up with a vastly more elegant solution to help the country meet its future labor needs. (Sen. John McCain has signed on as a cosponsor, too.) There are no walls involved just a plan to let states set up their own guest worker programs.

Besides being inherently sound, the great upside of this approach is that it would sidestep the messy politics in Washington that have long made sensible immigration reform well nigh impossible. And we know that it works: It already does in Canada.

You wouldn't know this from all the restrictinionist screaming about mass immigration, but the American labor market is very tight, and growing tighter, as the latest jobs numbers show. On the high end, companies need at least twice as many foreign tech workers as Uncle Sam will let them hire. As usual, this year's annual H-1B visa cap for 85,000 high-skilled workers filled up within days of opening. Companies that don't land a visa this year will have to wait a year before they can re-enter the H-1B lottery by which time the foreign techie they were planning to hire will be working for an Australian or Singaporean company.

But high-tech companies are the lucky ones. Matters are far worse on the low-skilled front. Farmers need H-1A visas to hire farmhands. But the requirements for these visas are so onerous and the outcome so uncertain that they are practically unusable. Meanwhile, the demand for seasonal laborers in industries such as construction, landscaping, and hospitality is about four times the annual allotment of visas. The worst part, though, is that by the time federal bureaucrats are done processing the applications, the season is done.

Johnson and Kirk want employers to have options beyond the rotten choices Uncle Sam makes available. Their bill, called the State-Sponsored Visa Pilot Program Act of 2017, would give each state a modest 5,000 annual allotment to hire whoever it wants from abroad regardless of skill level, confining the federal government's role to conducting security and health checks. This allotment would be adjusted each year based on economic growth.

The foreign workers brought in on these visas would be confined to working in the sponsoring state or states that form a compact to honor each others' visas which is a whole lot better for workers than being tethered to the sponsoring employer. States that feel strongly about keeping out foreign workers don't have to participate. And to ensure that these workers don't skip town and illegally take up employment elsewhere, the participating states would require these workers to post a $4,000 bond that would be returned at the end of their term if they stayed put.

States that have more than a 3 percent non-compliance rate would lose 50 percent of their visa allotment the following year (and would be required to up their bond amount by $1,000 per visa). Conversely, those that meet the stipulated compliance rate which won't be hard to do given that only 2 percent of illegal overstays involve guest workers would be rewarded with a 10 percent increase in their visa quota in subsequent years.

These elaborate provisions were included to placate restrictionist states that don't want to be flooded with foreigners. But it's actually overkill, at least if the experience of our neighbor to the north is any indication.

Canada implemented a similar Provincial Nominee Program 20 years ago. And even without bonding and other requirements, provinces on average are able to retain 80 percent of the sponsored workers. This is particularly remarkable given that the PNP program hands foreigners' permanent residency the equivalent of America's green card and not temporary work visas as the Johnson bill is proposing. This means they are free to work anywhere in the country from the day they land in Canada.

Why have provinces been so successful in hanging on to foreign workers when they are free to work anywhere? Essentially because they do such a granular matching of foreign workers and local labor needs that these workers don't need to go looking for work in better climes.

One great upside of the Johnson-Buck approach is that it could offer a workable fix to the amnesty war by allowing states to sponsor undocumented workers as part of their allotments and potentially take them off the hands of states that don't want them. Utah's conservative legislature, appalled by its neighbor Arizona's harsh treatment of undocumented Latinos, has been asking the federal government for permission to do just that, in fact.

Immigration is a federal function under the U.S. Constitution, but that doesn't mean that Uncle Sam can't hand over some of its authority to states to craft their own immigration policies. Indeed, the Johnson-Buck proposal is in the best traditions of American federalism that allows states to become the laboratories of democracy on immigration, exactly as the Founders intended.

States that fear the fiscal burden or native job losses from more foreign workers can bow out. And those that believe the reverse can opt in without Washington imposing a one-size-fits-all solution on everyone.

Trump can keep pounding his fist and demanding his border wall. But this bill offers an amicable and costless way forward on an issue that has polarized Americans for far too long. It is no skin off anyone's back not even the most ardent restrictionists' and therefore deserves widespread support on Capitol Hill.

Read this article:
The GOP's brilliant new plan to copy Canada's immigration system - The Week Magazine