Mediaboss Marketing

President Trump has endorsed a sweeping new Senate immigration plan that puts a preference on job skills and not family ties in granting immigrants entry into the United States.

In a speech in Ohio Tuesday night, the president also bragged that his administration is being "rough" on illegals, especially criminals, and "liberating towns and cities" from MS-13 and other illegal gangs..

"We are dismantling and destroying the bloodthirsty criminal gangs. And, well, I will just tell you this -- we're not doing it in a politically correct fashion. We're doing it rough," said the president of his Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. "Our guys are rougher than their guys. We have tough people. Our people are tougher than their people. Our people are tougher and stronger and meaner and smarter than the gangs. One by one we're finding the illegal gang members, drug dealers, thieves, robbers, criminals and killers, and we're sending them the hell back home where they came from," he added.

Trump gave a strong shoutout to the Republican authors of the new legislation, Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton and Georgia Sen. David Perdue.

"As we speak, we are working with two wonderful senators, Tom Cotton and David Perdue, to create a new immigration system for America," said Trump.

The duo are currently updating the legislation they introduced earlier this year. Basically, it will focus more on immigrant merits, such as job skills, over family ties to those already in the U.S. The goal is a system that doesn't reward illegal crossings or let immigrants take jobs from Americans.

Said Trump, "Instead of today's low-skilled system -- just a terrible system where anybody comes in -- people that have never worked, people that are criminals; anybody comes in -- we want a merit-based system -- one that protects our workers, our taxpayers, and one that protects our economy. We want it merit-based. We want people that work really hard in their country and that are going to come into our country and work really, really hard. We don't want people that come into our country and immediately go on welfare and stay there for the rest of their lives."

The legislative effort comes as the administration is collecting success after success in its war on illegal immigration. ICE officials said that illegal immigration is down 70 percent and the arrests and deportation of criminal illegals is up.

What's more, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has made good on threats to some 300 sanctuary cities and regions, prompting some to change course and cooperate with ICE.

"American cities should be sanctuaries for law-abiding Americans -- the people that look up to the law, the people that respect the law -- not for criminals and gang members that we want the hell out of our country," Trump said during his address in Youngstown.

And, he added, people are cheering his actions.

"We are actually liberating towns and cities. We are liberating. People are screaming from their windows, Thank you, thank you,' to the Border Patrol and to General Kelly's great people that come in and grab these thugs and throw them the hell out. We're liberating our towns and we're liberating our cities," said the president.

Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner's "Washington Secrets" columnist, can be contacted at pbedard@washingtonexaminer.com

See the article here:
Trump endorses immigration reform, says he's 'liberating cities' with ... - Washington Examiner

AZCentral.com

Schumer: McCain Said to Me, 'Let's Get Immigration Reform Done' CNSNews.com He even said to me when I called him this weekend, 'Let's get immigration reform done,' so he's thinking of the future. As you know, he and I worked on that [2013 comprehensive immigration reform] bill. And it was great to see him back, strong as he was.. Roberts: Is John McCain's finest hour yet to come?AZCentral.com When it comes to John McCain, some journalists will never, ever learnMedia Matters for America (blog) Horowitz: John McCain; An AppreciationGoLocal Worcester all 1,000 news articles »

Read more here:
Schumer: McCain Said to Me, 'Let's Get Immigration Reform Done' - CNSNews.com

Fort Worth Star Telegram

Keep politics out of this tragedy, Dan Patrick Fort Worth Star Telegram Immigrants in the back of a sweltering tractor trailer in San Antonio this weekend served as a grisly illustration of the sacrifices some are willing to make to get to the United States. By the time authorities found the stifling semi truck in a Wal ... Deaths show need for immigration reform: EditorialEl Paso Times Death toll in San Antonio immigrant-smuggling case rises to 10Texas Tribune Smuggling deaths show need for humane immigration lawsTimes Record News mySanAntonio.com -Washington Post all 2,630 news articles »

Read more:
Keep politics out of this tragedy, Dan Patrick - Fort Worth Star Telegram

President Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress have laudably made passing tax reform real tax reform, not just shuffling money from one group to another a top priority. Now, however, some supply-side economics skeptics are open to the possibility of taxing free speech a constitutional right to fill Washingtons coffers.

As you read this, the Big Six are meeting to discuss which deductions to keep oreliminate, and Ways and Means Committee Chair Kevin Brady must quell these whispers of taxing advertising. Imposing such a levy would trample on our countrys liberty and values, setting a dangerous precedent for further constitutional breaches in the foreseeable future.

As substantial pay-forssuch as the border adjustment tax begin to fall out of the publics favor, some in Congress have begun to look at provisions from Dave Camps 2014 tax reform proposal as a blueprint for replacement. Camps proposal would have changed the tax treatment of advertising from a normal, 100 percent deductible business expense to one that is only 50 percent deductible, with the rest being amortized over the course of a decade.

Self-proclaimed liberty-loving conservatives whoare prepared to advocate for such a provision need to reflect on American history after all, what did we fight the American Revolution over?

Perhaps the biggest boiling point for the then-British colonists was the Stamp Act of 1765, which imposed an advertising levy of two shillings for every ad, among other printed material, no matter its circulation or cost. The provision was wildly unpopular so much so that the colonists engaged in mob violence to intimidate stamp-tax distributorsinto resigning, forcing the British Parliament to repeal it just a year later.

The principles and rallying cries that were brought on from the Stamp Act's introduction led to the colonists' rising in armed rebellion against their mother country a decade later.

The Continental Army won that war, and when they formed their new country they made sure to prevent the government from getting in the way of the freedom to advertise, as per the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."

This is a law and precedent that has been abided by for centuries. Aside from some exceptions related to false and misleading content, the federal government has always respected the constitutional mandate to leave advertising alone. That's why the Supreme Court case Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942) was overturned the bench's declaration that "the Constitution imposes no restraint on the government as to the regulation of 'purely commercial advertising'" was 100 percent unconstitutional.

Now Congress wants to limit free speech by regulating the First Amendment one of our country's core founding principles as an excuse to extort more wealth from American businesses' pocketbooks? Camp's 50-50 proposal would treat advertising like an asset, such as a machine, instead of like an expense, such as research and salaries an unprecedented, unconstitutional move. (go to page 2 to continue reading)

Read the original:
Republicans Toy with a Misguided Tax on the First Amendment ... - LifeZette

Last month, Digital Music News reported on a controversial court ruling against Google. The Canadian Supreme Court ordered the search giant to remove specific piracy links not just in Canada, but worldwide. Now, Google has fought back, this time in a California courtroom.

In 2014, a Canadian court ruled that Google would have to remove a Canadian firm from its search results. Through Equusteks ex-employees, Datalink Technologies illegally sold their competitors products. Employees would set-up sites indexed on Google to sell the goods, sharing a strong percentage with Datalink.

After losing the initial court battle in British Columbia, Google filed, and subsequently lost, multiple appeals. Last month, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled against the search giant. It determined that Google was a determinative player in harming Equusteek.

The high court ruled that the search giant would have to de-index links from its search engine worldwide.

Now, Google has fought back. The search giant filed an injunction on Monday with the US District Court for Northern California. Digital Music News has obtained the documents.

Google filed the injunction to prevent enforcement of the Canadian ruling in the United States. It believes that the Canadian Supreme Court has compelled the search engine to wrongfully censor its information.

The Canadian trial court recognized that Google is an innocent bystander to the case. Nevertheless, it issued a novel worldwide order against Google, restricting what information an American company can provide to people inside of the United States and around the world.

Lawyers for the company claim that the court singled out Google, while leaving other search engines alone. They claim that people can still find links to the infringing sites through Yahoo and Bing.

In the complaint, lawyers for the company claim that Google is not the internet. It doesnt have the power to take down sites, as the ruling would suggest. Yet, the Canadian Supreme Court only found the search engine liable, leaving alone other websites.

Google is not the internet. The vast majority of internet websites are hosted by and operated through service providers other than Google. The entities with the technical ability to remove websites or content from the internet altogether are the websites owners, operators, registrars, and hostsnot Google.

Lawyers for the company laid out three causes of action.

In the first, the First Amendment protects search engine results. The complaint reads,

Enforcing the Canadian ruling in the United States would violate the companys First Amendment rights. The Canadian ruling, claims Google, furthers no compelling interest (nor a substantial interest). The existence of Datalinks search engine results remain a matter of public record.

Equustek has filed a claim only against the search engine; it has yet to file claims against Bing and Yahoo. It also hasnt gone after third-party websites that prominently display the infringing links, including social media and press websites. Equustek also hasnt filed a claim to stop the sale of Datalink products on Amazon.

For the second cause of action, Google cites the Communications Decency Act. This act provides clear legal immunity to providers of computer services for content on their services created by others. The Communications Decency Act reads,

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

Equusteks initial filing is grounded in Canadian trade secret law, not US federal intellectual property or trade secret laws. Therefore, it cant enforce the order against Google in the United States. Once again, enforcement of the ruling will cause the search giant irreparable injury absent injunctive relief.

For the third cause of action, the search giant claims that enforcement of the ruling trespasses on comity. Siding with Google, the Canadian Attorney General said that the order constitutes an impermissible exercise of extraterritorial enforcement jurisdiction. The Canadian Supreme Court disregarded this statement, however. Instead, it declared that the Internet has no bordersits natural habitat is global. By saying this, the high court justified its global injunction against the company.

Equusteks counsel argued on the same principle.

Google calls the Canadian order repugnant to US public policy surrounding the First Amendment. The First Amendment gives the search giant immunity against imposing liability. Once again calling the order repugnant, the company claims that the high court singled it out. It issued an order against an innocent non-party for the sake of convenience.

Continuing on, lawyers claim,

Canadian courts failed to extend proper comity to the United States. Thus, the United States does not need to defer the order.

Google requests that the US District Court rule the Canadian order unenforceable in the United States. It also wants the court to issue a ruling in Googles favor and against the defendants, Equustek. Finally, lawyers want the court to grant the company preliminary and permanent injunctive relief from further enforcement.

You can read the injunction below.

Image by Ed Uthman (CC by 2.0)

View post:
Are Google Piracy Links Protected by the First Amendment? - Digital Music News