Archive for July, 2017

Trump Backs ‘Comprehensive Immigration’ Reform – The Daily Caller

President Donald Trump indicated he may support amnesty when talking to reporters aboard Air Force One Wednesday night.

The president was asked about Secretary of Homeland Security John Kellys comments to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus that President Obamas amnesty for illegal immigrants who arrived as minors, DACA, might be terminated due to legal challenges from Republican states.

Its a decision that I make and its a decision thats very very hard to make.I really understand the situation now,President Trumpreplied. I understand the situation very well. What Id like to do is a comprehensive immigration plan. But our country and political forces are not ready yet.

Comprehensive immigration reform is used in modern American politics as a euphemism for giving illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. a path to legal status or citizenship.

During his run for the presidency, Trump took a hardline stance on immigration and pledged to deport all 12 million or so illegal immigrants in the country. He also said he would immediately end DACA.

However, he has reneged on this promise, and in his first few months in office nearly 100,000 illegal immigrants benefited from the amnesty program.

Trumpadded, There are two sides of a story. Its always tough.

See the original post here:
Trump Backs 'Comprehensive Immigration' Reform - The Daily Caller

Immigration expert: Debate not about policy, it’s about culture – San Antonio Express-News (subscription)

Photo: JOHN DAVENPORT, STAFF / San Antonio Express-News

Immigration advocate Ali Norani speaks Thursday July 13, 2017.

Immigration advocate Ali Norani speaks Thursday July 13, 2017.

Immigration advocate Ali Norani speaks Thursday July 13, 2017 at the Plaza Club to the World Affairs Council.

Immigration advocate Ali Norani speaks Thursday July 13, 2017 at the Plaza Club to the World Affairs Council.

Immigration expert: Debate not about policy, its about culture

A well-known immigration expert speaking in San Antonio on Thursday borrowed from the presidents campaign platform and a recent release from a Broadway star to illustrate the polar opposites of the U.S. immigration debate.

Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, said immigration is too often presented as a political issue with two sides, America First, a slogan with a controversial history championed by President Donald Trump, and Immigrants get the job done, a reference to the recent release Immigrants (We Get the Job Done) by musician and playwright Lin-Manuel Miranda.

The people who get lost in the debate are those who want to live in an America that puts Americans First, but also want to live in America that is welcoming and inclusive, said Noorani, who spoke at the Plaza Club on Thursday. He was invited by the World Affairs Council of San Antonio and the Mexican Consulate General in San Antonio.

Noorani is the author of There Goes the Neighborhood: How Communities Overcome Prejudice and Meet the Challenge of American Immigration, released this year. He said he interviewed 60 people across the country, mostly faith, law enforcement and business leaders, for the book.

What I found was, for the majority of Americans, the immigration debate is not about politics and policy, its about culture, Noorani said

There is a fear among many Americans that immigration will change their way of life and change the culture of the U.S. Noorani, who advocates for comprehensive immigration reform that would provide a pathway to citizenship for those here illegally who meet certain criteria and a reform of the legal immigration system, said its perilous for immigration activists to not take their opponents concerns seriously.

By reaching out to them through religious, business and law enforcement leaders traditional conservative allies who tend to oppose draconian immigration laws those pushing for immigration reform can win over skeptics, he said.

I firmly believe that the majority of Americans, they respect or they love the Jose or Mohammad that they know, but they still have questions about the Jose or the Mohammad that they dont know, he said.

jbuch@express-news.net

Twitter: @jlbuch

See more here:
Immigration expert: Debate not about policy, it's about culture - San Antonio Express-News (subscription)

Alan Dershowitz: Donald Trump Jr.’s conduct likely covered by First Amendment – Washington Times

Prominent Harvard law professor and liberal author Alan Dershowitz says Donald Trump Jr.s controversial meeting last year with a Russian lawyer is likely protected under the First Amendment.

Theres a big difference between the act of stealing, or the act of hacking, and the act of using it, Mr. Dershowitz told Fox Business host Neil Cavuto in an appearance Wednesday.

And theres really no difference under the First Amendment between a campaigner using information he obtained from somebody who obtained it illegally and a newspaper doing it, he continued. So I think this is conduct that would be covered by the First Amendment. It is also not prohibited by law. And theres been so much overwrought claim. There are people are talking about treason. I cant believe The New York Times had an op-ed yesterday in which treason was mentioned.

Mr. Trump Jr. on Tuesday released an email chain between himself and a British publicist that arranged a June 2016 meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, who, according to the publicist, offered very high level and sensitive information about Hillary Clinton as part of the Russian governments support for Donald Trumps presidential campaign.

The younger Mr. Trump said Tuesday that the meeting turned out to be a waste of time and nothing came of it, but the revelation ramped up allegations from Democratic lawmakers that associates of President Trump may have colluded with the Russian government to influence the U.S. election. Some lawmakers, including Hillary Clintons running mate Tim Kaine, have said it could potentially lead to a treason investigation.

Mr. Dershowitz, however, said he doesnt see any crime at this point in Mr. Trump Jr.s behavior.

Even if the worst case scenario as far as we know now, is the Russians get in touch with Trump Jr. and say, we have some dirt on Hillary Clinton, come well give it to you and he goes and gets the information. Thats what the New York Times did with the Pentagon Papers, thats what the Washington Post did and many other newspaper did with information with Snowden and Manning, he told Newsmax Tuesday. You are allowed legally to use material that was obtained illegally as long as you had nothing to do with the illegal nature of obtaining the information, so at the moment I see no legal jeopardy for Trump Jr.

Read the original:
Alan Dershowitz: Donald Trump Jr.'s conduct likely covered by First Amendment - Washington Times

How President Trump Is Violating the First Amendment – Fortune

A man is seen with a laptop depicting an image of U.S. president Donald Trump with a Twitter logo displayed in the background in this photo illustration on 2 July, 2017.Jaap Arriens/NurPhoto via Getty Images

President Donald Trump has described himself on Twitter as MODERN DAY PRESIDENTIAL because of his use of social media. He has extolled the virtues of social media, allowing him to reach 100 million people without being intermediated by the Fake News Media. How presidential, effective, and good for America this novel approach to raw, direct communication is can be debated, but the legality of the presidents blocking Twitter users from receiving or replying to his posts based on their political viewpoints is beyond reasonable debate. It is a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution.

On Tuesday, individuals who have been blocked by the president on Twitter filed a civil action in federal court in New York. That means Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald will soon opine on the presidents unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. The complaint alleges that President Trumps Twitter account, @realDonaldTrump, has become an important public forum for speech by, to, and about the President and by blocking individuals from receiving and replying to his tweets, the president is engaging in viewpoint-based discrimination prohibited by the First Amendment. Constitution protects certain platforms of communication in order to promote, as the Supreme Court put it, the free exchange of ideas . In a traditional public forum, like a public street or park, or in designated public forums, which are f ms designated by the government as a channel of communication for public debate, speakers can be excluded only when the exclusion is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and the exclusion is narrowly drawn to achieve that interest.

As Ive detailed on the Lawfare blog , although the president has not formally designated the @realDonaldTrump Twitter account as a public forum, this is no mere private account. The presidents own spokesperson, Sean Spicer, has stated that the posts of the president on that account should be considered official statements by the President of the United States . The president uses this account to speak to matters in his official capacitysuch as discussing his meetings with foreign leaders, providing reasons for hiring the FBI director, sharing video of cabinet meetings, and, of course, covfefe. Courts have taken heed; the Court of Appeals cited one of the presidents tweets in determining the purpose of the presidents Travel Ban.

Blocking people from receiving the official statements of the president based on their viewpoints is patently unconstitutional. Moreover, with some 20,000 replies posted to a typical @realDonaldTrump presidential tweet, there is undoubtedly a thriving public forum where citizens are engaging with the president and each other about matters of national importance. To deny an individual or an institution the right to participate in this forum affects not only their right to free speech, but it also affects the rights of the listenersthose individuals and institutions who were deprived of being able to hear the speech that was stifled.

The individual plaintiffs identified in the complaint have all alleged that they have been blocked by the president based on replies they tweeted criticizing the president or his policies. And there are many others that have been similarly blocked. For example, the veteran advocacy group VoteVets, which claims to represent more than 500,000 veterans, reports that it was blocked by the president after it tweeted a criticism of the president and his policies.

The next steps for the president seem clear: Stop engaging in viewpoint discrimination and unblock those individuals and institutions punished for criticizing him or his policies. If he doesnt, the courts will issue a declaration that his actions are unconstitutional and order him to comply. To quote one of the presidents tweets: See you in Court.

Robert M. Loeb is partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, in its Supreme Court and appellate litigation practice, and was previously an appellate counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice. Anjali Dalal is an associate at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, a former judicial law clerk to Judge Sack of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and has published on issues of how the First Amendment applies to Internet postings.

Read the original post:
How President Trump Is Violating the First Amendment - Fortune

Defending the First Amendment is not a ‘special interest’ – The Hill (blog)

In October 2005, I proudly raised my right hand and swore that as a United States Marine, I would defend our Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. This oath separated me from my family for long periods of time and took me to dangerous places like Iraq.

I gladly made these sacrifices and would do so again because I believe this idea is worth defending at all costs.

And the thousands of grassroots CVA volunteers and supporters across the country share my commitment.

Founded by combat veterans and led by Executive Director Mark Lucas,an Army Ranger and Afghan war veteran who currently serves in the Iowa National Guard, CVA aims to preserve the freedoms we fought and sacrificed to defend.

Today, we are alarmed when those freedoms come under attack here at home, such as when state governments attempt to limit free speech, Americans most fundamental freedom. In Missouri, New Mexico, South Carolina, and elsewhere, government and elected officials have sought to force private organizations to reveal their supporters personal information.

There is avital relationship between freedom to associate and privacy in ones association,theSupreme Courtdeclared in the 1958 NAACP vs. Patterson case.

By invading that privacy, these disclosure laws are a clear assault on freedom of association and speech. These policies silencedissent and chill public debate and that is the goal of their sponsors.

CVA refuses to tolerate such attacks on American freedoms, and for this we were criticized.

Arecent attackcharged that our modest $5,000 online advertising campaign that we launched June 28 as part of our effort to defend the First Amendment was disrespectful to our nations founders and veterans, and further claimed that anonymity in political discourse poses a threat to our democracy.

This is an absurd argument to make at any time, but particularly as we celebrated our nations birthas patriotic displays go, a defense of free speech is right up there with fireworks and parades.

It was Thomas Paines anonymously released pamphletCommon Sensethat sparked the American Revolution. Without the pen of the author of Common Sense, the sword of Washington would have been raised in vain,John Adamsdeclared.

Under the pseudonym Publius, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay eloquently pleaded the case for ratification of the Constitution. John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and others also recognized the value of anonymous speech, which allows listeners to evaluate arguments solely on their merits, without a preconceived bias toward the speaker.

Anonymous speech is not dangerous to free people, who are, as theSupreme Courtput it, intelligent enough to evaluate the source of an anonymous writing. Instead, anonymous speech is dangerous to corrupt or oppressive governments, which throughout history, people like Thomas Paine have been able to criticizeanonymously or not at all, as theCourtnoted in 1960.

Whether anonymous or identified, free speech acts as a bulwark, repelling government threats to our liberties. And it has enabled Americans to advance the promise of freedom, from womens suffrage, to the civil rights movement, to the critical issues of our day.

The unfettered and open exchange of ideas has made ours the greatest nation in history a nation that millions have fought and died to protect. The veterans and volunteers at CVA will continue to unapologetically defend free speech across the country.

Dan Caldwell isthe director of policy for Concerned Veterans for America, which says its mission is to promote freedom and receives funding from donors across the country as well as the Charles and David Koch brothers.

The views of contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.

See the original post here:
Defending the First Amendment is not a 'special interest' - The Hill (blog)