Mediaboss Marketing

Rosa Sabido, now receiving sanctuary in a Mancos church since her last application to stay in the country was denied, is not an example of problems caused by uncontrolled immigration. For the past 30 years, she has been gainfully employed, has paid taxes and has been an upstanding member of the community.

She is, though, the face of one large and often-undiscussed group of immigrants: those who have contributed to their community and the economy and who have tried to follow the rules that would allow them to remain in this country legally, but who, for a variety of reasons some logical and some arcane have come up short. These are the intended beneficiaries of immigration reform, which has languished on the national agenda for years. Unfortunately, a nuanced view of the complex issue, necessary for true and lasting progress, does not fit well into campaign speeches.

The United States gains no specific benefit by deporting Sabido. It would be better served with a sensible immigration policy that focused on identifying, locating and deporting those who are a danger to the country, and at the same time, dealing realistically with those whose only crime is being undocumented.

The problem with immigration is not only the behavior of individual immigrants, it is the effect of their aggregate number, and the specific issue for those like Sabido is not that they are causing trouble; its that their legal status does not allow them to stay.

Laws necessarily must be written in ways that cannot address every individuals circumstances, even though Sabidos legal circumstance indeed seems unfair. That she narrowly missed at least two opportunities that would have paved the way for permanent residency, including President Ronald Reagans broad path to citizenship, is sad but ultimately irrelevant; wherever a line is drawn, some people will fall just outside it. The law is the law, and selective enforcement without legal reform has contributed to the immigration mess that now exists.

The Mancos United Methodist Church has shown impressive caring and courage in shielding Sabido from a law that they believe is wrong or is being applied unfairly, and in taking a stand in opposition to the law. President Donald Trump has made clear that he disapproves of IRS regulations that penalize religious organizations from expressing political opinions, and although he surely did not intend it to play out in this way, the logical extension of that is for congregations to act on their beliefs. Kudos to this body for doing so.

Churches have no special legal status that exempts their premises from enforcement actions, only a tradition of being respected. The hands-off policy will not last much longer, although when ICE agents are ordered to breach a religious sanctuary, expect them to be in pursuit of someone far less appealing than Sabido.

This kind of sanctuary is not available to all who might wish to use it, and it is not a broad solution to the immigration dilemma. Elsewhere, families are being split, crops rot unpicked and some of the immigrants the president termed bad hombres evade deportation.

The true solution is reform, and Sabido and the church sheltering her have drawn attention to that need. This is one way change begins to happen, and that change is badly needed.

View post:
Rosa Sabido: Immigration reform must address cases like hers - The Durango Herald

Common practice for liberals and conservatives now is to take turns calling each other enemies of the First Amendment. The results of this year's "State of the First Amendment" survey gave us the opportunity to consider these insults and after the numbers are crunched, who is the real enemy of the First Amendment?

Well, no one. And, everyone.

Most of our fellow citizens, regardless of their political ideology, are quite fond of the First Amendment, at least in the abstract. The people who think that the First Amendment goes too far are a minority 22.5 percent of us. A majority of Americans (67.7 percent) thinks that the press plays an important role as a watchdog on government; a slightly narrower majority (58.8 percent) thinks that freedom of religion should extend to all religious groups, even those widely considered extreme or fringe.

That's the good news: Even in a time of great political turmoil, we're generally supportive of the First Amendment's protections.

The bad news: When it comes down to specific applications of the First Amendment, we're less positive, and also deeply divided along ideological lines. Both liberals and conservatives have certain pain points where they balk at the amount of protection that the First Amendment provides.

Liberals are more likely than conservatives to think:

Colleges should be able to ban speakers with controversial views.

People should not be able to express racist comments on social media.

Meanwhile, conservatives are more likely than liberals to think:

Government officials who leak information to the press should be prosecuted.

Journalists should not be able to publish information obtained illegally, even if it serves the public interest.

Government should be able to determine which media outlets can attend briefings.

Government should be able to hold Muslims to a higher standard of scrutiny.

Worth noting: Some of these differences in attitude may not be a direct result of whether you're a liberal or a conservative; instead, they might be circumstantial. Do more liberals support press freedoms because that's a core value of liberal ideology or because the press is a watchdog on the government, which liberals don't currently control?

Do more conservatives think that colleges shouldn't be able to ban speakers because of a greater commitment to free speech or because most banned speakers, at least in recent years, have tended to be conservative? It will be interesting to see in subsequent years if attitudes change as circumstances change.

One thing that unites the majority of Americans right now: Most of us, liberals and conservatives, prefer to read or listen to news that aligns with our own views.

That's true even if you think that the news media reports with a bias, as most Americans do (56.8 percent). Apparently, we're not inclined to correct that bias by taking in multiple and varied news sources. Instead, we're more likely to double down on the news that fits in with our pre-existing ideological perspectives.

This finding is both obvious and disheartening: Everyone likes reading and hearing news that confirms what they already believed. That's one of the factors that keep us so divided.

Lata Nott

Executive director

First Amendment Center

Newseum Institute.

Washington, D.C.

See the rest here:
Our love-hate relationship with the First Amendment - Progress Index

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] Friday that citizens have a First Amendment right to record police performing their duties. The court found that officers, "are public officials carrying out public functions, and the First Amendment requires them to bear bystanders recording their actions. This is vital to promote the access that fosters free discussion of governmental actions." The court was clear that this case was based on a First Amendment right to access of information about how public servants operate in the public realm. This decision follows the rulings by the First, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits. Even with the ruling in favor of the First Amendment argument, two of the three judges ruled that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity, effectively shielding them from liability over the incidents.

Trust between communities throughout the US and police officials continues to be an issue, particularly after a series of incidents have led to demand for higher accountability from the public servants. The interactions have created dialogues in communities in an attempt to create a greater trust between members of the public and law enforcement. In April the Department of Justice raised doubts [JURIST report] about a police reform agreement reached in the city of Baltimore. In June rights group decided that they wanted police reform and through a lawsuit [JURIST report] attempted to bring about the change and accountability over the Chicago police enforcement practices.

Continued here:
JURIST - Federal appeals court upholds First Amendment right to ... - JURIST

Donald Trump Jr. met with a Russian lawyer with ties to the Kremlin in the days after his father clinched the Republican presidential nomination, where he was offered information on Hillary Clinton that he was told would be helpful to his father's campaign, the president's eldest son said Sunday.

The meeting took place at Trump Tower between Trump Jr., the presidents son-in-law Jared Kushner, Trump's then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort, and Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya on June 9, 2016.

"I was asked to have a meeting by an acquaintance I knew from the 2013 Miss Universe pageant with an individual who I was told might have information helpful to the campaign," Trump Jr. said in a statement received by ABC News. "I was not told her name prior to the meeting. I asked Jared and Paul to attend, but told them nothing of the substance.

"We had a meeting in June 2016. After pleasantries were exchanged, the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Ms. Clinton.

"Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information," he said.

Trump Jr. said that Veselnitskaya then changed the subject and began discussing the adoption of Russian children and moved the conversation towards the Magnitsky Act -- a 2012 bill that blocks certain Russian officials' entrance to the U.S. and their use of the U.S. banking system. After the act was passed, Russia stopped allowing Americans to adopt Russian children. Veselnitskaya is best known for her work against the Magnitsky Act.

"It became clear to me that this was the true agenda all along and that the claims of potentially helpful information were a pretext for the meeting. I interrupted and advised her that my father was not an elected official, but rather a private citizen, and that her comments and concerns were better addressed if and when he held public office," Trump Jr. said in his statement.

"The meeting lasted approximately 20 to 30 minutes. As it ended, my acquaintance apologized for taking up our time. That was the end of it and there was no further contact or follow-up of any kind," he said.

Trump Jr. added that his father knew nothing of the meeting.

The president's outside legal team also said he did not attend the meeting and was not aware of it.

The acquaintance who set up the meeting was Rob Goldstone, a music publicist and friend of Trump Jr., according to a source familiar with the meeting.

In a statement on Saturday, Trump Jr. described the meeting as "short" and "introductory" and that they'd "primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children."

This marks the first confirmation of a meeting between members of Trump's family and Russians during his campaign for the presidency.

It has been concluded among U.S. intelligence agencies that Russian hackers passed information stolen from the Clinton campaign and the Democratic party to WikiLeaks in 2016. The release of that material began July 22.

The meeting with Veselnitskaya was only recently disclosed by Kushner, now a senior White House aide, when he re-submitted a form necessary for his security clearance. Kushner's attorney Jamie Gorelick released a statement on Saturday regarding the revelation, explaining that the form was originally submitted before it should have been.

"As we have previously stated, Mr. Kushner's SF-86 was prematurely submitted and, among other errors, did not list any contacts with foreign government officials," he said in the statement.

Go here to read the rest:
Donald Trump Jr.: Russian attorney offered info on Hillary Clinton during campaign - ABC News

In the wake of her November election loss to Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton has found solace on Broadway. Every few weeks, it seems, a new story crops up detailing the Democrat's attendance at yet another play. Secretly snapped photos of her sitting in the audience make the rounds on Twitter, and,often, she receives a standing ovation.

"She's always been a strong supporter of the arts, so it doesn't surprise me that she'd want to spend her time this way," Heather Hitchens,president of theAmerican Theater Wing, told the New York Times recently. "The theater community is grateful for her presence."

Clinton's relationship with Broadway goes back years, watchingeverything from Avenue Q to You Can't Take It With You. She saw Hamilton before it got big and even benefited from a Broadway for Hillary fundraiser last October featuring Barbra Streisand, Lin-Manuel Miranda and Sarah Jessica Parker, among others.

Culture Emails and Alerts - Get the best of Newsweek Culture delivered to your inbox

She's not the only politician who loves musicalsformer President Barack Obama is a big fan, and so is Vice President Mike Pence, who was booed and confronted by the Hamiltoncast when he caught a performance last year shortly after the Trump ticket won. But people have begun to take notice of the former first lady's frequent appearances.

"I need to get my hands on Hillary's Broadway touring schedule," theater fan and LGBT rights attorney Eric Lesh tweetedin January. "Hillary Clinton is my Broadway missed connection," community strategist Katie Minard added.

If you, like Doc McStuffinscreatorChris Nee, are "thinking of picking a Broadway show and seeing it every night until Hillary shows up," read on. Here's a list of what she's seenand whenover the past few months:

The Color Purple, Jan. 8

Clinton attended the revival's final show with her daughter and husband, the latter of whom exclaimed "Whoa!" when it ended, the Times reported.

The Humans, Jan. 15

Clinton and her husband stopped byGerald SchoenfeldTheatre to see the final matinee show and then had lunch with the producer, director and playwright, according to Broadway World.

In Transit, Feb. 1

Clinton spoke to cast and crew members at the Circle in the Square Theatre, saying, "We can't stop standing up for what we believe in and what we care about."

Sunset Boulevard, Feb. 15

She got to the Palace Theatre three minutes before showtime and happily took photos with supporters during intermission, according to Playbill.

War Paint, April 6

Clinton and aide Huma Abedin went to opening night at the Nederlander Theatre, and afterward star Patti LuPone told reporters she thought the former secretary of state "saw how much it was about women in power."LuPone pointed to one lyric as an example:"A woman scales the wall, climbs high above them all, and, oh, what gates of hell they put her through."

Waitress, June 8

On the same day fired FBI Director James Comey testified about his termination and the ongoing probe into Russia's role in the election, Clinton went to see singer Sara Bareilles at the Brooks Atkinson Theatre, according to the New YorkDaily News. She said she thought the show was funny.

Come From Away, June 19

Chelsea Clintonbrought her parents to see the show at the Gerald Schoenfeld Theatre, as co-writer David Hein posted on Facebook after the visit. "So many lines in the show resonated differentlyespecially the scene where passengers try to vote for a different destination and are told, 'This is not a democracy,'" Hein wrote. "And Hillary told us, 'This is a show that the world needs now.'"

Oslo, July 2

Clinton waved to a crowd chanting her name at the Lincoln Center Theater as she sat down with her husband, according to the Huffington Post.

See the article here:
After Donald Trump Won, Hillary Clinton Went to Broadway: Here's Every Show She Saw - Newsweek