Mediaboss Marketing

RICHLAND, Ky. Several months after losing her state legislative seat representing a district outside Lexington in Madison County, Rita Smart still feels the pinch of the loss.

The former Democratic member of the Kentucky House of Representatives is sitting in the parlor of the beautifully appointed bed-and-breakfast, the Bennett House, that she owns and runs with her husband. She says: It was tough. I lost by 76 votes. Her voice trailed off at the mention of the remarkably close total.

By all accounts, she was a competent legislator. She is a small-business owner and spent three decades working for the University of Kentucky College of Agriculture.

She is polite, circumspect, and bewildered. I just cannot understand how I lost, she said.

In truth, she didnt her party did. The Democratic Party has suffered broadly in the middle of the country in the last few years, largely on the backs of its pull left under the presidency of Barack Obama. Though progressivism fit well for Democrats in urban areas, it fell flat and was widely rejected in places like Madison County.

It is not that voters liked or loved Republicans or found them more virtuous; it is that they found Democrats less aligned with their values, more likely to look down their noses at them, and not at all interested in listening to their plight.

Republicans at least made it OK to be in a church pew every Sunday, own a gun for protection and hunting, and not share all their money with everyone else.

Kentucky Republicans were handed a bucket of ice water last fall when they won the state House in a landslide that fit in nicely with their previous wins in the governors office and the majority in the state Senate.

The last time Republicans held the majority in the Kentucky state House was in 1921. Before the Democrats lost it in the fall, it was the last lawmaking chamber in the South still controlled by a Democratic majority.

Smart wasnt the only one to lose her seat. The speaker of the Kentucky House lost, along with 15 other incumbent Democrats. It was an honest-to-goodness wave election in this state, preceded by wave elections in 2010 and 2014 that placed Republican majorities in state legislative bodies across the country, as well as in the U.S. House and Senate. Democrats have lost more than 1,100 legislative seats since 2009.

That is a lot of voter angst toward one party. The question is when will the Democrats be ready to learn from it? The answer is unclear. Activists in the party seem more than happy to keep going left, but do they go at their own peril? They seem to believe Hillary Clinton was rejected because she was not left enough, ignoring the fact that most of the middle of the country where the election was won and lost is pretty moderate.

Smarts loss to Republican C. Wesley Morgan last year was not about her not representing her state and her district well; it was about the image the national party projects, and voters in the middle of the country have been rejecting that for nearly a decade.

The Democrats currently lack the ability to win back power because their concentration of power is in 94 counties across the country, according to an analysis by Dave Wasserman, U.S. House editor of the Cook Political Report.

If the Democrats were to branch out and employ a message and language that suit voters in Madison County, representatives like Smart would still be working in the state legislature and likely continuing to do a good job.

They still havent found their center nearly a year after Donald Trump stunned most Democrats. If they find it, Republican seats will start to be winnowed away. If not, the Republican Party will still chip away at seats like Smarts in every state across the country.

Salena Zito is a CNN political analyst, and a staff reporter and columnist for the Washington Examiner. For more information, visit http://www.creators.com.

Published: August 17, 2017 3:01 AM EDT | Updated: August 17, 2017 8:01 AM EDT

We recently asked you to support our journalism. The response, in a word, is heartening. You have encouraged us in our mission to provide quality news and watchdog journalism. Some of you have even followed through with subscriptions, which is especially gratifying. Our role as an independent, fact-based news organization has never been clearer. And our promise to you is that we will always strive to provide indispensable journalism to our community. Subscriptions are available for home delivery of the print edition and for a digital replica viewable on your mobile device or computer. Subscriptions start as low as 25 per day. We're thankful for your support in every way.

Originally posted here:
Kentucky shows why Democrats need a new message to attract moderate voters - Philly.com

In a heartfelt piece arguing for immigration reform, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), a harsh critic of President Donald Trumps policies, wrote about his experiences with Manuel Chaidez, a farmworker who worked on his familys farm for 24 years. The column comes as the Trump administration has proposed to cut legal immigration by 50 percent, a disastrous policy plan that would grant entry only to high-skilled workers into the country.

Flakes New York Times opinion piece published Friday and is a schmaltzy ode of sorts highlighting the utility of low-skilled agricultural workersvenerated the best qualities seen in immigrants. Chaidez, an undocumented immigrant from Mexico, never quit the hard labor despite Flakes own high school buddies wash[ing] out after a day or two. Chaidez was so close to the family that he gave out invaluable relationship advice.

Without such work there is no ranch, Flake wrote. Without ranches, my town and towns like it falter. And so in my estimation, Manuel is just about the highest-value immigrant possible, and if we forget that, then we forget something elemental about America.

Flake also curiously noted that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency deported Chaidez several times to Mexico. Each time, he made his way back, Flake said, without explaining why his family failed to sponsor Chaidez to ease the multiple displacements. An email to Flakes office was sent Friday morning on this matter.

The larger picture is that this country is filled with Manuel Chaidezes. Chaidez was, in part, a crucial reason why Flake is a unicorn among Republican lawmakers when it comes to immigration policy. The Republican senator may have aligned withPresident Donald Trumps position 93.5 percent of the time since inauguration, but Flake has been an outspoken supporter of comprehensive immigration reform when other Republican lawmakers have not been so willing.

Flakes commitment to immigration reform didnt happen in a vacuum. His personal interaction to Chaidez molded his views. That was also the case with former presidential candidate Jeb Bush, whose maid Maria Magdalena Romero was deported in 1991.It was a difficult time for all of us, but most of all for Maria, he told the Washington Post in 2013.

Outside of Flake and Bush (whos no longer in office), there is strong Republican backing for the Trump administrations indiscriminate pursuit of undocumented immigrants, regardless of their positive equities in this country or the lack of a criminal record.But some of those very same Republicans who want to shut the door on immigrants are also sponsoring immigration bills that are compassionate in nature.

In the current 115th Congress, five Republicans have supported private immigration bills to provide relief, or permanent residence status for certain foreign nationals on compassionate grounds. This took place most recently eight days after Trump tweeted support for a British family who did not want to take their son Charlie Gard off life support, as requested by UK doctors. Reps. Trent Franks (R-AZ), Ann Wagner (R-MO), and Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) separately introduced a bill on July 11 to allow the Gard family into the United States so that they could seek an experimental treatment in New York. Gard died on July 28 after his parents gave up the fight against the UK hospital.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) stands for policies unkind towards so-called DREAMers brought to the country as youths and Central American women and children fleeing violence. But on July 19, he introduced a private immigration bill to grant a green card to Liu Xia, the wife of the late Chinese Nobel winner Liu Xiao Bo. Liu Xia, who was has been under house arrest since 2010, has been missing since her husbands burial at sea on July 13.

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) who once said that granting temporary immigration relief to DREAMers was an insult to the rule of law has repeatedly sponsored a private immigration bill to grant permanent residence status for a family through a case inherited from his predecessor and father, the San Diego Union-Tribune reported in May. As ThinkProgress reporter Josh Israel previously reported, the case concerns a Colombian family of four who were denied asylum despite their claims that they were being extorted by guerrillas who threatened to kidnap the young son.

Private immigration bills have long been a bipartisan way for lawmakers to push for deferred removals from the country on behalf of individual people in dire circumstances.But if compassion is the currency on which lawmakers get to choose who lives in the country and who could die after deportation to their home countries, then it could be argued that there are other immigrants worthy of the sentiment. One Mexican man, a father of three, jumped to his death after ICE deported him in February. In May, Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) condemned the deportation of an asylum-seeking Honduran mother and her five-year-old child who were running from death away from gangs who would target them the moment they land in Honduras.

All that could be a moot point anyway. Private bills no longer carry the same weight under the Trump administration. When lawmakers introduce private bills, ICE has in the past granted a stay of removal until Congress either took action on the bill or adjourned without taking action ont he bill and the grace period expired, according to a May 2017 letter to congressional members from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency acting director Thomas Homan. In that letter, Homanwrote that his agency would no longerdelay the deportation of people with pending private bills.

Josh Israel contributed to the research for this article.

Read more here:
There's a major disconnect in how Republicans think about immigration reform - ThinkProgress

No sooner had President Trump embraced the Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy Act sponsored by Sens. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., and David Perdue, R-Ga., than the predictable eruption of false and deceptive claims spewed forth from every direction.

What does it really do? The RAISE Act cuts unskilled and family chain migration. The bill would give American workers a break while increasing the skill set of new immigrants, making immigration more manageable, affordable, and consistent with our national interests and those of the American worker. Any reasonable person would wonder why we haven't made these changes years ago.

Opponents of the bill, mostly tied to cheap labor users and other vested interests, make many dubious, speculative arguments in their defense of the status quo. For example, they claim that cuts to unskilled immigration will produce a labor shortage. In fact, it will produce an increase in wages and automation. Legal workers will have more bargaining leverage, and working conditions will improve.

The related claim that food will rot in the fields for want of labor is equally groundless. Americans will do any work for a market-clearing wage and under safe working conditions. Moreover, a special agricultural guest-worker program already exists, but many agricultural employers prefer to hire illegal immigrants who work for less.

Opponents of the RAISE Act have also claimed that it will actually cost American jobs. This is based on misguided speculation that cutting immigration would prompt employers to go out of business rather than hire Americans or invest in labor-saving technology. There is no reason to believe this is true. The RAISE Act will help reduce taxes, decrease welfare dependency, and ensure that those we do admit can carry their own weight. It's a mystery how any of this would eliminate American jobs, especially considering that immigrants with businesses, skills and professions the very ones most likely to hire rather than displace American workers would be prioritized for admission under the proposed new system.

Speaking of which, that prioritization gives rise to the argument that the bill is "elitist" because it selects immigrants based on a merit-based points system. But in adopting such a system, the U.S. would merely be updating its selection criteria to match those of the world's other advanced nations, such as Canada and Australia. It would help us attract truly productive talent while preventing some labor displacement. In fact, it hews very closely to the recommendations of a 1990s presidential commission chaired by noted civil rights leader Barbara Jordan.

The most common argument against the RAISE Act is simply that it slashes levels of legal immigration. And although it does cut back from current levels, it brings legal immigration back to a level consistent with our historic averages. There is nothing written in stone that says 2017 immigration levels are ideal. Indeed, many workers feel they aren't and want to see lowered immigration as a way of raising Americans' wages and living standards.

When all else fails, they trot out the emotional argument that the RAISE Act is heartless and tears apart families. This is the last refuge of the scoundrel, and there are a lot of them out there.

But nepotistic chain migration has proven an unworkable construct for decades.The RAISE Act, instead of permitting endless chains of family relations to petition on one another's behalf, sets up a system to ensure nuclear families (primary immigrant, spouse and minor children) remain intact. But it also sets up a rule of reason: Permission to live in the U.S. is not a free ticket to bringing in your married adult brothers and sisters, along with their families.

In short, the RAISE Act makes our immigration system good for America by making it affordable, manageable, compatible with our actual labor needs, and consistent with our overall priorities as a nation. Instead of extending the life of our uncontrolled, mismanaged immigration system, the RAISE Act takes an enlarged view of the national interest as well as that of future generations.

Dan Stein is president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, in Washington D.C.

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions.

See the article here:
Six bogus arguments against Trump's immigration reform bill - Washington Examiner

GETTYSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA

At CareerLink, the state job agency in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, custodial worker and former welder Glenn Hendrickson was looking to change careers. Hendrickson was just beginning his search for a new line of work and he did not yet know what would pique his interest.

But he for sure wasnt interested in farm work, except as a last resort.

Ive had a lot of friends who have had summer jobs, like when they were in high school, picking fruit but I doubt anyone would make a career out of it, he said.

According to local farm sector employers, most workers are paid well above Pennsylvanias minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. Crew chiefs and foremen on some orchards earn close to $19 per hour. Yet few native-born Americans are willing to do this work, even if unemployed says Alan Dudley, administrator of the Gettysburg CareerLink office.

The work is difficult, especially in the fields, and its not necessarily unskilled work," he said. "Orchard owners want skilled people to harvest apples so they get the best return on their crop.

Adams Countys farms, orchards, and processing plants are where the jobs are. The so-called fruit belt of vast peach and apple orchards extends across the regions rolling green hills, along with the packing and processing companies and other agricultural-related businesses.

Tourism, with the 3 million visitors drawn annually to the historic Civil War battlefield of Gettysburg, is the other main economic generator.

Adams Countys $580-million fruit industry depends heavily on immigrant labor, which is why the country may be facing an unintended consequence of the Trump administrations crackdown on illegal immigrants.

Businesses in the agricultural-based economy are experiencing labor shortages, and orchard owners are bracing for the possibility of not having enough workers for the fall harvest.

Fleeing workforce

Last month, six Hispanic employees of a county fruit-packing company, which does not want to be identified, were picked up by local police and turned over to immigration agents, who sent them to a detention facility. These and other detentions have had a chilling effect on the countys Hispanic residents, who make up 6.5 percent of the population of some 100,000 people.

Yet because of the immigration crackdown, workers are not showing up or in some instances, have fled. The local plant of Hillandale Farms, a major national egg producer and distributor, was desperately seeking to fill vacant jobs this summer, according to a company official, because much of its Hispanic work force had disappeared.

As the autumn harvest approaches, the demand for labor is accelerating, Dudley says, not just in the orchards but also in the fruit processing and other agriculture-related industries.

So theyre coming into their busy hiring season right now. For instance, Knouse Foods just last week posted about eight new positions on our job search website.

No roving checkpoints

Adams County voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump in last Novembers presidential election.

At the Latimore Valley fair in June, which attracted several thousand people to watch antique car races, trucking company secretary Kim Sanders expressed strong support for President Trumps policy of arresting and deporting illegal immigrants who have committed crimes.

But, echoing the views of others at the fair who were asked the same question, Sanders wants the law-abiding undocumented immigrants to be able to stay.

I hate to say it but there are not enough American people to go out and work on a farm, or do planting and pick vegetables like they will, she said.

Republican Congressman Scott Perry, whose district includes Adams County, has heard the concerns of orchard owners and other businesses in the fruit industry. Perry told VOA his message to them is that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has assured him nothing has changed in its enforcement actions.

Theres not like roving checkpoints, he said. Theyre targeted enforcement.

But ICE has changed its policies somewhat. Acting-ICE chief Tom Homan told reporters at the White House last month that no populations are off the table. So non-criminals, those who have got a court order from a judge that refuse to leave, were looking for.

Under the last two years of the previous Obama administration, non-criminals were not a priority and were often let go if detained.

Growers such as Kay Hollabaugh are running out of patience. She met last month with Congressman Perry and local lawmakers to express her concerns about the future of the Adams County fruit belt if the immigrant labor force is driven out.

Those people who are making the laws of our land, eat every day, she said. If we could simply stop producing food for a month - OK, no food, no food - I think perhaps that would make some bells go off.

Ripening fruit

The Trump administrations immigration policy has galvanized activists in Adams County to press for immigration reform and to lobby local lawmakers to vote against measures that would target immigrant communities.

Jenny Dumont, a Spanish professor at Gettysburg College who leads the immigration lobbying effort for a grassroots group called Gettysburg Rising, blames the Trump administrations rhetoric for creating unwarranted fears about the undocumented.

Its pretty well documented that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans, Dumont said. My sense is that people, if theyve had contact with immigrants here, that they understand the contributions that they make, theyre able to see them as people not just the label immigrant, the other.

But Congressman Perry said the border would have to be secured before Americans would agree to any immigration reform measure.

If you just seal the border without doing some of these other reforms, were going to have problems from a business standpoint as well, and I think they get that but again theres this mistrust," he said. "They want to see action not words, the congressman said referring to border security.

As the push and pull over immigration policy plays out, farmers may get some relief as the federal government issues more visas for temporary agricultural workers, mainly from Mexico. The U.S. Labor Department has issued 20 percent more H-2A visas in 2017, compared to last year. Those visas are for seasonal agricultural work, such as harvesting berries, fruit or other crops.

But the visas require require farmers to demonstrate that no Americans will take the jobs they offer. In the meantime, the apple crop is ripening on the trees in Adams County. With harvesting about to begin in less than a month, orchard owners are not sure if enough workers will show up.

Kay Hollabaugh repeated what a top executive of a major food processor told her recently: If fruit goes, the Adams County economy falls and were out of business.

Read more from the original source:
Rural America Braces for Labor Shortages After Immigration Crackdown - Voice of America

The denial of first amendment rightsled to the political violence that we saw yesterday. That was how Jason Kessler, who organized last weekends far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, explained the actions of an extremist who rammed his car into a crowd of counter-protesters, killing one of them. Like many on the far right, Kessler was claiming that displays of hate needed to be protected as free speechor else.

The US constitutions first amendment protects free speech much more strongly than in most democraciesa German-style law against holocaust denial would never stand in the US, for exampleand Americans support the right to say offensive things more strongly than other nations, a Pew survey found last year. But for a long time, free speech was a core concern of the left in America, not the right.

When the National Review [a leading conservative magazine] was first published in the 1950s, the vast majority of articles addressing free speech and the first amendment were critical of free expression and its proponents, says Wayne Batchis, a professor at the University of Delaware and author of The Rights First Amendment: The Politics of Free Speech & the Return of Conservative Libertarianism. Today, review of its contents reveals the precise opposite.

What prompted the shift, Batchis says, was the rise of a concept that quickly became a favorite target of the right: political correctness. As Moira Weigel wrote in The Guardian last year, the concept rose to fame in the late 1980s. After existing in leftist circles as a humorous label for excessive liberal orthodoxy, it was co-opted by the right and framed as a form of limitation of free speech.

In 1990, New York Times reporter Richard Bernstein (paywall) used political correctness to refer to what he perceived as a growing intolerance on university campuses for views that diverged from mainstream liberalism. In a span of only a few months, stories about political correctness (some even deeming it a form of fascism) became commonplace in columns and on magazine covers. Before the 1990s, Weigel reports, the term was hardly ever used in the media; in 1992, it was used 6,000 times.

The idea became a centerpiece of right-wing theory, eventually leading to the popularity of the Tea Party and the election of a president, Donald Trump, who made the shunning of political correctness a political trademark.

But fighting political correctness wasnt the only thing that encouraged conservatives to embrace free speech. Money was also an incentive. Over the past decade the party has increasingly opposed any form of campaign-finance regulation, arguing that political donations are a form of free speech. Its reward came in the 2010 Supreme Court decision Citizens United, which allowed companies and trade unions to give unlimited donations to political causes. Liberals commonly oppose this view on the grounds, Batchis says, that spending money should not be treated as a form of speech.

In the event, both Republicans and Democrats have benefited from that ruling. Indeed, in last years election, Hillary Clinton raised $218 million from super PACS, the fundraising organizations that sprang up in the wake of Citizens Unitednearly three times as much as Donald Trump. During the primaries, though, the candidates for the Republican nomination collectively raised close to $400 million (paywall) from super PACs.

Conservatives have supported freedom of speech more consistently than liberals, even when its speech that goes against their views, according to Batchis. My research does suggest that even on hot-button issues like patriotism and traditional morality, many on the right have moved in a more speech-protective direction, he says. By contrast, progressives have been more likely to advocate constraints, particularly on speech that was seen as harmful to racial minorities and women, he says.

Still, there are exceptions to this rule on both sides. Many liberals still hold to the ACLU-style civil libertarian tradition even in the face of hate speech, says Batchis, while moralistic conservatives have advocated limitations on free speech such a ban on flag burning.

In the wake of Charlottesville, the California branch of the American Civil Liberties Union declared that the First Amendment does not protect people who incite or engage in violence. If white supremacists march into our towns armed to the teeth and with the intent to harm people, they are not engaging in protected free speech. And indeed, direct threats arent protected (pdf, pp. 3-4) by the first amendment. But to count as a threat, speech has to incite imminent lawless action, in the words of a 1969 Supreme Court ruling; merely advocating violence is allowed. That is why neo-Nazis are allowed to march, and to cast themselves as free-speech champions.

Read more:
How the American right co-opted the idea of free speech - Quartz