Mediaboss Marketing

An immigration reform bill that ensures the United States has the best and brightest foreign workers and also legalizes the current undocumented population in the United States has generally been a non-starter conversation since President Donald Trump took office. But major polls published after the presidents inauguration shows thats exactly the kind of legislation that Americans could see themselves supporting.

Last week, President Donald Trump backed a Senate Republican-led proposal that cuts legal immigration and significantly reduces the annual number of U.S. visas based on a strict definition of merit-based skills. Many voters would support components of the bill, as White House adviser Stephen Miller suggested, according to a recent Politico/Morning Consult poll published Wednesday.

Public support is so immense on this if you just look at the polling data in many key battleground states across the country that over time youre going to see massive public push for this kind of legislation, Miller said in defense of the immigration bill cosponsored by Sens. Tom Cotton (R-AR) and David Perdue (R-GA) and supported by the president.

But voters would also support other immigration policies left out by Cotton and Perdues bill. Those proposalsmay be taken up by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who is set on working with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to revive a plan to fix the countrys immigration system once he returns to work in the nations capital. The pair were on the Gang of Eight together in 2013 working on a Senate-passed version of a comprehensive immigration that never got a House floor vote. That bill included bipartisan requirements such as a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and border security measures.

McCains latest proposal is publicly unknown. What is known is that an immigration system overhaul attuned to modern migration patterns is long overdue. Based on national polls that came out after Trumps inauguration, here are some broad provisions that the majority of Americans would want to see in an immigration bill:

Mass deportation

Soon after his inauguration, Trump signed executive orders broadly authorizing federal immigration agents to detain and deport all undocumented immigrants. As a result, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have since detained undocumented immigrants, regardless of their criminal offenses.

That policy counters what the majority of Americans want.A March 2017 CNN/ORC poll found that 71 percent of 1,025 respondents do not believe in deporting all undocumented immigrants, while 78 percent favor deporting criminal immigrants. That could mean federal officers could once again devote enforcement resources on immigrants with serious criminal convictions. At the moment however, it appears that immigrant moms, dads, and high-achieving teenagerswithout criminal records are being scooped up in the deportation raids too.

Earned citizenship

The Trump administration may want to deport the undocumented population, but the majority of Americans want a compassionate solution. The sameMarch 2017 CNN/ORC poll found a strong majority of Americans, 90 percent, approve of a pathway to citizenship so long as immigrants fulfill requirements like having been here for a number of years, holding a job, speaking English, and are willing to pay back taxes that they owe.

Family-based immigration

Current immigration patterns are generally based on family sponsorship, which allows U.S. citizens to sponsor a relative applicant to legally live into the United States. Cotton and Perdues bill would drastically reduce the type of relatives that can be sponsored to just spouses and minor children instead of extended family members.

According to an August 2017 Politico/Morning Consult poll,Americans would likely support components of Cotton and Perdues bill that place emphasis on an immigration system based on job skills rather than family-based sponsorship. But that doesnt mean that family-based immigration isnt important. The survey question, When it comes to determining who is allowed to legally immigrate to the United States, should a greater emphasis be placed on elicited36 percent of1,992 registered voter respondents to respond the applicants ties to family members in the United States almost as high as the 39 percent who picked the job skills of an applicant.

High-skilled workers

Trump has often railed against the H-1B visa program used by many tech companies to bring in high-skilled foreign workers to work as engineers, computer scientists, and programmers. Both the U.S. Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security have stated their agencies would scrutinize employers who use the program to crack down on visa fraud.

A survey of 2,000 registered voters from aFebruary 2017 Politico/Morning Consult poll,found that Americans are pretty evenly split towards whether the number of H-1B visa holders should be increased or decreased annually. Congress currently sets the annual visa cap at 65,000. About 45 percent of voters in the poll believe that H-1B visa workers generally help the U.S. economy. That would likely mean that any change in the annual cap would upset people on either end of the immigration debate. Yet despite criticism from the administration, a recent study from theCenter for Global Development found that the H-1B visa program helped elevate the net gains of both the United Statesand India by about $431 million, Fortune reported.

Low-skilled workers

In explaining his support for Cotton and Perdues bill, the president insisted that he was demonstrating compassion for struggling American families,a plan that would cut the number of low-skilled workers in the country.The RAISE Act prevents new immigrants from collecting welfare and protects U.S. workers from being displaced, the president said at the time.

Its not really clear what Americans think based on past polls. On the one hand, a significant number of Americans likelyagree with the president that there should be fewer low-skilled workers. About 42 percent of voters believe the United States allows in too many low-skilled workers, according to the August 2017 Politico/Morning Consult poll, a five-point drop from a February 2017 Politico/Morning Consult poll which posed a similar question. But as aJune 2017 Gallup pollwhich surveyed 1,009 people pointed out, 72 percent of respondents say immigrants take jobs Americans dont want. As previously documented, that includes workers in the agricultural and food processing industries.

Low-skilled immigration, which is largely invisible work that helps to run the economy, is important. That was made clear last month when the Department of Labor and Department of Homeland Security announced the sudden increase of 15,000 H-2B seasonal worker visasin the 2017 fiscal year to fill a labor shortage in non-agricultural jobs. Reality bears out that agricultural workersan industry largely dominated by foreign labor from Latin American countries are needed as farms continue to face labor shortages.

With this kind of majority recognition for immigrant labor, an ideal immigration bill couldinclude a provision that makes it more difficult to exploit laborers in these temporary immigration statuses where their visas are tied to their employment.

See the original post:
5 immigration reform proposals that Americans actually support - ThinkProgress

This week, a libertarian think tank released a report showing an immigration reform proposal from a Florida congressman would lead to a major boost to the economy.

On Thursday,the Niskanen Center unveiled a reportshowing U.S. Rep. Carlos Curbelos, R-Fla., Recognizing Americas Children (RAC) Act would create 115,000 jobs and add almost $80 billion to the gross domestic product (GDP) over the next decade.

Curbelos proposal would reform the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program giving younger illegal immigrants, often called DREAMers--those who entered the country before 2012 and who were 16 or younger when they entered--a path to citizenship.

The RAC Act provides immigrants that have been vetted by the Department of Homeland Security with three pathways toward legalization: higher education, service in the armed forces, or work authorization, Curbelos office noted. Following a 5-year conditional status, these immigrants would be able to reapply for a 5-year permanent status.

Back in March, Curbelo brought out the the RAC Act with the support of fellow South Florida Republicans U.S. Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. Curbelo has rounded up more than 15 other co-sponsors, all Republicans, and the bill has been sent to the House Judiciary Committees Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, the House Homeland Security Committees Subcommittee on Border and Maritime and its Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence and the House Armed Services Committee.

On Thursday, Curbelo showcased the report and its support for his proposal.

This report confirms what we already know: immigrants have an enormous impact on our economy and job creation, especially here in South Florida, Curbelo said. While Ive been hopeful the administration has signaled a willingness to do the right thing by these DREAMers, Congress must take action to provide a fair and permanent solution. These young people are contributing to our communities and our economy, and they should not have to live in constant fear. My legislation would give peace of mind to hundreds of thousands across the country and grow our economy and create new jobs.

I urge all my colleagues who want to help these young people and advance responsible immigration policy to join us and co-sponsor the RAC Act, Curbelo added. I urge all Americans who have it in their hearts to do something for these young people to call your representatives and tell them we need to act together and now.

See original here:
Carlos Curbelo's Reform for DREAMers Will Boost Economy, Report Shows - Sunshine State News

Enlarge / Issue ads like this one from 2012 used to be commonplace in the DC metro.

The American Civil Liberties Union on Wednesday sued the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, the government agency thatoperates the capital region's subway system and its primary bus network. The ACLU argues that the transit agency's policies for accepting advertisements on its subway stations, trains, and buses violate the First Amendment by discriminating against controversial and non-mainstream viewpoints.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are ideologically diverse: the ACLU itself, an abortion provider, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and alt-right-Internet-troll-to-the-point-Twitter-actually-banned-him Milo Yiannopoulos.

The inclusion of an alt-right figure like Yiannopoulos helps to demonstrate the ACLU's point that WMATA's policy squelches free-speech rights across the political spectrum. But Yiannopoulos' inclusionhas also raised the hackles of some on the political left, who see associating with the controversial authoras beyond the pale. Chase Strangio, an ACLU attorney who has represented whistleblower Chelsea Manning, posted a statement calling Yiannopoulos "vile" and attacking the ACLU for defending his First Amendment rights.

But the ACLU has a long history of defending the First Amendment rights of groups far outside the mainstream, including Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan.As such, the organizationhasn't backed down from its defense of Yiannopoulos. "Protecting the First Amendment rights of all of these speakers is crucial to the ability of civil rights movements to make the change we need to make," the group argued in a Wednesday blog post.

The controversy began in 2015, when anti-Muslim activist Pam Geller tried to place ads depicting a cartoon of the prophet Muhammad on DC subways. That put WMATA in a difficult position, because some Muslim extremists have threatened violence against anyone who publishes Muhammad cartoons.

In an apparent effort to duck the controversy, WMATA announced that it was suspending "issue oriented" advertising across the board.

Of course, the big problem here is that it's not so clear what counts as an "issue oriented" ad. For example, military contractors have long taken out lavish ads touting their latest fighter planes. Arethey merely advertising commercial products or are they trying to influencepolicy decisions about what hardware to buy?

The ACLU believes that the "no issue ads" standard is unworkable and unconstitutional, and it assembled a group of plaintiffs to illustrate the point:

A couple of things are obvious from this list. First, while Yiannopoulos'participation in the lawsuit has gotten the most attention, the ACLU isn't only defending the rights of right-wing provocateurs like Yiannopoulos and Geller. Groups defending left-wing causes like animal rights and abortion rights have also been affected.

Second, while WMATA might have thought "issue ads" were a clear and value-neutral category, in practice it has turned out to be unworkably vague. Rules that allow companies to hawk fighter jets and hamburgers, but ban anti-war and animal rights groups from advertising, is the opposite of viewpoint-neutral. The WMATA's guidelines give the agency unfettered discretion to decide which positions are too controversial to appear in ads, and that seems hard to square with the First Amendment.

The ACLU is generally viewed as a liberal group, but itsabsolutist stance on the First Amendment doesn't fit well with everyone on the political left. A growing contingent of left-wing thinkers have come to see "hate speech" as a serious problem and free speech absolutism as an obstacle to addressing it.

Controversy has become more common over the last eightmonths as the ACLU has attracted a wave of new supporters alarmed by the Trump presidency. Many people donated to the ACLU in the expectation that the group would oppose Trump administration policiesand the group has done plenty of that. But not all of the ACLU's new donors understood the depths of the ACLU's commitment to free speech rights.

"Especially for many of our new members, they may be surprised by the ACLU's robust First Amendment positions," ACLU staff attorney Lee Rowland said in February. "But it's certainly not new."

Over time, defending the free speech rights of right-wing extremists has become something of a trademark for the group. For example, in 2012 the ACLU sued the state of Georgia defending the right of the KKK to "adopt a highway" in the state. In 2010, the group defended the free speech rights of Fred Phelps, the infamous pastor who pickets the funerals of LGBTsoldiers with anti-gay messages.

The ACLU has been doing this kind of thing for almost 100 years now, and it's not likely to stop any time soon. Individualswho don't want their donations supporting the rights of people who engage in "hate speech" mightbe wise toresearch organizations ahead of time.

See more here:
DC's transit agency rejected ads touting the First Amendment (really) - Ars Technica

WASHINGTON (Sinclair Broadcast Group)

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is representing individuals in Kentucky, Maine and Maryland who argue that the governors in those states have violated the First Amendment by deleting comments and blocking users on the governors' Facebook and Twitter pages.

The plaintiffs in each case argue that they were shut out of a public political forum because they had been critical of the governors' policies or expressed views were at odds with their state's chief executive. By blocking comments and users, the plaintiffs say their governor has violated their right to free speech and their right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

One of the issues at stake is whether public figures can use their social media accounts to sanction other users based private preferences. More fundamentally the cases could determine whether political speech is protected in the social media age.

"In this new world of social media, government officials and constituents are using these platforms as a powerful tool to connect with each other," said Meagan Sway, Justice Fellow with the Maine ACLU chapter. "But when that happens, the First Amendment applies."

Maine Gov. Paul LePage (R) has been accused of using his Facebook account in an official government capacity to conduct official government business. He has also taken advantage of the platform's features to block certain constituents. According to the ACLU, "that's unconstitutional censorship."

The arguments are similar in Kentucky and Maryland, where numerous constituents have come forward to challenge the 21st century version of being banished from the public commons. In Utah, the ACLU has put the state's federal congressional delegation on notice after similar complaints from constituents.

Already, experts anticipate the cases in Kentucky, Maine and Maryland will shape the environment for the high-profile case involving President Donald Trump blocking Twitter users.

The Knight First Amendment Institute filed suit against the president in June arguing it is unconstitutional for an elected public official using a "designated public forum," like Twitter, to block speech just because it is critical or disagreeable.

"It's a new area of law," Sway said in an interview with WGME News. "We think courts will agree with us ... that this is an open platform, that the government cannot kick people off just because [they] dont agree with them."

Roy Gutterman, director of the Tully Center for Free Speech at Syracuse University, said the pending social media cases beg for a "firm declaration" from the courts that blocking political speech on social media a violation of the First Amendment.

"If you're a government official, your social media is an extension of your office and you cant block people for innocuous reasons, or for political reasons" he emphasized. "If you're a government official, especially a governor, I don't think you can bifurcate your personal speech from your official speech."

In Maine, LePage has worked to do just that and distance his official position from his official social media accounts.

A few weeks ago, the governor's "about" page on Facebook was updated. It now states that the page is "official-but not managed by gov't officials," was a fan page but is now home to LePage supporters. However, the page was verified on behalf of the governor and LePage even opted into Facebook's "Town Hall" feature, which helps connect constituents and their government representatives.

Shortly after taking office in 2015, Gov. Larry Hogan of Maryland set up Facebook and Twitter accounts and by January 2017, Hogan had reportedly blocked 450 people.

"He didnt like [the posts], but thats not enough," Legal Director for ACLU Maryland Deborah Jeon told WBFF earlier this month. "People have a First-Amendment right to their own opinions. And when the governor establishes a forum for speech between constituents and the government, then he has to listen to what they have to say, whether or not he likes it."

The governor never responded to the ACLU's letter asking him to reinstate the seven individuals banned.

Hogan reacted to the lawsuit saying it was "frivolous" and motivated by partisan politics.

"Its silly, its ridiculous," Hogan told reporters last week. "We have about a million people a week on our Facebook page. Four of them were blocked for violating our Facebook policy and now the Maryland Democratic party got them to file suit with the ACLU."

The governor has defended blocking constituents on the basis of his office's "social media policy," which ACLU claims violates the state's social media policy. Under Hogan's personal policy, comments and users can be blocked if they are deemed irrelevant to the governor's announcements or initiatives, and if the users engage in a "Coordinated Effort" to petition the office. The office claims the right to block users and comments "at any time without prior notice or without providing justification."

"I don't buy that argument," he noted, adding that such arguments get into "untested" legal areas. "This is public business. This is clearly a first amendment issue with political speech implications and the right to petition government."

In Kentucky, Gov. Matt Bevin has argued that the only comments or users being blocked are "abusive trolls" and others who are posting obscene or inappropriate content.

"Gov. Bevin is a strong advocate of constructive dialogue," his communications directed said responding to the ACLU suit. "Blocking individuals from engaging in ... inappropriate conduct on social media in no way violates their free speech right under the U.S. or Kentucky constitutions, nor does it prohibit them from expressing their opinion in an open forum."

According to the plaintiffs, there are "hundreds" of users who have been permanently blocked by Bevin, including "Kentuckians Against Matt Bevin," a public Facebook group with over 1,900 followers.

One of the plaintiffs in the case, Mary Hargis, noted that while she has been critical of the governor on certain issues she was "shocked" to discover he had blocked her. "I may not have voted for Governor Bevin, but I'm one of his constituents," she said. "He shouldn't be permanently dismissing my views and concerns with a click."

As these suits are litigated and President Trump squares off against his blocked Twitter followers, it is unclear how the courts will rule, though U.S. courts tend to rule firmly in favor of protecting political speech.

"If these cases keep getting litigated and appealed ... I can actually see the Supreme Court weighing in on this a year or two down the road," Gutterman suggested. "I think it would be a soft ball."highest level of first amendment activity t

Just recently the Court handed down its first major decision on a social media case in June, ruling unanimously that the First Amendment protected an individual from being refused access to social media. The question before the court was whether a convicted sex offender could be blocked from Facebook , Twitter and other popular social media sites.

The Supreme Court ruling is likely to provide a strong argument for the plaintiffs as the Facebook blocking cases move forward.

"Political speech ... has always been the highest level of First Amendment activity," Gutterman stated. "There's clear First Amendment action here. You've got government activity, government action and citizen expression."

See the rest here:
First Amendment lawsuits pile up against governors who block Facebook, Twitter users - WJLA

Hours after he tweeted out Sieg Heil! during a Twitter fight with Media Matters president Angelo Carusone, political commentator Jeffrey Lord found himself fired by CNN. Commenting on the network severing ties with the pro-Trump pundit, a CNN spokesperson stated that Nazi salutes are indefensible.

Following CNNs announcement of his termination, Lord spoke with the Associated Press. While he expressed his affection and love for CNN, noting that theyre terrific people and serious people, he said he felt the outlet was doing a disservice to free speech.

He called himself a First Amendment fundamentalist and called CNNs decision disappointing. From my perspective CNN caved on the First Amendment of all things. I disagree. I respectfully disagree.

Those remarks somewhat echo what he said to CNN senior media correspondent Brian Stelter shortly after he was canned, as he claimed in that conversation that CNN was caving to bullies.

Lord further told the AP that he had received a tidal wave of support from conservatives following his firing. One of those conservatives is White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, who called the American Spectator columnist last night to encourage him to keep fighting.

[image via screengrab]

Follow Justin Baragona on Twitter: @justinbaragona

Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com

See the rest here:
Jeffrey Lord Speaks Out on Firing: 'CNN Caved on the First Amendment' - Mediaite