Mediaboss Marketing

In President Trumps fiery address to a raucous crowd of Phoenix supporters, he boldly promised believe me, if we have to close down our government, were building that wall. Earlier in the day, he visited border patrol agents and military in Yuma, Arizona, where expanded border barricades have proven very effective at reducing illegal crossings.

Also on Tuesday, McClatchy News made a splash with a story about the potential for a grand bargain on immigration between the White House and the Hill. According to sources, the administration may concede to moderates on DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) -- the so-called "Dreamers" brought to the U.S. as children -- in exchange for a funded border wall and tougher immigration policies resembling the RAISE Act, recently outlined by White House aide Stephen Miller in a heated briefing room appearance.

Many on the right revolted, as Breitbart called it Amnesty First and Rosemary Jenks from NumbersUSA, which advocates for restricted immigration, declared: DACA needs to be ended. While I rarely disagree with voices of the populist right, if such a deal is indeed afoot, the president should seize the moment, simultaneously showing his heart while also protecting the long-term safety and economic interests of Americans.

If such a deal is indeed afoot, the president should seize the moment, simultaneously showing his heart while also protecting the long-term safety and economic interests of Americans.

DACAs implementation by executive order under President Obama unconstitutionally usurped Congresss plenary powers under U.S. law. Many states, most notably Texas, plan to sue the federal government over this issue, essentially forcing the White Houses hand. Either the Trump DOJ must fight Texas in court to preserve Obamas king-like edict -- an impossibility -- or a deal must be reached with Congress.

Paradoxically this President, so roundly derided as anti-Mexican and xenophobic, represents the best chance in decades at real, substantive immigration reform and on America First terms.

Regarding the DACA arrivals, the president compassionately maintained their status, recognizing that they were brought as children and had no say in breaking our immigration laws. Many of them have lived in America for decades, speaking English, attending our schools and now earning livings. So long as theyve graduated high school and remain law-abiding, I believe they should be granted legal status, but not citizenship. Why that distinction? Because we cannot allow illegal migrants to become voters nor should we promise this policy is irrevocable, a status full-fledged citizenship would confer.

President Trump, alone, owns the credibility to make this DACA concession for three reasons. First, amazingly, hes already largely secured our border, with illegal crossings plunging due to heightened enforcement and clear-eyed rhetoric. Second, an empowered ICE has accelerated the immediate deportation of thousands of dangerous illegals with criminal records or gang affiliations, foregoing political correctness to protect our citizens, whether legal immigrants or native-born. Third, the Administration already rescinded DACAs nonsensical corollary DAPA, which afforded protection to the illegal guardians of legal immigrants, sheltering grown adults who knowingly and willfully broke our rules.

Most importantly, I implore my colleagues on the populist right to embrace the political reality that this proposed deal can deliver on the most important foundational promises of the Trump movement: both the Border Wall and a far more coherent immigration law as outlined in the Cotton/Perdue RAISE act. Sadly, squishy Republicans who populate the U.S. Senate ensure that no stand-alone wall funding will pass. But, we can and should horse-trade by making DACA the law of the land and, in exchange, secure immediate wall construction PLUS an important shift to a skills-based, more restrained immigration model.

As the son of an immigrant, I urge another son of an immigrant, President Trump, to pursue these badly needed immigration policy reforms and prove his critics wrongyet again.

Steve Cortes is a Fox News contributor, former Trump campaign operative and spokesman for the Hispanic 100. For two decades, he worked on Wall Street as a trader and strategist.

View post:
Trump's Wall and immigration reform Dreamers, deportations and a deal? - Fox News

Donald Trump needs to put some points on the board, and fast. Health-care reform is dying. Every time the White House announces a new Infrastructure Week, Trump gets bored by mid-morning on the first day and goes to Twitter to churn the political-media cesspit.

And so there is now a scramble. Jared Kushner has flown to the Middle East to stand there and take credit in case an improbable peace breaks out. There are new efforts on tax reform. And in the background, Trump aides and other executive-branch employees are talking themselves into an immigration deal, a deal that no one else knows about. At his Arizona rally, he once again promised to build the wall.

But the obstacles the Trump administration faces on immigration are serious ones. At almost every turn, Trumps actions have stiffened opposition to sensible immigration reform. Part of this is just the nature of partisanship. As Republicans became more strongly associated with immigration restriction, Democrats passions started to run in the opposite direction. But a great deal of this is Trumps fault in a direct way.

Trump made immigration his signature issue. He told Australian prime minister Malcolm Turnbull that he was the worlds greatest person that does not want to let people into the country. And part of the way Trump proved he was the worlds greatest restrictionist to the Ann Coulters and other populists was by again in his own words gladly accept[ing] the mantle of anger.

But while gaining Coulter et al., he justified the fears of others whod always suspected that anyone who really wants to police the borders must be racist or hate Hispanics. Trump accused a federal judge of lacking impartiality on account of his Hispanic heritage alone. He went after the family of a dead American soldier merely on account of their Islamic faith.

Then there was the temporary travel ban. As a policy, it wasnt all that crazy of an idea. It was far short of the once-promised Muslim ban. The vast majority of the worlds Muslims would be unaffected, and the policy came with a swift end date. Furthermore, visas are restricted all the time during periods of war or disruption.

But this executive order was carried out with cruel disregard for people traveling into the United States. And because it was overseen by Steve Bannon, you can be pretty sure that the scenes of chaos, panic, and protest were the intended effect. For a populist of Bannons type, chaos, panic, and protest are proof that youre doing something worthwhile. Bannon thinks that every televised scene of chaos is the 1968 Democratic convention, and that the majority of Americans are rooting for the cops to beat some hippie brains in.

In fact, public opinion overall is running away from Trump on immigration. It looks more and more like Trump sacrificed the issue to his own political benefit. Pew has polled support for a border wall for almost a decade. It held steady in the upper 40s until the Trump campaign began and it fell by almost ten points. Where opposition to Trump is strongest, on the left, the position on immigration is rapidly converging near support for open borders.

It is almost certain that Trump will fall far short of the expectations of his restrictionist fans now. He told you he wasnt serious. He practically mocked his supporters and admitted that the wall was just to get their juices flowing: If it gets a little boring...I just say, We will build the wall! You cant say that you werent told.

When Trump announced that he was going to keep the bipartisan policy of endless half-war in Afghanistan on life support, the serious people said once again that Trump was becoming presidential. Maybe growing into the office. And once again, shortly thereafter he held a crazy rally and engaged in stream-of-consciousness attacks on the media. And the populists said, Our Trump is back. Hes going to build the wall.

How many times will everyone fall for it?

READ MORE: Donald Trump, Protestors, & the Media All Deserve Each Other Stop Illegal Immigration Before Reforming Immigration RAISE Act Immigration Cuts Help Us Regain Legitimacy

Michael Brendan Dougherty is a senior writer at National Review.

The rest is here:
Trump's Dumb Dance on Immigration - National Review

Are statues that are offensive, reminding us of our racist history, protected under the First Amendment? As repugnant and politically incorrect as these statues may be, any attempt to force their removal would seem to constitute a violation of their First Amendment protections. Why, because these statues seem to be protected under what the courts have ruled to be protected symbolic speech.

Most forms of spoken or written speech are protected by the Constitutions First Amendment, particularly political expression. However, certain speech is not protected. For example, fighting words or speech aimed clearly at inciting violence; libel; obscenity; threats; false advertising in business (but allowed in political campaigns) are not protected speech.

Although the constitutional framers were silent on protecting symbolic speech, the U.S. Supreme Court first ruled to protect symbolic speech in Stromberg v. California in 1931 when the court ruled against a California law that forbade protesters from displaying a red flag as a symbol of opposition to organized government.

Since 1931, the concept of symbolic speech has been expanded by federal court rulings to cover a broader array of messaging considered a form of speech or expression. Protected symbolic speech may convey messages through sit-ins, protest signs, armbands, badges, flag burning, and all sorts of artistic expression such as dance, theater, paintings, photographs and statuary.

Today, our society is clashing over the removal of certain statuary that proponents of removal argue remind us of our racist past, even celebrating it. It is completely understandable why certain groups, especially African-Americans, would deem such statuary offensive and push for its removal. The problem is that the statue of, say, Robert E. Lee might be offensive, but being offensive, according to federal court decisions, is not reason enough to allow for the removal of such statues under the First Amendment.

The display of a Robert E. Lee statue by itself is unlikely to cause a riot any more than a gun by itself is likely to kill someone. Consequently, it seems that federal court decisions for the past 86 years would suggest that controversial Confederate statuary constitutes protected symbolic speech, regardless of the offensive messaging.

As a liberal, I am frustrated by my liberal friends who want it both ways. They want to use the First Amendment to protect their speech, writings and artistic expressions, but they oppose allowing the other side their right of freedom of expression.

For instance, last January, U.S. Rep. William Lacy Clay defended a painting on a Capitol wall as constitutionally protected artistic expression. The artist was a local high school student who created rather negative, piglike images of police as they confronted Ferguson protesters. Some felt the painting was offensive because it denigrated police, including Republican U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, who decided to remove it from the wall. There was outrage over its removal with Clay and mostly other liberals, including myself, arguing that this young artist had a right to express his feelings through his painting under the First Amendment.

But where are these defenders of this artwork now? Lets face it, we are a bunch of hypocrites arguing that speech should be protected when we want our messages advanced, but quick to condemn freedom of expression when we do not like the message. This is a natural human inclination, but it does not pass the legal scrutiny of our federal courts.

In Texas v. Johnson (1989), the Supreme Courts Justice William Brennan ruled that flag burning, as offensive as it may be, constitutes symbolic speech that is constitutionally protected, reasoning that the government may not prohibit expression simply because it disagrees with its message.

It should not be forgotten that the ACLU lost many of its members, especially Jewish members, after the ACLU successfully defended the right of a neo-Nazi group to march in Skokie, Ill., displaying very offensive Nazi images such as swastikas. However, the ACLU placed constitutional principle before their membership interests, and did the right thing. The ACLU acknowledged how repugnant to its organization this neo-Nazi march would be, but they argued that they had no choice, as advocates of civil liberties, but to support the constitutional right of these neo-Nazis to march.

President Jimmy Carter also said at the time: I must respect the decision of the Supreme Court allowing this group to express their views, even when those views are despicable and ugly.

Kenneth F. Warren is a professor of political science at St. Louis University.

View post:
Offensive statues should be protected under First Amendment - STLtoday.com

The NAACP's interim president Derrick Johnson has officially requested a formal meeting with NFL commissioner Roger Goodell to discuss NFL players and their ability to exercise their First Amendment rights.

According to a letter sent to the league by the NAACP, the meeting will specifically focus on Kaepernick's perceived "blackballing" by the league in light of his protests last season. It also questions the silencing of NFL players' platforms, citing Tommie Smith and John Carlos's black power salute at the 1968 Olympics, among other examples.

Kaepernick's lack of a job has raised many eyebrows throughout the offseason, particularly with the quarterbacks being signed ahead of him. Johnson penned a concern regarding Kaepernick's First Amendment rights and also strongly insinuated that his protest was the sole cause of him not being signed. An excerpt of the letter reads:

Last season, Mr. Kaepernick chose to exercise his First Amendment rights by protesting the inequitable treatment of people of color in America. By quietly taking a knee during the national anthem, he was able to shine a light on the many injustices, particularly, the disproportionate occurrences of police misconduct toward communities of color. As outlined in your office's public statement, this act of dissent is well within the National Football League's stated bylaws. Yet, as the NFL season quickly approaches, Mr. Kaepernick has spent an unprecedented amount of time as a free agent, and it is becoming increasingly apparent that this is no sheer coincidence.

"No player should be victimized and discriminated against because of his exercise of free speech -- to do so is in violation of his rights under the Constitution and the NFL's own regulations.

Obviously, invoking the Constitution is a powerful tool, and it raises questions about what's covered by free speech. The NAACP also stressed the important of free speech in the Civil Rights Movement, along with the importance that it's upheld moving forward.

The exercise of free speech has proven to be a vital tool in in bringing to the public's attention often ignored issues of social justice, particularly in the African-American community. The powerful act of utilizing one's platform to address issues of discrimination and inequality has long been employed by many of the world's greatest athletes.

Some teams may be a starting quarterback injury away from signing Kaepernick, but the Baltimore Ravens disproved that theory when rumors swirled after Joe Flacco's back injury. They ultimately chose to sign Thaddeus Lewis to spell Flacco. There have been protests in front of the NFL headquarters regarding Kaepernick, including one on Wednesday.

Since losing the starting job in San Francisco, Kaepernick has faced tremendous scrutiny. Other athletes have joined in on his protest, and depending on how the next few weeks go, these protests may start to pick up steam if Kaepernick remains unsigned -- whether it's fair or not.

Go here to see the original:
NAACP asks for meeting with Goodell over Colin Kaepernick's First Amendment rights - CBSSports.com

Bar Associations

Posted August 23, 2017, 4:00 pm CDT

By Debra Cassens Weiss

Shutterstock.com

A federal appeals court recently ruled against a North Dakota lawyer who alleged the mandatory state bar violated his First Amendment rights.

Arnold Fleck had claimed the bar should have given him the chance to affirmatively consent before using his money on activities that werent relevant to the practice of law. The St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed in an Aug. 17 opinion (PDF).

The Goldwater Institute, which represented Fleck, said in a press release it plans to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. The Associated Press has a story.

Fleck had objected because a portion of his mandatory dues went to a PAC that opposed a 2014 ballot initiative known as Measure 6, which would establish a presumption that each parent is entitled to equal parental rights. The measure was rejected by voters.

The state bar dues notice, which was revised as a result of Flecks lawsuit, says bar members can deduct a certain amount from their dues in a Keller deduction for activities that arent germane to law practice. The reference is to the 1990 U.S. Supreme Court case Keller v. State Bar of California.

Keller held that mandatory bars can use members required dues to fund activities germane to regulating the legal profession and improving the quality of legal services, but not to fund nongermane activities that a member opposes.

Fleck had argued the bar should have required him to opt in to use of his dues for nongermane activities, rather than requiring him to opt out. The 8th Circuit said the procedure satisfies Supreme Court precedent.

Continued here:
Lawyer who objected to mandatory bar's PAC contribution loses First Amendment appeal - ABA Journal