Mediaboss Marketing

Gun owners were justifiably disappointed June 26, when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Peruta v. California. The denial was a setback in NRAs efforts to secure judicial recognition that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms outside the home. For now, misguided state and local governments will continue to deny their residents Right-to-Carry.

The Peruta case began back in October 2009, when plaintiff Edward Peruta filed a complaint with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California arguing that San Diego County Sheriff William Gore violated his Second Amendment rights. Under Californias permitting law, Gore had wide discretion to deny carry permits to applicants unless they demonstrated good cause for obtaining it. A desire to exercise the Second Amendment right to self-defense did not meet the sheriffs definition of good cause.

At the outset, a key argument for the defense held that San Diegos interpretation of Californias permit law did not extinguish Perutas Second Amendment right, as California did not prohibit individuals from openly carrying an unloaded handgun outside the home. However, in 2011, California enacted a law prohibiting the open carry of handguns.

In 2014, in a tremendously well-reasoned opinion, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that San Diegos enforcement of Californias discretionary permitting scheme violated the Second Amendment. In 2016, however, a larger panel of Ninth Circuit judges came to the opposite conclusion. The Ninth Circuit refused to take Californias prohibition on open carry into account, ruling only that the Second Amendment does not protect, in any degree, the carrying of concealed firearms.

However unfortunate, the current cloud over our Second Amendment rights does have a silver lining. Perutas fate confirmed that the newest member of the Supreme Court has a firm commitment to an individuals right to keep and bear arms.

Coinciding with the Courts decision to reject Peruta, Justice Clarence Thomas issued a blistering dissent from the courts denial. He was joined by the newest member of the Court, Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Thomas admonished the Ninth Circuits failure to address Californias entire carry scheme as indefensible. Joined by Gorsuch, he went on to explain that the Supreme Court has already suggested that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry firearms in public in some fashion.

Moreover, Thomas addressed the Courts recent substandard treatment of the Second Amendment, calling this development a distressing trend and inexcusable.

Gorsuchs actions represent a major victory for gun owners and reminder of how important elections truly are. Following the unexpected death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February 2016, gun owners faced the prospect of a Court that would pervert the Second Amendment to eliminate its protections for our individual right to keep and bear arms. But gun owners rose to the challenge, putting pressure on their Senators to reject Barack Obamas anti-gun nominee, Merrick Garland. Illustrating the importance gun rights supporters played in this battle, the New York Times editorial page whined, The Senate Defers to the N.R.A.

Gun rights supporters went on to make the Court a pivotal issue in the 2016 presidential campaign, one that helped put Donald Trump in the White House. And when several senators threatened to block any Trump Court pick, NRA stood by the presidents nominee.

Gorsuchs participation in Thomass forceful dissent is tangible evidence that he respects the Second Amendment and the individual right it guarantees.

Moreover, Peruta was not the last chance gun owners will have to vindicate our Right-to-Carry before the Court. A response to the Ninth Circuits ruling in Peruta Flanagan v. Becerra challenges Californias open carry prohibition. And Grace v. District of Columbia is yet another case that may have a critical bearing on our Right-to-Carry in public by challenging the Districts highly restrictive permit regime. In addition to those current cases, more lawsuits are on the way.

Gun owners, just as Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, are right to be disappointed in the Courts recent treatment of the Second Amendment. What we should not do is become discouraged. Gun rights supporters would do well to recall the decades of scholarship, activism, and litigation that led to our victories in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. As long as Second Amendment supporters are resolute in our purpose and work to ensure the appointment of judges and justices that respect our rights, the Second Amendment will once again win at the highest court.

Read the rest here:
US Supreme Court Disappoints on Right-to-Carry, but Justice Gorsuch Shines - NRA ILA

The EU pledged to help Italy and Greece as well as non-EU member Turkey by relocating 160,000 asylum seekers as the nations call out for support from the 27-member superstate.

But with the deadline looming next month, Brussels have only managed to ferry 26,295 people from Italy and Greece across the bloc, the European Commissions own figures revealed.

Some of those migrants have even been moved into the non-EU states of Norway and Switzerland.

The scheme was pushed through the EU by Angela Merkel, who provoked outrage across the continent with her open door immigration policy which saw almost 900,000 people move into Germany.

GETTY

But the mechanism caused outrage in many countries when it was introduced in 2015, with Denmark, Austria, Hungary and the UK all deciding not to pledge any places.

The shocking figures will also spell bad news for beleaguered French president Emmanuel Macron, who pledged to support his Italian neighbours as they struggle to cope with the effects of the migrant crisis.

As he entered office, he claimed his nation had not listened enough to Italys cry for help on the migration crisis but quickly shut the border to migrants just two months later.

Earlier this week Italian Foreign Minister Angelino Alfano accused the EU of abandoning his country.

Almost 98,000 migrants are believed to have entered Italy from Libya alone in the last year.

Asked if Italy had been abandoned by other European nations, Mr Alfano said: A very clear yes.

1 of 10

GETTY

He added: Italy is contributing, but we cannot cope with this burden alone.

He went on to claim European governments should be looking to Libya as the only solution to decrease the number of migrants reaching Italy.

It comes as Libyan Prime Minister Faiez Sarraj warns migrating terrorists travelling from Libya could cause devastation and affect all of the EU due to free movement.

The head of the UN-supported Libyan government Mr Sarraj said: When migrants reach Europe, they will move freely.

If, God forbid, there are terrorist elements among the migrants, a result of any incident will affect all of the EU.

GETTY

Getty Images

1 of 10

Aid workers help migrants up the shore after making the crossing from Turkey to the Greek island of Lesbos on November 16, 2015 in Sikaminias, Greece

Mr Sarraj has since called on the EU to help secure the nations border and asked the UN to lift an embargo which stops Libya from purchasing arms.

The prime minister also said it was time to pressure African nations into taking back economic migrants.

He told The Times: The EU must do more to us help face smuggling.

We cant put the burden on Libya and Italy alone as it is important for all of Europe.

Continued here:
EU has just weeks to relocate 130 THOUSAND migrants as bloc to fail on ANOTHER pledge - Express.co.uk

The debate over the migrant crisis has a new voice: Pope Francis.

Monday the Vatican released a comprehensive policy document urging countries around the world to ban arbitrary and collective expulsions of refugees or migrants, and to expand the number of safe and legal pathways for migration.

The policy document, Responding to Refugees and Migrants: Twenty Action Points, was released by the Vaticans section on Migrants and Refugees, a small department within the Vatican that Francis directly oversees. The document comes in anticipation of talks on immigration and migration at the United Nations scheduled for next year.

The memo also highlighted the importance of social and economic justice for those who have already migrated, including guaranteeing equal access to education for children. It also calls to prohibit exploitation, forced labor, or trafficking and guaranteeing the rights of undocumented workers who need to report abusive employers. Such stipulations reflect Franciss well documented concern for workers issues more broadly.

Francis delivered a message with the documents release last week. "Every stranger who knocks at our door is an opportunity for an encounter with Jesus Christ, the pope said. "This solidarity must be concretely expressed at every stage of the migratory experience from departure through journey to arrival and return.

He was also critical of anti-migration policies enacted in the name of wider security concerns. "The principle of the centrality of the human person, firmly stated by my beloved predecessor, Benedict XVI, obliges us to always prioritize personal safety over national security, Francis said.

Graham Gordon, head of policy at Catholic aid agency CAFOD, said in a statement: The Holy Father is making clear that all countries must step up to the plate and pull their weight. ... This is one of the greatest crises of the century so far. Not for the first time, the Pope is reminding politicians that history will judge whether they rise to the challenge or abdicate their responsibilities.

While the pope did not call out any politicians by name, its difficult to imagine that he was not referring, at least in part, to the strongly isolationist tendencies of Donald Trump. The two clashed earlier this year during Trumps visit to the Vatican and while Trump was on the campaign trail. This summer, shortly after receiving a pointedly given copy of the Popes 2015 encyclical on climate change, Laudato Si, Trump withdrew from the Paris climate accords.

In taking on the plight of migrants so visibly, the Pope may be repeating his previous strategy on environmental issues: a strategy that with the exception of Trumps response has been largely successful in shaping global discourse.

Laudato Si proved enormously influential in raising political goodwill for environmental initiatives, including the Paris accords. The United Nations chief climate change official, Christiana Figueres, referred to it as a "clarion call" for change, and Catholics including CAFODs UK news officer Liam Finn, celebrated it as a sign of Franciss ability to make Vatican documents the subject of international media coverage.

Franciss media popularity and savvy render his public policy positions far more visible than those of, say, his predecessor Benedict XIV. But it remains to be seen how well Francis shapes the political discourse this time.

Go here to see the original:
Pope Francis is becoming the voice of compassion for the world's refugees - Vox

Former Maricopa County, Ariz., sheriff Joe Arpaio ignored a judge's order to stop detaining people because he merely suspected them of being undocumented immigrants. (Thomas Johnson/The Washington Post)

Do people in this room like Sheriff Joe? Ill make a prediction: I think hes going to be just fine, okay? President Trump, rally in Phoenix, Aug. 22

He has done a lot in the fight against illegal immigration. Hes a great American patriot and I hate to see what has happened to him. Is there anyone in local law enforcement who has done more to crack down on illegal immigration than Sheriff Joe? Trump, quoted on Fox News, Aug. 13

At his Aug. 22 rally in Phoenix, President Trump heaped praise on longtime ally and campaign surrogate Joe Arpaio, the embattled former sheriff fromArizona. While he didnt announce a presidential pardon at the rally, he indicated he was ready to offerit.

For many years, Trump and Arpaio shared a pet issue: the birther theory. Trump was a vocal proponent of it, until he abandoned it during the 2016 presidential campaign and then falsely blamed Hillary Clinton for starting the conspiracy. Arpaio and his volunteer cold-case posse perpetuated the conspiracy for six years until Arpaio was voted out of office in 2016.

As Trump made illegal immigration a key campaign issue, he once again found a willing ally in Arpaio, whose anti-immigrant practices catapulted him to national prominence. And now, Trump is considering a presidential pardon for the self-proclaimed Americas Toughest Sheriff, who faces six months of jailfollowing a criminal conviction relating to his policing practices targeting Latinos.

Whether Arpaio has done more than any other local law enforcement to crack down on illegal immigration is Trumps opinion, and not fact-checkable. But its important to look at the full context of Arpaios history of legal woes stemming from his illegal-immigration policies.

This is a complex saga. Well focus on the initial key moments in 2008, and then jump to the potential presidential pardon in 2017.

Arpaio and his supporters often dismiss the years-long federal investigations as a partisan witch hunt under Barack Obama, but the FBIs probe began as early as 2008, at the end of the George W. Bush administration.

Arpaio, who became sheriff in 1993, quickly became known for his unorthodox practices, such as requiring inmates to wear pink underwear, work on chain gangs and live in an outdoors Tent City jail even during the scorching Phoenix summers. In the early 2000s, Arpaio shifted to take onillegal immigration, which raised his national profile.

But the new effort came at a cost. Arpaios deputies started arresting hundreds of illegal immigrants, after entering into a partnership with the Department of Homeland Security. The sheriffs office blew through its budget on immigration efforts while violent crimes, including sex crimes, went uninvestigated. The officeeventually reopened more than 400 sex crimes investigations from 2005 to 2008 during which the agency built up its human-smuggling unit whileits special-victims unit went disproportionately understaffed.

President Trump spoke about possibly pardoning former Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio during a rally in Phoenix on Aug. 22. Arpaio was convicted of criminal contempt in July. (The Washington Post)

In 2008, as the recession hit and tensions intensified between Arpaio and local officials over how much local law enforcement should focus onillegal immigration, the county Board of Supervisors decided to cut Arpaios budget. This led to a series of political infighting and legal disputes within the county, which ultimately cost taxpayers more than $44 million.

Also in 2008, federal officials under Bush started investigating the sheriffs office for potential civil rights violations. The investigation continued under Obama and then-Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who prioritized enforcement of civil rights laws.In 2011, the Justice Department concludedthe sheriffs office engaged in systemic racial profiling of Latinos. DHS then removed theimmigration-enforcement authority for Arpaios agency.

With this context in mind, lets fast-forward to 2017

In July 2017, Arpaio was convicted of criminal contempt of court. This stems from a 2007 racial-profiling case, Melendres v. Arpaio, in which Hispanic plaintiffs alleged that sheriffs deputies discriminated against Latinos in traffic stops.

In 2013, U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow found the sheriffs office engaged in systemic racial profiling of Latinos in its anti-illegal-immigration efforts. Snow ordered the agency to stop detaining people solely because they were suspected of being undocumented.

But Arpaio resisted. He was charged with, then convicted of, criminal contempt of court for intentionally violating Snows order. Arpaios attorneys now are asking U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton for a new trial orto reconsider her verdict,arguing Arpaio was wrongfully denied a jury trial. Typically, a jury trial is not required when the defendants maximum sentence is six months in jail which Arpaio faces at his October sentencing.

Arpaio has said he would accept Trumps pardon. Jack Wilenchik, Arpaios attorney, said a presidential pardon is a check on the system, and the right thing to do Because the former president caused this problem [by revoking the Sheriffs authority to enforce federal law], it is only fair that the current president fix it, with a pardon. And when the judge refused to allow a jury, she refused to let ordinary Americans speak. So now they have to speak, through their president.

Maricopa County taxpayers are on the hook for nearly $70 million, specifically relating to this racial-profiling case. Even if Trump pardons Arpaio, taxpayers would still foot the bill.

If you pardon that kind of conduct, if you forgive that behavior, you are acknowledging that racist conduct in law enforcement is worth the kind of mercy that underlies a pardon and its not, said Paul Charlton, former U.S. attorney in Arizona under the Bush administration. And its an abuse of the presidents discretion. Its an injustice, and speaks volumes about the presidents disregard for civil rights if this pardon takes place.

As Arpaio gained national and even international notoriety over the years, local support waned. Arpaio faced his first serious challenger in 2012, when the vast majority of roughly $8 million raised by his campaign came from out-of-state donors. In 2016, Arpaio failed in his bid for a seventh consecutive term.

What role did Arpaio have on the flow of undocumented immigrants in the Phoenix metro area?

Its unclear. But unauthorized populations tend to fluctuate based on economic trends on both sides of the border, rather than as a direct result of a single agency or law.

The flow of unauthorized people in Arizona mirrored national trends peaking in 2007 before the Great Recession, then declining as the U.S. economy suffered and Mexicos economy boomed.

Data for metro areas are limited, but you can see this trendin state-level data for Arizona. (Maricopa County, which encompasses the Phoenix metro area, has the majority of the states seven million residents.) Even as Arpaios immigration efforts ramped up in the early 2000s, Arizonas undocumented population increased, as did the nations.

Whether you view Arpaios policies as a success is based on your view on illegal immigration, and how far an elected law enforcement official will push legal boundaries for the issues they value. But as weve chronicled, Arpaio has had a decade-long history of legal woes stemming from his policing policies on illegal immigration, and a federal judge found his sheriffs office had engaged in systemic racial profiling of Latinos.

Trump is sympathetic tohis political ally, and is mulling a presidential pardon. But the public should view his praise of Arpaios work on illegal immigration with a healthy dose ofskepticism.

After all, Arpaios agency employed systemic racismin the name of immigration enforcement, targeting Latino drivers and detaining them solely based on a suspicion that the driver may be in the United States illegally. He willfully rejected the order to stop these tactics, and is nowconvicted of criminal contempt. He was voted out of office, but left behind a controversial legacy at the cost of county taxpayers, who are now left with a legal bill of dozens of millions of dollars.We wont rate Trumps claims because they are vaguely worded and basedin opinion, but they certainly should not be taken at face value.

(About our rating scale)

Send us facts to check by filling out this form

Keep tabs on Trumps promises with our Trump Promise Tracker

Sign up for The Fact Checker weekly newsletter

Share the Facts

2017-08-23 04:16:41 UTC

-1

-1

-1

Needs context

On former Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona: "You know what? Ill make a prediction. I think hes going to be just fine. Okay?"

Donald Trump

President of the United States

rally in Phoenix, Ariz.

Tuesday, August 22, 2017

2017-08-22

Read the original:
What you need to know about former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio's record on illegal immigration - Washington Post

A Border Patrol vehicle patrols a section of the U.S.-Mexico border fence near Yuma, Ariz. David McNew/Getty Images hide caption

A Border Patrol vehicle patrols a section of the U.S.-Mexico border fence near Yuma, Ariz.

President Trump returns Tuesday night to the same Phoenix convention center where he spoke during the campaign last year, laying out a 10-point plan to fight illegal immigration.

He's also visiting a U.S. Customs and Border Protection facility in Yuma, Ariz., a few miles from the Southwest border.

Now seven months into his presidency, Trump has pushed for dramatic changes to the nation's immigration system. But he's also been stymied by Congress and by the courts.

Here's a look at what the Trump White House has accomplished on each of those 10 promises and what it hasn't.

1. "We will build a great wall along the southern border. And Mexico will pay for the wall."

The border wall remains more aspiration than reality. The Department of Homeland Security is waiving environmental rules to speed up construction of prototypes near San Diego.

But so far, Mexico has balked at paying for the wall. And so has Congress. The House has appropriated nearly $1.6 billion for the first phase of construction, but the Senate hasn't.

2. "We are going to end catch and release."

Administration officials say they're following through on Trump's promise to end so-called catch and release. That's how many critics describe the policy that allowed many immigrants to go free until their court dates, which can often be years away because of court backlogs.

In practice, it's not clear that the Trump administration is handling these cases much differently than previous administrations did.

But there has been a dramatic drop in the number of people apprehended at the Southwest border since Trump took office a 46 percent drop during the first seven months of the year compared to 2016, according to a DHS official. The total for March was the lowest in at least 17 years, although the numbers have started to creep back up since then.

3. "Zero tolerance for criminal aliens."

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrests are up more than 43 percent since late January compared to the same period in 2016, according to a DHS official. "We are still continuing to prioritize our resources on those individuals that create and pose the greatest public safety and national security threat," the official said. Seventy-two percent of those arrested had criminal convictions, a much lower percentage than the final years of the Obama administration.

Trump has pushed Congress for funding to hire more agents for ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. But like funding for the border wall, Congress has yet to sign off.

4. "Block funding for sanctuary cities."

The Justice Department is trying to follow through on that promise to punish so-called sanctuary cities, which limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. DOJ made some law enforcement grants contingent on whether those cities do more to help ICE.

But Chicago and California quickly took the administration to court. That's in addition to lawsuits filed earlier this year by San Francisco, Seattle and other self-described sanctuary cities.

5. "Cancel unconstitutional executive orders and enforce all immigration laws."

This probably refers to two Obama-era executive actions including DACA, which protects undocumented immigrants who were brought to the country as children from deportation.

The Trump White House dropped its support for a related program called DAPA, which was supposed to help the parents of those children.

But so far, the White House has allowed DACA to continue, much to the dismay of immigration hard-liners. Texas and other states are threatening to sue if the administration doesn't pull its support for DACA by Sept. 5.

6. "We are going to suspend the issuance of visas to any place where adequate screening cannot occur."

This is part of what Trump's travel ban executive order was supposed to do.

The order Trump signed just a week after taking office would have blocked travelers from seven mostly Muslim countries that the administration says are known havens for terrorists.

Federal courts put the original order on hold. But the Supreme Court allowed a limited version of the travel ban to take effect until it can hear legal challenges to the ban in the fall.

7. "We will ensure that other countries take their people back when we order them deported."

Trump pointed out in Phoenix last year that immigrants with criminal records can wind up staying in the U.S. because their home country won't take them back. The White House has reportedly cut the number of non-cooperative countries from 23 to 12. Immigration hawks say that's a big win, and that the administration deserves more credit for it.

8. "We will finally complete the biometric entry-exit visa tracking system which we need desperately."

For years, Congress has required the Department of Homeland Security to create a system to track everyone who comes in and out of the country using biometric technologies like facial recognition or fingerprint scanners.

In recent years, a majority of new undocumented immigrants have overstayed temporary visas, while the number crossing the border illegally has fallen.

Customs and Border Protection is testing a few prototype systems at U.S. airports this summer. But experts say a comprehensive solution that will work at more than 300 land, sea and air ports of entry remains a long way off.

9. "We will turn off the jobs and benefits magnet."

In the spring, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to "Buy American" and "Hire American," and urging others to do the same.

But critics point out that Trump's own companies continue to hire foreign guest workers and manufacture overseas. And just as the White House's "Made in America" week was underway in July, the administration announced it would allow an additional 15,000 temporary foreign workers.

10. "We will reform legal immigration to serve the best interests of America and its workers, the forgotten people."

Earlier this month, the White House threw its support behind the RAISE Act, which would prioritize immigrants with valuable skills and high-paying U.S. job offers, and gradually reduce the number of other foreign nationals who can reunite with their families already living in the U.S. But there seems to be little enthusiasm for the bill in the Senate.

See the original post here:
FACT CHECK: What Has President Trump Done To Fight Illegal Immigration? - NPR