Mediaboss Marketing

As we sink under the deluge of Pillen and Herbster ads, at least a couple of sizable questions are inescapable. One, why are these two who seek the GOP gubernatorial nomination so intent on scaring Republican primary voters about immigration? Two, will the demagoguery on this non-issue be rewarded by voters?

Even a cursory glance at a map confirms Nebraskas geographical position hundreds of miles removed from any national border. The most minimal familiarity with the Constitution of the United States and concepts of federalism confirms the federal governments sole authority to determine and enforce immigration laws. And candidates scaremongering on this issue can only be interpreted to mean that the Biden administrations purported failures related to immigration are not being adequately redressed by Nebraskas current governor, something Pete Ricketts would surely dispute vigorously.

What, pray tell, do these two seeking to be our next state chief executive think they are going to do: build a big, beautiful wall circling our states borders? How will the gates at the ends of Interstate 80 and I-76 work, and will there be a tunnel for the water flowing through the canal to be built to bring South Platte River water into Nebraska?

People are also reading

The absurdity of what these candidates assert is as laughable as the cartoonlike posturing dominating their ads, but the pervasiveness of the sloganeering suggests that there must be something legitimate about it. There isnt. State governments have zero authority to legislate or enforce national immigration law. Even the most authoritarian governor has no role based in law on issues of immigration. Any wisdom that could be gleaned from experiences of governors whose states are near a national border has no application to Nebraska, firmly ensconced midcountry.

Well, there is crime, right? Wrong. In a study of crimes committed in 2018 in Texas, the only state that maintains immigration status records of those who are arrested, the illegal immigrant conviction rate was 782 per 100,000 illegal immigrants, 535 per 100,000 legal immigrants, and 1,422 per 100,000 native-born Americans. Illegal immigrants had a conviction rate 45% less than native-born citizens, and legal immigrants conviction rate was about one-third of that of native-born citizens. Other studies on the topic widely confirm the conclusion: Native-born Americans commit crimes at much higher rates than either legal or illegal immigrants.

Here in Nebraska, we are experiencing historically low unemployment rates. Employers simply cannot find enough people to do the work that is here to be done now. The same conditions exist regionally and, to varying degrees, across our country. And our national birth rate is insufficient to replenish the labor supply.

In the three decades plus of my legal practice, I have had the pleasure of representing scores of immigrants. In my 56 years plus of life, I have been blessed to know hundreds of immigrants, including my paternal grandmother. Generally speaking, my experience is that immigrants are as hardworking, family loving, law abiding, taxpaying and American dreaming as we who had the good fortune to be born in this country.

So just who are these immigrants that we are supposed to be so afraid of? Where are the facts that support the assertion that this is a problem in Nebraska? Or is it just that many immigrants do not speak, look and worship the way we do? Herbsters and Pillens insistence that immigrants are some sort of boogeymen to be feared, persecuted and deported is as erroneous as it is offensive.

We need workers. Immigration must be part of the solution. But elected federal office holders have refused, for decades and across Republican and Democrat administrations alike, to seriously address immigration policy. In the meantime, candidates even for offices that have nothing to do with immigration, like governorships disingenuously raise immigration as some sinister proposition, a scare-tactic point of divisiveness, only driving deeper the wedge of deceit on this issue that cries out for thoughtful resolution.

What if voters quit rewarding candidates who defame immigrants and use the issue only to seek political advantage? What progress might be made if Republican primary voters reject Pillen and Herbster and instead select Brett Lindstrom? What will it say about Republican primary voters if they dont?

Get opinion pieces, letters and editorials sent directly to your inbox weekly!

Read this article:
Paloucek: What's behind focus on immigration in the governor's race? - North Platte Telegraph

Lawmakers are wrangling with legislation backed by Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt to prohibit municipal governments from adopting rules that block cooperation with federal authorities investigating illegal immigrants.

Schmidt initiated the push for a ban on sanctuary cities in response to action by the Unified Government of Kansas City/Wyandotte County to authorize the issuance of photo identification cards to undocumented people to improve access to public services. The Safe and Welcoming City Act was structured so the ID information wouldnt be shared with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Opponents of the legislation outnumbered supporters 64-7 during a hearing Tuesday in the House Federal and State Affairs Committee. Alejandro Rangel-Lopez, lead coordinator for the New Frontiers Project, a group in southwest Kansas working to empower people of color, described his family history with immigration and the importance of having communities where immigrants can feel safe.

Rangel-Lopez said that while proponents may claim the bill does not target legal immigrants, many with mixed-status families would suffer.

It should be clear to you now that this is not a game. The choices you make as a legislator have very real impacts on the lives of people like me and my family, Rangel-Lopez said. Listen to us when we tell you this will have insidious effects on crime reporting in immigrant communities. Listen to us when we tell you that your decisions dont exist in a vacuum.

Under House Bill 2717, local units of government would be unable to adopt any ordinance, resolution, rule or policy that would interfere with law enforcement cooperation in immigration enforcement actions. In Wyandotte County, law enforcement officials said they hadnt joined ICE agents on immigration raids for years.

As of 2021, 12 states have enacted state-level laws prohibiting or restricting sanctuary jurisdictions. The Kansas Legislature has considered legislation to prohibit sanctuary cities across the state on several occasions, but none has passed.

Schmidt, a Republican candidate for governor, said Kansas required such a law to ensure the entire state can be safe and welcoming to immigrants.

That worthy goal cannot be properly accomplished through a patchwork process of local jurisdictions deciding to prohibit their local law enforcement agencies from cooperating or even communicating with federal authorities, nor can that be accomplished by issuing to non-citizens new local-government identification cards that lack basic anti-fraud and anti-abuse safeguards built into state law, Schmidt said.

The measure also would forbid municipal governments from issuing ID cards to people not lawfully residing in the United States that were designed to satisfy identification requirements set in state law. Any of these cards would read Not valid for state ID.

Violating the proposed statute would be considered ID fraud under state criminal law.

While the Kansas Secretary of States Office supported the bill, a representative of the office urged legislators to address a potential conflict between state laws on the use of ID cards that could result in voter confusion and litigation.

It is the firm position of the Kansas Secretary of State that only United States citizens may vote in an election, said Clay Barker, deputy assistant secretary of state. Requiring voter identification to cast a ballot ensures the protection of voters rights and the integrity of the electoral process.

Opponents of the bill said it was late in session to be passing such significant legislation.

Aileen Berquist, a lobbyist for the American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas, said proponents were narrow sighted in their approach as the bill would not only instill fear but undermine local authority to make the best decisions for their communities. She said it would also force an unfunded mandate on municipal governments by forcing them to engage in potentially unconstitutional immigration enforcement activities.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainers are not arrest warrants, Berquist said, but instead are notifications to local law enforcement that ICE intends to assume custody of an individual.

Courts have repeatedly found that ICE detainers deny due process and do not comply with the fundamental protections required by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Berquist said. Multiple courts have held that the Fourth Amendment does not permit state or local officers who generally lack civil immigration enforcement authority to imprison people based on ICE detainers alone. But that is precisely what (the bill) demands that cities and counties do.

This story was originally published on the Kansas Reflector.

Read the original here:
Immigrants speak against Kansas bill banning sanctuary cities: 'This will have insidious effects' - KCUR

The manager of Chesters Chicken in Golden Hill Lane told the Lancashire Post that officers turned up unannounced and questioned two of his staff but took no further action.

Takeaway boss Edgars Karklins says he is not concerned about the raid or his staffs right to live and work in the UK as he believes Immigration Enforcement were just doing their job.

He said: I would like to know where the information came from. But we dont feel targeted. They [Immigration Enforcement] were just doing their job. They have to check these things.

"As far as I know, somebody reported us [to them] but were not really bothered because we dont have illegal immigrants here. A couple of shops in Leyland have also been investigated, as far as I know, so we dont feel targeted.

Edgars believes all his staffs paperwork to reside in Britain is correct, adding: They all are legally here as far as I know. They [Immigration Enforcement] came, they checked, and everything is alright. There shouldnt be a problem here.

A Home Office spokesperson said: The Government is tackling illegal immigration and the harm it causes by removing those with no right to be in the UK.

"We continue to work with law enforcement agencies to tackle illegal migration in all its forms. Our New Plan for Immigration will fix the broken system; making it fair to those in genuine need and firm on those who seek to abuse it.

See original here:
Manager of Leyland takeaway raided by Immigration Enforcement gives update on incident - Lancashire Evening Post

Austin, TX, 20 hours ago The U.S. Supreme Court scheduled oral argument for April 26 in the case that began when the states of Texas and Missouri sued the Biden administration to force the reimplementation of the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), also known as the remain in Mexico policy.

The remain in Mexico policy required many foreign individuals to stay on the Mexican side of the southern border while they waited for the outcomes of their claims for asylum.

Previously, the federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from ending the remain in Mexico policy after DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas authored a new memorandum in a second attempt to abolish the program. A ruling in August by federal Judge Matthew Kaczmaryk in Amarillo had stricken Mayorkas first memorandum ending the MPP.

The nations high court denied an appeal after Kaczmaryks decision. However, on February 18, the Supreme Court granted the administrations petition for a chance to make its case that it should be allowed to end the remain in Mexico policy, which was first instituted by former President Trump in early 2019.

The issues at hand are whether Title 8 of the U.S. Code requires the federal government to implement the MPP and whether the Fifth Circuit was correct in its decision to invalidate Mayorkas second memorandum, which he published on October 21 of last year after DHS dragged its feet for months on complying with Kaczmaryks order.

Attorneys General Ken Paxton of Texas and Eric Schmitt of Missouri alleged that Mayorkas termination of the MPP violated the Administrative Procedure Act and other federal laws.

Oral arguments will take place before the May 24 Republican runoff between Paxton and his opponent, Land Commissioner George P. Bush.

Paxton has touted his lawsuits against Biden challenging the presidents unsuccessful efforts to substantially reduce illegal immigration. Bush also sued Biden over his decision to end construction of the federal border wall project.

A copy of the Supreme Courts document detailing the questions presented in the appeal can be found below.

Continue reading here:
Lawsuit Over Trump's Remain in Mexico Policy Will Be Heard at the U.S. Supreme Court in April - The Texan

The issue on illegal immigration has been facing America for so many years and currently, there are about more than 12 million illegal aliens in the United States, with a million entering the country as legal immigrants on a yearly basis. More than half of this aliens are those who have entered legally but extended their stay without filing for extension. The rest have made their way through borders and risked their lives cramped in trucks and literally crossing the borders.

Despite this, the government is still trying to make things good for illegal immigrants and the country as well. Policies have been changing over the years, with President Obama giving amnesty decrees granting illegal immigration law exemptions to a certain percentage of undocumented aliens.

This is the migration of foreigners to a country who are not legally eligible to migrate or extend their stay for more than a given period yet they refuse to leave. According to the United States Department of Home Security, people involved in illegal immigration are those non-US residents who either cross the borders without inspection or people who were given visas to stay for awhile but instead of leaving, they overstay.

This controversy had been viewed from different angles by two groups, the proponents and opponents are debating whether this is good for the United States or not.

Here are some benefits and setbacks supporters and critics shared about this issue.

1. It helps the economy.According to supporters, illegal immigrants work for cheaper labor and are often hardworking people because they are saving money to bring back to their families. With more than enough labor force, businesses can increase production and reach their targeted sales. If businesses are booming, it is also good for the economy.

2. Undocumented aliens are willing to take all kinds of jobs.With the goal of making it in the land of milk and honey, an undocumented alien can work at jobs the average American will not be willing to take. This way, goods and services will be delivered on time. When it comes to doing household chores, cleaning, feeding the pets and taking care of an adult in need of care and attention, an illegal immigrant can take on these types of jobs. And knowing how busy working Americans are, it helps to get support from someone. This is also applicable to meet the needs of an impaired adult.

3. Illegal immigrants who work also pay taxes.Some illegal aliens who have managed to get jobs in home care, restaurants and automobile shops pay revenue to the agency. But doing so, having them stay illegally somehow allows them to compensate the government, one way of the other. Also they have to open back accounts and buy necessities like automobiles. The money and taxes they pay help the U.S. economy.

4. Undocumented aliens contribute to a richer culture and biodiversity.For some, having mixed cultures in a country is a good thing. This is why they are in favor of illegal immigration because these immigrants bring in their culture and skills to the nation.

5. Deporting these illegal immigrants can cost the government so it is better to let the stay.There are supporters who claim that if all the people who are overstaying in America will be deported, it will cause a lot and it is never that easy. This expense is not the kind of money the United States can afford. Besides, there are other issues that America needs to focus on other than illegal aliens.

1. The threat of terrorism and crimes.Opponents of illegal immigration argue that America is faced with national issues such as threats of terrorism. Although not all are terrorists and bad people, there are some who come to the U.S. to havoc fear and commit crimes like drug-trafficking and illegal activities. There have also been reports of more than a hundred cases of crimes related to illegal immigrants.

2. Illegal immigrants take jobs away from Americans.Critics of illegal immigration are rallying over the policies of the government regarding this controversy. They say that because of the influx of illegal workers, more and more Americans remain unemployed because employers sometimes favor illegal immigrants over legal residents because of cheap labor and longer working hours.

3. Illegal immigration costs money.Opponents contend that taxpayers money is spent in paying for border patrol and deportation. This is one of the complaints of groups against illegal immigration. They also raise that poor illegal immigrants medical expenses are paid for by the government and this money come for taxpayers as well. Unauthorized aliens who get sick or give birth on American soil have to be given medical attention even without insurance and money to cover for hospital bills at the expense of the American taxpayers. Moreover, children of illegal immigrants waiting to be deported need to be taken care and this requires money.

4. Undocumented aliens add to the population.Those who are not happy with illegal immigration complain that with the increasing number of illegal immigrants and some with children, more people add to overcrowding buses and trains as well as students granted with scholarships which should be given to legal immigrants, these situations are not favorable to most of the people.

5. Illegal immigration is a law violation.Some critics are fuelled with the fact that amnesty is granted to illegal aliens. They say that this is an act that should not be tolerated. These people came illegally and should not be allowed to stay longer. They are in violation of the law because letting them stay will only encourage them to do other illegal doings.

The debatable issue on illegal immigration is not about to end with the developments taking place as time passes on. Contentions from two opposing groups will still be present as policies are ever changing and immigrants keep on coming from different parts of the world. Government leaders and different sectors who are affected with the issue should take these things in consideration to come up with clear-cut solutions to illegal immigration.

More here:
10 Critical Pros and Cons of Illegal Immigration Green ...