Mediaboss Marketing

In response to COVID-19, the Trump administration ordered immigration enforcement agencies along the border to expel those apprehended under 42 U.S.C. 265. That statute allows the government, in whole or in part, to close the border to prevent the spread of communicable disease although there is some ambiguity about the scope of the statute. Its important for the government to limit the spread of serious communicable diseases across borders in normal times and during pandemics, although it remains unclear that such closures actually affected the spread of COVID-19 domestically. Aliens apprehended until Title 42 are expelled quickly, which is abig change from earlier policies to mostly punish unlawful border crossers with detention and criminal charges under Title 8of the U.S. Code (immigration law).

Figure 1shows just how dramatically Title 42 changed border enforcement policy. Both Border Patrol agents and Office of Field Operations agents who man border checkpoints were both tasked with enforcing the new order. As aresult, Title 42 expulsions went from 21 percent of all apprehensions and expulsions in March 2020 (the order was issued March 21, so it only applied to about onefourth of that month) to 91 percent in April.

Since 2005, the government has employed an enforcement with consequences strategy to reduce the number of illegal border crossers by specifically attempting to cut the recidivism rate, with some success. Those consequence include detaining illegal border crossers for longer, charging more of them with immigration crimes like unlawful entry, treating repeat offenders more harshly, other punishments. Those consequences combine to raise the costs for illegal border crossers by reducing their expected income from entering the United States by channeling them into more expense means of entry like hiring more sophisticated smugglers who charge ahigher price and taking more dangerous routes to cross the border. Imposing higher costs on illegal border crossers means that fewer will try to cross illegally in the first place and they will try fewer times.

Title 42 expulsions also lower the costs for illegal border crossers. By removing them very rapidly and not enforcing consequences, apprehended and expelled illegal border crossers face lower costs in their attempts to cross the border. Thus, we should expect more of them to try and the recidivism rate to rise beginning in March 2020, ceteris paribus. Of course, not all else remains equal as the U.S. recession has somewhat dimmed the jobs magnet that attracts most illegal immigrants in the first place, although the relative difference is likely smaller given the recession in Mexico. When recidivism data become available for 2020, Isuspect well see an increase in recidivism rates compared to earlier years as the consequences have been so reduced.

Continue reading here:
COVID-19 Transformed U.S. Policy Along the Southwest Border - Cato Institute

Massachusetts lawmakers could soon make our streets far more dangerous.

With the indefinite extension of the legislative session due to the COVID-19 shutdown, the state Legislature could pass the grossly misnamed Safe Communities bill at any time. That bill would all but end cooperation between police in the commonwealth and Immigration and Customs Enforcement to locate and remove illegal immigrants already in detention. Without that cooperation, Massachusetts would become far less safe for law-abiding residents.

The bill would specifically ban police from turning criminals already in custody over to federal immigration officials. Instead, local law enforcement would have to release these alleged rapists, armed robbers and other violent criminals back onto the streets.

Lawmakers negligence will have deadly consequences for Massachusetts residents.

Plenty of evidence suggests sanctuary state status would boost victimization of Massachusetts residents citizens, legal immigrants and illegal immigrants. The U.S. General Accounting Office found that illegal immigrants committed a cumulative total of 5.5 million offenses. Each was arrested an average of seven times.

Most illegal immigrants arent violent, of course but a significant minority are. Boston Police recently concluded that gangs commanded from the Dominican Republic control most of the heroin trafficking in Massachusetts and surrounding states. In a single 2016 operation, federal agents arrested 56 gang members in Boston, Chelsea, Everett, Lynn, Revere and Somerville on charges including five murders and 14 attempted murders. Other charges included drug trafficking, racketeering, firearm violations, human trafficking and identity fraud.

Massachusetts sadly isnt an anomaly. Noncitizens were responsible for 21% of federal crimes between 2011 and 2016, despite making up just over 8% of the adult population. Between fiscal years 2011 and 2018, 27,300 illegal immigrants served sentences for homicide in state prisons, according to a recent General Accountability Office report. Over the same period, illegal immigrants committed 5.5 million offenses including 667,000 drug offenses, 42,000 robberies, 91,000 sex crimes, 81,000 auto thefts, 95,000 weapons offenses and 213,000 assaults.

Tragically, many of those crimes could have been prevented. Each illegal immigrant was arrested seven times, on average. Had they been deported after their first arrest, many victims might still be alive today.

Those victims, by the way, are disproportionately immigrants themselves. According to the Boston U.S. Attorneys Office, gangs like MS-13 frequently use intimidation to recruit new members typically 14 to 15 years old in local high schools with sizeable populations of immigrants from Central America.

Put simply, the best way to protect both immigrants and native-born citizens is to remove illegal immigrants from this country.

Deporting violent criminals is hardly a right-wing position. Under the Obama and Trump administrations, most deportations involve convicted criminals.

Illegal immigrant crimes are particularly unconscionable because many, if not most, could be prevented by speedy deportations. Illegal immigrants, especially those who commit violent crimes, have no right to remain here. Indeed, we have a strong moral imperative to remove them before they do more harm.

John Thompson is co-chair of the Massachusetts Coalition for Immigration Reform.

See more here:
Safe Communities Act is anything but safe for Massachusetts - Boston Herald

President Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden could not be more different on several tech and innovation issues, according to a report released Monday by the nonpartisan Information Technology & Innovation Foundation.

The 40-page report compares both presidential candidates on 10 specific issue areas: innovation and research and development; internet and digital economy; broadband and telecommunications; education and skills; taxes; regulation; trade; advanced manufacturing; life science and biotechnology and clean energy innovation. The reports authors, led by ITIF President Robert Atkinson, found major differences on many of those core issues, chief among them the federal governments role facilitating technology and innovation policy.

President Trumps approach since his 2016 election has focused on reducing government barriers to technology and innovation, reducing taxes and eliminating regulations the administration believes limit innovation. Under Trump, the amount of federal spending on tech has generally increased during his four-year term, but ITIF notes thatwith the exception of certain technologiesthe administration has reduced spending on tech research and development.

Biden, however, indicates through his economic plan he supports significantly increased public investment in R&D and advanced production. Biden also favors a larger government role in health care and physical infrastructure investment, which could play into policies if elected.

Trump and Biden also differ significantly on climate innovation, immigration, rural broadband infrastructure and tax and regulation. While Trumps budget proposals have reduced funding for clean energy investment, Biden has made climate change a core issue of his campaign, and supports massive increases in clean energy R&D funding, the report states. On immigration, Trump has pushed back against low-skill, H1-B and illegal immigrants, while Biden supports both high- and low-skill immigrants. Both candidates support increased federal investment in rural broadband infrastructure, but Biden supports much larger federal investments in this space, the report states.

Among the most stark differences between the two candidates are on the issues of tax and regulation.

The Biden campaign supports higher taxes on business, particularly large corporations; stronger regulations, including on privacy and broadband providers; and more-aggressive antitrust enforcement, particularly on large Internet companies, the report states. The Trump administration embraces a more traditional Republican approach of lighter regulations and lower business taxes, and antitrust that is grounded in the consumer welfare principle.

The reports findings are based on information gathered from the candidates websites, policy documents and public statements the candidates have made. The authors also note that while Biden has stated public positions on most tech issues, Trump has been much vaguer, offering a few detailed positions.

In at least one issuetrade policyTrump and Biden share similar views. Both are focused on being tough on China, the report states, and both reject or at least question the prevailing Washington consensus on expanding trade. Even on that issue, however, the candidates have differences: Trump prefers a largely unilateral approach against China, while Biden favors a multilateral approach.

Read more here:
Here Are the Major Differences Between Trump and Biden on Tech Issues - Nextgov

EL PASO, Texas (Border Report) The Trump administrations family-separation policy was second on a list of options to quickly respond to the border surge of illegal immigration in 2017.

The zero-tolerance policy, and 15 other suggestions, were compiled in a 2017 memo and given to then-Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen so she could have an idea of what to do right away instead of something that would have taken months to implement.

The memo resurfaced Wednesday during Chad Wolfs confirmation hearing to move up from Acting Secretary to Secretary of Homeland Security. Wolf, who was Nielsens chief of staff at the time, testified before the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee that he helped compile the list of policy options, but he again denied developing the heavily criticized policy of separating families at the border.

Sen. Jackie Rosen, D-Nevada, questioned Wolf about the testimony he gave during his confirmation hearing to be Under Secretary of DHS in June 2019. Rosen said Wolf told her, then, that he first became aware of the policy from discussions with staff leading up to its formal announcement in May 2018.

After the June 2019 hearing, an email Wolf sent to a Justice Department spokesman in December 2017 became public, Rosen said. Wolf wrote that he worked with others to pull the memo together, and he attached a file named UAC Options, for Unaccompanied Alien Children. The memo was titled Policy Options to Respond to Border Surge of Illegal Immigration.

So let me ask you this, Rosen said Wednesday. I asked if you helped develop this policy, and you told me no, is that correct?

Thats correct, replied Wolf.

But Rosen said Wolf never mentioned the memo, which said DHS considered separating family units and treating the children as unaccompanied.

They werent unaccompanied, they were part of family units. Thats what you said in your memo. You called them unaccompanied but they werent, Rosen said.

Wolf argued that it wasnt his memo.

Let me just say, it was not my memo. You keep referring to it as my memo, Wolf said. He added that Nielsen relied on not only her operators but also her immigration attorneys to develop policy options.

You were part of her team, and as her chief of staff, you have direct relationship and responsibility, Rosen said. You were part of a series of memos that went on, deciding to separate children and treat them as unaccompanied.

But Wolf said his responsibility as chief of staff was, to make sure that the Secretary was fully staffed.

That was not my portfolio, Wolf said. It was not my issue set at that time.

Rosen pressed on, asking since hes been Acting Secretary for 10 months if he considers it his job to speak truth to power when utterly abhorrent policies like this get proposed.

Do you support ending family separation? Rosen asked.

Replied Wolf: As I testified last year, I testify again this year. I support the Presidents decision when he issued an executive order to stop that practice, as the department did. And we executed that executive order I believe in June 2018.

It was a wide-ranging Senate confirmation hearing which pressed Wolf on numerous issues, but testimony on immigration policy, overall, was minimal. In written testimony that Wolf submitted ahead of his hearing, the word immigration does not appear once.

However, congressional Democrats who have come out against President Trumps nomination are mostly critical of Wolfs immigration policies, insisting that it was he who was an early architect of the family separation policy.

In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the Committee Chairman Sen. Ron Johnson, the all-Democrat Congressional Hispanic Caucus said Wolf is unfit for the job.

Apart from the egregious nature of family separation, it emerged that the policy did not include measures to reunite families, triggering a child migration crisis, the letter read. The process to reunite all families could take years and the children separated at the border have been left with a lifetime of trauma. Mr. Wolf, who proposed family separation, does not deserve a promotion.

The Hispanic Caucus questioned, among other things, Citizenship and Immigration Services virtual shutdown, Immigration and Customs Enforcements use of black site hotels to hold migrant children before deporting them, and Wolf refusing to reinstate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which the Supreme Court protected from an effort to end it by the White House.

Wolfs record shows a consistent failure to effectively manage the agency, a pattern of issuing inaccurate or misleading statements, and enacting some of the most disturbing immigration policies in our countrys history, members of the caucus wrote. Based on Mr. Wolfs track record it is clear he is unfit to serve as the Department of Homeland Security Secretary. On behalf of the CHC, we strongly urge the Senate to oppose the nomination of Chad. F. Wolf.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, introduced Wolf at the hearing, saying, its a real pleasure to introduce Chad Wolf. Hes a fellow Texas and dedicated public servant.

He is an individual that I believe is eminently qualified to be the next Secretary of Homeland Security, Cruz said.

Johnson also praised Wolf, saying extensive management experience combined with his leadership of the Department over the last 10 months make him uniquely qualified to serve as the Secretary of Homeland Security.

The Committee is expected to vote on Wolfs nomination on Wednesday. Should his nomination be reported to the full Senate, its unclear if there would be a vote before the Nov. 3 election.

Read more:
Trumps pick to lead Homeland Security pressed on origins of family-separation policy - wreg.com

There are a lot of races on the ballot for the November election and a lot of issues that may impact the way people vote. This week, KUER is bringing you profiles of voters from across Utah to see whats on their mind as they look toward the election.

Note: Responses have been edited for length and clarity.

How would you describe your political leanings?

I haven't quite identified where I am exactly on the spectrum, but I probably would maybe identify as a moderate.

In terms of immigration, I think the policy should be focused less on borders and stopping people from coming in, to more on fixing the process for people coming in. I'm a child of illegal immigrants. So that's part of the reason why I like that.

I'm more moderate for gun control. So I wouldn't say I'm for 100% gun control and all the regulations, but I'm not for 100% open guns.

Im against abortion.

I'm not exactly against a lot of the beliefs of the Democratic Party. But I'm against how they approach it. So, I don't like the Democratic Party [because] a lot of their stances on helping the poor or underprivileged communities. I think the Democratic Party makes it actually worse for people of color and underrepresented demographics. If there had to be a specific example I could give, I would probably say, in terms of welfare programs. It feels like a lot of their programs have just been putting money into programs that don't work. A lot of the programs have a lot of holes where people can cheat the system.

How has your life experience impacted your political views?

Growing up with immigrants, I wouldn't say [I had] a liberal view, just no political ideology whatsoever. Politics was not ever something we really talked about, except for, if we really hated somebody, lots of times they were usually Republican because of some type of racial policy.

Having grown up with immigrants in my family, growing up in poor neighborhoods, I would say I have a more empathetic perspective of the issues. However, I went to Brigham Young University, [and there are] less minorities of my race there. And having been around those different people, I feel like I've kind of changed my perspective of how to actually solve issues. I truly think that both parties cant solve any of the issues.

How are you deciding who to vote for this November?

I am trying to keep an Excel [spreadsheet] where I can track where every person is at and where I stand with them. I have a list of the different policies that would mean something to me. And if that person's policies align with my policies, I [highlight it] green. If it doesn't at all, its red. If it's kind of in the middle, I put it as a yellow.

What policies matter the most to you?

I think abortion is going to be one thing. Immigration is going to be another thing. Other than that, most of the other policies I'm not gonna look too much [at] because I know just because someone has a different policy [position] than me doesn't mean that policy is going to get passed.

I'm going to look more at their track record, how they got to where they got, if there's any scandals or something that shows a flawed character.

I don't know much about [former Vice President] Joe Biden. I wouldn't say I was for or against the [Barack] Obama presidency. But I really want to look more into what his track record is.

So far with the things [President Donald] Trump has said in terms of policies, I feel like he's been really flip floppy. He's gone back and forth with a lot of things. And in terms of character and the things hes said, I definitely don't think thats a person who has high morals.

See the article here:
Candidate Spreadsheets And Morality: How One Undecided Utah Voter Is Weighing His Options - KUER 90.1