Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON, July 21, 2020 /PRNewswire/ --The following statement was issued by Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), in regard to President Trump's Executive Order mandating that only legal U.S. residents be counted in the Census for the purpose of apportioning congressional representation:

"Today's Executive Order by President Trump is an honest attempt to ensure that the Constitutional mandate to count every person residing in the United States and guarantee full and fair representation to every citizen and lawful immigrant will be carried out.

"For decades, the inclusion of illegal aliens in the Census tally for the purpose of apportioning representation in Congress has resulted in American citizens and legal immigrants being denied representation. The practice has also robbed Americans in some states of federal resources and awarded federal dollars to states with large populations of illegal aliens. Often, the states that gain representation and federal resources encourage illegal immigration through sanctuary policies and generous benefits to illegal aliens.

"The president's order instructs the Department of Commerce to use all available data to identify illegal residents and subtract them from the reapportionment count. While the available data cannot identify every illegal resident, Supreme Court precedent affirms the president's authority to act on the information that is available.

"The apportionment of federal representation is a zero-sum game. Additional seats in Congress are awarded to some states because they have large illegal alien populations, meaning that other states and their citizens lose seats and federal money. The process of including illegal aliens in the Census count for the purpose of reapportionment, as it has been practiced in recent decades, is fundamentally unfair to law-abiding Americans, and the president should be applauded for taking long overdue action to safeguard their interests and constitutional rights."

Contact: Matthew Tragesser, 202-328-7004 or [emailprotected]

ABOUT FAIR

Founded in 1979, FAIR is the country's largest immigration reform group. With over 2 million members and supporters nationwide, FAIR fights for immigration policies that serve national interests, not special interests. FAIR believes that immigration reform must enhance national security, improve the economy, protect jobs, preserve our environment, and establish a rule of law that is recognized and enforced.

SOURCE Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)

http://www.fairus.org

See the original post here:
FAIR: Census Should Count Everyone, but Illegal Aliens Should Not Get Representation at the Expense of Legal Residents - PRNewswire

What were they thinking is the question most of us ask when we consider our ugly history of slavery and those who supported the cause.

Seeing statues of Confederate leaders razed before our eyes leads us to imagine how people of that time period could have justified such a barbaric and cruel enterprise. Theres no excuse or rationalization that can be offered to normalize enslaving another human being. It doesnt matter what time period our ancestors lived in, they were simply wrong for allowing the practice to continue as long as it did.

As we know, slaveholders werent just limited to the South. And as weve seen time and time again, racism isnt confined to one region of our country. There were always those who knew slavery was wrong, and some spoke out against it while others waited until a civl war was waged before truly taking a side. It was easy to justify slavery for some during the early 19th Century, just as systematic racism has been simple for those of us who have benefited from it to overlook because thats just how things are.

Were coming to grips with our reality, and we should always question our ways of thinking. Life evolves and so should we.

But as we castigate our ancestors and tear down statues, its important that we also hold ourselves accountable. Recent protests have brought to the forefront issues of police brutality and racism against black people, and hopefully well see meaningful change as a result of this movement. However, as we consider how history will view us in 150 years, we may realize that this is just the tip of the spear.

For example, think about how weve dealt with immigration, particularly over the past decade. Multiple presidential administrations have not seen a problem with locking kids in cages or having families torn apart in the name of fighting illegal immigration. Decades from now, especially with the Latino population projected to grow substantially in the coming years, how will our treatment of immigrants, both legal and illegal, be viewed?

Before you answer, remember that legality isnt ultimately a barometer of right and wrong. Slavery was legal in our country at one point in time. Until the Suffrage Movement, it was illegal for women to vote. Segregation was also within the rights of business owners during a time in our not so distant history.

Certainly rights for LGBTQ citizens have come a long way just in the last decade. From gay marriage to the Supreme Courts recent decision banning discrimination against LGBTQ employees in the workplace, several key victories have been won in the fight for equality.

But Im still young enough to remember when homophobic slurs were thrown around loosely and not just as locker room talk.

Many religions still stand in opposition to homosexuality. How will they be remembered in 150 years?

Who knows what the future might bring? Do you really believe in 2170, well still be eating meat raised from livestock?

Eating meat is so engrained in our society that we overlook obvious animal abuse. We dont view what we eat as being real, but share a link to a story about a dog market from China on your Facebook page and see how many angry emojis you get as a response.

In 150 years, its likely any meat we eat will have been created in a lab. Might we be viewed as animal abusers because of our current diets and our reluctance to view factory farming as inhumane?

Heres another topic thats always causing a stir and one honestly that comes down to opinion. How will abortion be viewed in the years to come? Will pro-choice be the norm, or will the practice ultimately be banned?

Many advocates believe abortion is a womans choice. If that standpoint ultimately withstands the test of time, will pro-life supporters be viewed as misogynistic and controlling?

What if abortion is ultimately banned? Will history label those who supported it as murderers?

How about guns? As thousands of people die to gunfire each year in our country, how will the topic be broached long after weve been laid to rest?

What about our culture? Will academics centuries from now judge us as being a little dense because we argue all day over societal problems while our movies glorify violence and our music praises womanizing?

Winston Churchill was famously quoted as saying History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.

Churchill probably never would have guessed that in 2020, the words Was a Racist would be scrawled on his statue in Parliament Square.

The point is, whats accepted now may seem odd, if not downright evil, in the future.

The protests are causing many to argue over whether or not a group of people has the right to block a street, or if we need police, or if a statue should be torn down. What they should be teaching us is that we should always be cognizant of our decisions, that we should take part in our government and be active in the community, and that it might not hurt to envision how our lifestyles and beliefs may be viewed long after were gone.

Visit link:
SUDDEATH COLUMN: How will history treat us? | Opinion - Evening News and Tribune

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador will hold bilateral talks with U.S. counterpart Donald Trump on July 8 in Washington, where he will underline his commitment to trade and investment, Mexicos foreign minister said on Wednesday.

FILE PHOTO: Mexico's President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador speaks during a news conference at the National Palace in Mexico City, Mexico June 29, 2020. Mexico's Presidency/Handout via REUTERS

The leftist Lopez Obrador has not left his country since taking office in December 2018, and paying his first foreign visit to Trump is politically risky because the Republican U.S. president is widely disliked in Mexico.

TheMexican president has described the planned visit, which is intended to celebrate the start of a new North American trade deal on July 1, as a matter of economic necessity.

Mexican Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard said Lopez Obrador would hold bilateral talks with Trump on the afternoon of July 8. Trilateral matters that include Canada will be on the agenda on the morning of July 9, he added.

Mexico wanted to stress its commitment to trade, investment and social welfare at the Washington summit, Ebrard told a news conference, standing alongside Lopez Obrador.

Trump said in a statement he looked forward to welcoming Lopez Obrador to the White House for talks on trade, health and security issues, as they marked the July 1 start of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). The USMCA is replacing the 26-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

Mexico has urged Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to take part in the meeting, and Ebrard said he expected Canadas government to detail its plans soon.

So far, Canada had not responded to the invitation to participate in Washington, Lopez Obrador said.

Many Mexicans have held Trump in low regard since he described Mexican migrants as rapists and drug runners in his 2015-16 election campaign and vowed to make Mexico pay for his planned border wall.

He has also made repeated threats against Mexicos economy to pressure its government to stem illegal immigration.

Reporting by Dave Graham and Anthony Esposito in Mexico City; Additional reporting by Eric Beech in Washington; Editing by Bernadette Baum and Jonathan Oatis

Read the rest here:
Mexican president to hold first meeting with Trump on July 8 - Reuters

US President Donald Trumps decision to suspend work visas and pause issuance of green cards hits one country the hardest -- India. His executive order is temporary, but that wont shorten the chain of disappointment, or mitigate suffering of thousands of families.

Last weeks proclamation suspended H-1B (high-skilled workers), H-4 (spouses of H-1Bs), L-1 (intra-company transfers) visas, among others, until the end of 2020. The stated reason: the US economy and high unemployment. Unstated reason: shoring up Trumps base and tapping potential voters who have turned fearful of immigration because of the coronavirus pandemic.

There are two sides to the order: an obvious political one, and a potentially deeper regulatory problem, which could negatively impact hundreds of thousands of Indians awaiting green cards.

The executive order is red meat to Trumps base and completes the circle of his initial, Buy American, Hire American edict. Fear is easy to exploit in any political season, but its easier with an economy in dire straits and a second wave of coronavirus hitting the country.

Donald Trumps poll numbers are bad, and he seems nervous about re-election, going by his Twitter meter. He let anti-immigration hawkish advisor Stephen Miller loose to do what scores of US business leaders opposed. Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon et al have criticised the suspension of H-1B visas, saying it would hurt the US economy and lead to more off-shoring. Canada is already a beneficiary.

But the #AmericaFirst crowd is happy, and sees the decision as a much-needed correction. Critics have long claimed the H-1B progamme is nothing but a vehicle for cheap labour to be exploited by large corporations. In reality, H-1B visas have become increasingly burdensome.

So, whats the real impact of Trumps latest disruption? First, US embassies and consulates stopped processing visas on March 20 because of the coronavirus pandemic. Its unclear when those services will resume, and uncertainty adds to the misery of those caught in the middle.

Second, Trumps order affects future applicants, not existing ones. Trump clearly split the difference between Millers extremism and other advisors moderation. But if the economy doesnt improve and the suspension continues, things will get tougher.

Third, US companies have cut back on projected budgets as they try to stabilise in this virus-hit environment where safety regulations and social distancing make hiring more difficult.

Fourth, Indian IT companies have already adjusted their business models -- they are less reliant on H-1B visas. The story has changed over time given the constant attacks, bad press, rising visa fees, and the growing jungle of paperwork required for H-1Bs.

Indian IT majors have steadily increased local hiring with as much as 70% of the work force coming from within the US. Infosys, TCS, Wipro and Tech Mahindra have thousands of Americans working for them. That cant be news to Miller or the anti-H-1B lobby. But facts rarely interfere in an ideological battle.

Its true that most of the H-1B visa holders are Indian, and the vast majority are employed by US tech titans, not Indian companies. In 2019, of the 388,403 H-1Bs, 72% were from India. China is in second place at 13%. The story is the same for green cards.

This is where the regulations to enforce Trumps order could be the devil of the detail. The new regulatory framework is expected soon but no one knows when. If existing rules are changed, more than 350,000 Indian professionals on H-1Bs awaiting green cards could become vulnerable.

The Indian line is long, because the US issues 140,000 employment-based green cards annually, and the 7% per country limit has swelled Indian numbers over the years. They are perfectly legal as of now. But Miller and his ideological friends in various agencies could demand new labour certification through new regulations. That would prompt legal challenges taking the fight to the courts.

The US Congress could help by lifting the 7% cap on green cards. But a powerful Democrat -- Senator Dick Durbin -- has effectively blocked recent bipartisan efforts to do precisely that.

Everyone agrees Americas immigration is broken. Attempts at comprehensive reform have failed over the years because Democrats and Republicans cant agree on a fix. Tinkering and piecemeal solutions have given temporary relief. But thats about it.

Now the two parties are so far apart, a bipartisan solution seems distant. The Democrats essentially see immigration as a human right and want any deal to include a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants. The Republicans want no such amnesty, only the best and the brightest. Trump knows Americas mood has changed on immigration. He has been busy erecting walls.

Originally posted here:
View: Trump's H-1B visa suspension may have more to it than meets the eye - Economic Times

They dont believe a word I say. They decided Im a liar. They want me to be a liar.

Midway through Sitting in Limbo, a recent feature-length drama from the BBC, Anthony Bryan (Patrick Robinson) articulates a fury with the British government shared by many Caribbean-born Britons over the last eight years.

Written by Mr. Bryans half brother, Stephen S. Thompson, the 90-minute drama offers an intimate and fictionalized account of how a 2012 government policy with the stated aim of creating a really hostile environment for illegal immigrants in Britain upended Mr. Bryans life, as well as the lives of thousands of other legal residents of the country, in what became known as the Windrush scandal.

Id like it to concentrate peoples mind on the fact that the Windrush scandal is ongoing, Mr. Thompson said in a recent phone interview. Despite a number of documentaries and books and articles, it being a national scandal, it was in danger of fading off the scene completely, he added.

In Sitting in Limbo, we meet Mr. Bryan in 2016, at which point he had been living in Britain for 50 years, a grandfather working as a painter and decorator in Edmonton, North London. We see him suddenly labeled an illegal immigrant, unable to get work, and arrested. The cost of applying for a passport almost tips him into destitution, as he and his partner are forced to move and face the looming threat of deportation to Jamaica, a country Mr. Bryan left at the age of 8.

This is the very human cost of the decision by the future prime minister Theresa May, when she was the cabinet minister responsible for immigration rules, to impose tough new requirements for people not born in Britain to prove their legal status. The policy left thousands of U.K. residents from former British colonies in the Caribbean mistakenly classified as being in Britain illegally.

In 1948, a passenger liner called Empire Windrush carried some of the thousands of colonial subjects who had been invited to rebuild Britain following World War II. They became known as the Windrush generation and under the law at the time had an automatic right to settle. Many children arrived on their parents passports. The government did not keep track of those arriving from the Caribbean, and in 2010, landing cards recording arrivals were destroyed. As a result, come the 2010s, thousands of people were unable to provide paperwork to prove they were in the country legally under Mrs. Mays new rules.

On Twitter last week, Priti Patel, the current holder of Mrs. Mays old post as home secretary, said the drama epitomizes the unimaginable suffering endured by the Windrush generation and apologized. An hour before the films release, Ms. Patel invited Mr. Bryan to join a video call, The Guardian reported, which he declined.

For Mr. Thompson, this is all lip service. Last week, Britains human rights watchdog said it would assess the hostile environment policy, but none of the measures that led to the Windrush scandal have been revoked. Many people are still awaiting compensation from the governments 200 million hardship fund. Some have received little compensation for years of being unable to work, and others have since died.

For Glenda Caesar, 58, watching Sitting in Limbo revived traumatic memories of her own experiences over the last few years. His mental breakdown was them coming and knocking the door, she said in a phone interview, referring to Mr. Bryan. But mine was more of a depressive mode, trying to accumulate paperwork that I couldnt find, which the government had destroyed.

Having arrived in Britain as a three-month-old child from Dominica in 1961, Ms. Caesar fought for the right to remain in the country for years as she faced unemployment and mounting debt after being classified as an illegal immigrant.

Filming of Sitting in Limbo began late last year, and the release was then delayed by the global coronavirus pandemic. But in many ways, Mr. Thompson said, the timing couldnt be better, given that in the last month Black Lives Matter protests have sprung up across the world following the killing of George Floyd.

For decades, the legacy of Britains empire has created fault lines across race and economic class. These tensions have revealed themselves in the racial abuse hurled at Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, by British tabloids, and, more recently, in the toppling of a statue of a slave trader by Black Lives Matter protesters.

In Sitting in Limbo, Mr. Bryan is forced to gather the paper trails of his life. As his story evolves, we see him motivated by a desire for belonging and for some validation of his dual identity. In the dramas final act, when he shows his new British passport to his partner, Janet McKay-Williams (Nadine Marshall), she can only muster a single sigh.

If youd asked me how I felt whilst we were making the film, Mr. Thompson said, when asked what it meant to be a black man in Britain, I would have said At least I live in a country which allows me the opportunity to tell this story and reach a wide audience.

But now, hes reassessing. The publics response to the film on social media and in his inbox praise, but also outrage at the continuing scandal and Britains structural racism has given him more to think about, he said: As a writer, but also as a black Briton, where do I go from here? What stories do I want to tell next?

Continue reading here:
Dramatizing the Human Toll of a U.K. Political Scandal - The New York Times