Mediaboss Marketing

WednesdayonThe Chad Hasty Show,Theo Wold, Deputy Assistant to President Trump, joined the broadcast to talk about the progress the Trump administration is making on immigration reform.

While speaking about merit-based immigration policies, and whatPresident Trump is doingto changeUnited States' policies in that direction, Wold said,

Just think of it as skills-based immigration. We want people who come here to be able to have a job, day one, we want them to be able to speak our language, and we want them to know a little bit about our culture, our history and our government. And as you said, that's not controversial, because there are countries all over the world, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, who have have these systems. The same countries that the left always says have great health care systems, education systems and the like.

Wold continued, saying of the administration's work on immigration policy,

We are putting in place, as we speak, the building blocks to realign our legal immigration system. A realignment that hasn't happened since 1963, before we put a man on the moon, and a lot has changed since 1963. So the president's full steam ahead, and when we flip the lights on a second term in January of next year, people are going to be very surprised at what we've built.

Listen to the entire interview with Theo Woldin the video above.

The Chad Hasty Show airs weekday mornings live, from 8:30 AM to 11:00 AM on News/Talk 95.1 FM and 790 AM KFYO. You may also listen to the show live online atKFYO.com, on the fantastic, free and easy to useKFYO App, all Alexa-enabled devices using theKFYO Skill, as well as on Google Home devices. You may follow Chad on Twitter:@ChadHastyRadio, Instagram:instagram.com/chadhastyradio, Snapchat: @ChadHastyRadio. Much more information about Hasty, as well as his extra-show content and commentary may be found atkfyo.com/author/chadhasty. Be sure to tune indailyto KFYO and check our website for the latest news and commentary, follow KFYO Radio on Twitter:@KFYO, and subscribe toKFYO's YouTube channel.

Smiling Bush Turns Into the Masked Rider

The rest is here:
Theo Wold Says Trump Immigration Reform 'Full Steam Ahead' - News/Talk 790 KFYO

WASHINGTON, Sept. 21, 2020 /PRNewswire/ --The Biden-Harris campaign has issued a detailed plan for how they would carry out immigration policy if elected in November. The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) has analyzed the Biden-Harris policy proposals in order to project the real-world consequences they impose on Americans. The report investigates how these policies might translate into real numbers of new immigrants who could be admitted to the United States and the costs associated with what would likely be an unprecedented surge of new migration.

According to FAIR's analysis, By the Numbers: How the Biden/Harris Immigration Platform Will Fuel a Staggering Increase of Immigrants and Population Growth, the proposals offered by the candidates could entitle a staggering 52 million new immigrants to eventually settle in the United States. This dramatic increase would eclipse the entire current foreign-born population of the country.

The lax approach to illegal immigration offered under the Biden-Harris plan halting construction of border security fencing, eliminating detention for most illegal border crossers, scaling back worksite enforcement, and limiting deportation to only violent criminals would also carry some large numbers with dollar signs in front of them. The likely increase in illegal immigration would run up the costs of services and benefits to illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children to more than $200 billion annually. That increase would represent a 50 percent jump in the already onerous annual costs to American taxpayers.

"Campaigns are an opportunity for candidates to present to the voters their vision on important policy matters. To their credit, the Biden-Harris campaign has done just that on immigration policy," noted Dan Stein, president of FAIR. "But policy proposals are not just words on paper. If implemented, they will have quantifiable results. They can mean more legal and illegal immigration or less; greater costs to taxpayers, or less.

"It is important to get beyond rhetoric and look at the real-world implication of policy proposals if they become law, so that voters can understand the choices they are making," said Stein.

Among the potential consequences of FAIR's analysis of the Biden-Harris immigration plan:

The complete analysis, By the Numbers: How the Biden/Harris Immigration Platform Will Fuel a Staggering Increase of Immigrants and Population Growth, can be found here.

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

View post:
"By the Numbers": FAIR Analysis of the Biden-Harris Immigration Plan Reveals Very BIG Numbers - PRNewswire

Heres the big question about the 2020 presidential campaign: Is it going to be about the coronavirus or the court? Democrats want it to be about the coronavirus. Republicans want the main issue to be the Supreme Court.

Until now, the big issue in the presidential race has been the pandemic. President TrumpDonald John TrumpSteele Dossier sub-source was subject of FBI counterintelligence probe Pelosi slams Trump executive order on pre-existing conditions: It 'isn't worth the paper it's signed on' Trump 'no longer angry' at Romney because of Supreme Court stance MOREs poor performance has given Joe BidenJoe BidenPelosi slams Trump executive order on pre-existing conditions: It 'isn't worth the paper it's signed on' Hillicon Valley: Subpoenas for Facebook, Google and Twitter on the cards | Wray rebuffs mail-in voting conspiracies | Reps. raise mass surveillance concerns Fox News poll: Biden ahead of Trump in Nevada, Pennsylvania and Ohio MORE a steady lead. Now, suddenly, with the death of Associate Justice Ruth Bader GinsburgRuth Bader GinsburgTrump 'no longer angry' at Romney because of Supreme Court stance Fox News poll: Biden ahead of Trump in Nevada, Pennsylvania and Ohio On The Money: Anxious Democrats push for vote on COVID-19 aid | Pelosi, Mnuchin ready to restart talks | Weekly jobless claims increase | Senate treads close to shutdown deadline MORE, the Supreme Court has taken center stage. The Supreme Court issue could be a game changer.

For more than 50 years, the Supreme Court has been the principal player in the culture wars. Trump is counting on the culture wars to propel him to victory. His message is, Dont worry about the coronavirus. Its under control. Worry about which side is going to dominate the Supreme Court for the next 30 years the left or the right.

Beginning with the civil rights revolution of the 1960s, Democrats and liberals came to support a wide variety of social causes, including womens rights, affirmative action, busing, gay rights, immigration reform, abortion rights, sex education, contraception, required teaching of evolution, tolerance of pornography, a ban on prayer in public schools, legalization of marijuana and, most recently, same sex marriage. Liberals defend those measures as enhancements of individual rights. Conservatives see them as enhancements of government power and threats to religious freedom.

Pat Robertson once argued to me that every item on the religious rights social agenda including those just listed started out as a liberal initiative.

Many originated in federal court cases, often in Supreme Court decisions. The courts are the least democratic institutions of American government. Thats why religious conservatives see themselves as a populist force protesting government encroachments on personal morality and religious liberty.

Liberals see the religious right as culturally aggressive and themselves as culturally defensive. To conservatives like Pat Robertson and Ted CruzRafael (Ted) Edward CruzThe Hill's Morning Report - Sponsored by Facebook - Trump previews SCOTUS nominee as 'totally brilliant' Cruz blocks amended resolution honoring Ginsburg over language about her dying wish Trump argues full Supreme Court needed to settle potential election disputes MORE, its the other way around: They see liberals trying to win government endorsement of their anti-religious moral and social values while conservatives are defending pluralism and tolerance.

Liberals are often frustrated because the Supreme Court is usually a bigger issue to the right than to the left. In 2016, only 21 percent of the voters nationwide called Supreme Court appointments the most important factor in deciding how to vote. The folks voted 56 to 41 percent for Donald Trump over Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham ClintonFox News poll: Biden ahead of Trump in Nevada, Pennsylvania and Ohio Trump, Biden court Black business owners in final election sprint The power of incumbency: How Trump is using the Oval Office to win reelection MORE. The people who said Supreme Court appointments were not a factor at all went 55 to 37 percent for Clinton.

A political backlash emerges when liberals see a threat to hard-won progressive rights. Its happening now with the impending nomination of a staunch conservative to replace Ginsburg on the high court. Liberals see an expanded conservative majority on the court either striking down or radically limiting abortion rights, Obamacare, affirmative action, gun laws, protection for dreamers and same-sex marriage rights. It means that we are going to war, a Democratic activist told Politico.

We are certain to see a huge mobilization of forces on both the left and on the right. Supreme Court nominations have become a major battleground in American politics (Robert Bork, Clarence ThomasClarence ThomasGOP senator attacks Biden: 'I'm not sure what he recalls' Abortion, gun rights, ObamaCare at stake with Supreme Court pick Rush Limbaugh encourages Senate to skip hearings for Trump's SCOTUS nominee MORE, Brett KavanaughBrett Michael KavanaughTrump faces tricky choice on Supreme Court pick The Hill's 12:30 Report: Trump stokes fears over November election outcome The Hill's Morning Report - Sponsored by Facebook - Trump previews SCOTUS nominee as 'totally brilliant' MORE). Presidential campaigns are another major battleground, particularly when one of the candidates deliberately exploits division as President Trump does. This year, an explosive presidential campaign and a furious confirmation battle are happening at the same time.

With a Republican president and a Republican majority in the Senate, Democrats have no real power in the court battle.

In the presidential race, only a small percentage of voters say they are still undecided (5 percent in Quinnipiac and Monmouth polls). Among voters who have decided, just 5 percent say they might change their minds according to Pew. 2020 will not be a campaign of persuasion. It will be a campaign of mobilization, with each side aiming to maximize turnout of its partisan base. You do that by exploiting fears, threats and intensely divisive issues.

A lot depends on whether the Senate floor vote on confirmation takes place before or after Election Day. President Trump is demanding a confirmation floor vote before Election Day. It would be the new recent world record if the Senate votes before Nov. 3, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said.

How will Democrats respond if the nomination is confirmed before the election? President Trump expects his opponents to be demoralized by defeat, but Democrats could just as well be infuriated and determined to take Trump down. Both reactions are plausible.

Suppose the confirmation vote is held after Election Day. Then everything might change, and not to President Trumps advantage. If Trump loses, a huge wall of public opposition to his nominee could materialize. Democrats will protest, saying, The people fired the president. How can the Senate confirm a crucial nomination by a lame duck president who has lost the mandate of the people?

President Trump would likely see his influence diminish with Republican senators who dont want to be identified with a loser particularly if Republicans lose their Senate majority as well as the White House. Then Trump could be seen as politically toxic the coronavirus of the GOP.

Bill Schneider is a professor at the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University and author of Standoff: How America Became Ungovernable(Simon & Schuster).

Visit link:
SCOTUS confirmation in the last month of a close election? Ugly | TheHill - The Hill

As we enter the homestretch of the US presidential election which is set to be the most contentious, and possibly contested, in generations Americans are also voting on 35 seats up for grabs in a battle for the control of the Senate. The 100-member body is currently held 53-47 by the Republican Party, but many individual races are wide open, and the Democrats are confident they can flip the upper chamber of Congress.

Either way, the result will have a profound impact not only on domestic policy, but also on US foreign relations and other issues with global reach. Here are a few areas where what US senators decide reverberates well beyond American shores.

Trade. Although Donald Trump loves to do US trade policy by executive order, these only work for a few months because the real power to approve international treaties lies in the Senate. Trump skirted the process with phase one of the US-China trade agreement by calling it a "contract" rather than a treaty, but negotiated Democratic support to ratify the USMCA trade deal replacing NAFTA (as Joe Biden will need to win over some Republicans to renegotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership if he becomes president).

Immigration. The White House can do a lot on immigration bypassing Congress, like Trump's notorious travel ban on people from several majority-Muslim countries. However, only the Senate can pass a long-overdue comprehensive immigration reform, which affects recipient countries of highly coveted H1-B visas like India, or many Latin American nations where US immigrants benefit from family-based green card sponsorship. The current law on the books which Democrats and Republicans largely agree is broken remains unchanged since 1986... due to lack of bipartisan consensus on how to fix it.

Arms deals, climate change. The next president will also need Senate consent for other international agreements that are crucial to US foreign policy. To name just two, it's unclear whether a Democratic majority will greenlight selling F-35 fighter jets to the United Arab Emirates, while a Republican-controlled Senate would likely (try to) block a future Biden administration from rejoining the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change.

Regardless of who wins the Senate, if the same party controls both it and the White House, expect a raft of potentially divisive partisan legislation. If Trump and the Republicans hold court, his wish list of hardline policies on trade and immigration would expand. On the other hand, if the Democrats win the presidency and the Senate, buckle up for sweeping changes like removing the filibuster, increasing the number of states, and packing the Supreme Court (especially if its latest vacancy is filled by November 3).

If different parties control the White House and the Senate, today's deeply polarized US political environment will likely lead to a stalemate. With hyper partisanship discouraging any laws being passed, it'll be all up to the courts.

See original here:
US Senate races matter... to the world - GZERO Media

At a time when nearly 60 percent of Americans expect their children to be worse off financially than they are, the middle-class citizens we spoke with sought practical solutions. They saw the opportunities created by expanded trade and foreign investment, and felt the inevitable effects of technology and automation on traditional manufacturing. What they sought was a level playing field to help them compete. As one woman in Marion, Ohio, put it, We will do what we can to reinvent ourselves and look to the future, but just let us have a fighting chance.

Jim Tankersley: We killed the middle class. Heres how we can revive it.

The Carnegie task-force report offers an array of detailed recommendations to help ensure that U.S. foreign policy delivers for the middle class. Three broad priorities stand out.

First, foreign-economic policy needs to aim less at simply opening markets abroad, and much more directly at inclusive economic growth at home. For decades, the economic benefits of globalization and U.S. leadership abroad have skewed toward big multinational corporations and top earners. This needs to change.

The U.S. government has to help ensure that the advantages of globalization are distributed more equitably, by supporting industries and communities disadvantaged by market openings. A crucial step is to create a National Competitiveness Strategy to guarantee that governmentat all levelsplays a more active role in helping our people and our businesses thrive in the 21st-century global economy. Rather than focus simply on reducing the costs of doing business in the United States, we ought to emphasize enhancing the productivity of our workforce, investing in education, and reinvigorating research and development in biotechnology, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, and other key pillars of our economy in the decades ahead.

Another important dimension of this new approach is to think beyond the manufacturing sectoras important as it isand also address the concerns of the majority of middle-class households whose members work in other sectors, including services. We need to modernize trade enforcement tools to ensure that we can take earlier, faster, and more effective action against unfair trade practices, and put the onus on governmentnot small and medium-size businessesto initiate enforcement measures. The objective should be a far more resilient middle class, served by a foreign policy that helps it compete better, and cushions it against the impact of economic shocks overseas.

U.S. foreign policy should also look beyond trade and prioritize other issues whose economic and social impacts are acutely felt at home. Diplomacy and international partnerships ought to be the first line of defense against the looming threats of climate change, cyberattacks, and future pandemics. A crucial component of immigration reform is active diplomacy that aims to help ensure border security, create safe gateways for the workers and immigrants who add dynamism to our economy and society, and anchor people in Central America and Mexico to a sense of security and economic possibility.

Go here to read the rest:
The Blob Meets the Heartland - The Atlantic