Archive for the ‘Immigration Reform’ Category

Left-wing groups pushing for jailbreak, immigration reform amid the coronavirus outbreak – TheBlaze

Left-wing reform groups are pushing for the mass release of prisoners, a reduction in arrests, and limits on enforcement of immigration law as ways to combat the coronavirus outbreak in the United States, according to a Washington Free Beacon report.

The initiative comes in response to warnings from experts that the coronavirus, officially known as COVID-19, could "wreak havoc" on U.S. jails because the facilities, often deficient in basic elements of infection control such as clean sinks and an abundance of soap and paper towels, would be less equipped to handle an outbreak should the virus breach the prison walls.

Instead of calling for increased sanitization standards in prisons, however, several of the groups appear to be using the outbreak to push criminal justice reform measures.

Here's more from the Free Beacon:

The Prison Policy Initiative on Friday published recommendations for how to aid the "justice-involved population" during the outbreak. It also called for the release of "medically fragile and older adults," citing higher rates of chronic illness among prisoners.

In addition to the release of certain individuals, the Prison Policy Initiative recommendations also include taking steps to reduce the intake of prisoners. The group suggested law enforcement and sentencing institutions should start reclassifying misdemeanor offenses, using citations for lesser crimes, and diverting criminals away from jails and toward mental health and substance abuse programs in their communities.

But criminal justice reform isn't the only issue being pushed as the pandemic grows in America.

Major liberal think tank the Center for American Progress called on the Department of Homeland Security earlier this week to "suspend certain immigration enforcement practices during the coronavirus outbreak."

Specifically, CAP suggested that the Trump administration "issue a formal statement assuring the public that health care facilities will be 'immigration enforcement-free zones' for the duration of the outbreak." The group characterized its suggestion as an "important step" "to ensure that all people in the United States have the ability to seek necessary medical care regardless of immigration status."

Read more:
Left-wing groups pushing for jailbreak, immigration reform amid the coronavirus outbreak - TheBlaze

Reality is smashing the sanctuary city charade | TheHill – The Hill

Modern society seems to be locked in an endless tug-of-war between What We Are Told versus Reality. We were told the Titanic was unsinkable, until it sank. We were told the 1980 Soviet hockey team was unbeatable, until Team USA beat them. We were told Donald TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump faces toughest crisis of presidency in coronavirus House passes bill to help prop up economy from coronavirus White House physician: Trump doesn't require test after exposure to 2 people with coronavirus MORE would suffer the worst defeat in the history of presidential elections, until he won. This has proven to be a lopsided contest. Reality often takes time to catch up to What We Are Told, but it always wins in the end.

The latest chapter in this battle has recently been settled. We were told that sanctuary laws make communities safer. We were told that they make a more welcoming and inclusive community. Reality has spoken, and it turns out none of that is true. Sanctuary laws make communities more dangerous. Innocent people are being victimized by sanctuary laws, and immigrants are no safer because of them. It is time for sanctuary laws to go into the ash bin of historically bad ideas, along with the blood-soaked, unintended consequences that they bring.

Since the murder of Kate Steinle by an illegal alien on Pier 14 in San Francisco first brought the issue widespread attention in 2015, there has been a steady stream of incidents where an unacceptably high number of people are now dead who would still be alive if not for sanctuary laws in their communities. Its a national disgrace that dare not be discussed in the halls of power in Washington and elsewhere.

The victims in this tragic farce are our sons, daughters, spouses and grandparents. The response from our elected leaders is a toxic stew of gaslighting and coldhearted arrogance. In Chicago, Mayor Lori Lightfoot has been under fire after a criminal alien previously released under the citys sanctuary law was arrested for sexually assaulting a three-year-old girl in a McDonalds bathroom. Read that again: a three-year-old girl. The mayorsresponsecould not have been more tone-deaf.

"If ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) is complaining, then they should do their job better, she said. "They're critical because we have said very clearly we are a welcoming city, a sanctuary city. Chicago Police Department will not cooperate with ICE on any immigration-related business. And that's affected their ability to conduct immigration raids across the city. But that's exactly our intention.

The Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) recently exposed the case of Roberto Antonio Garza-Palacios, a criminal alien in Montgomery County, Md., whose negligence while driving caused the deaths of two people including an FBI agent in 2017. His punishment? A $280 fine, no deportation, and no prohibitions against driving. The IRLIinvestigationfound that Garza-Palacios, who had a long criminal record and was shielded by sanctuary laws, was back on the streets driving just a few months ago before allegedly flipping his car and fleeing the scene. Who among us would feel comfortable with their teenage driver sharing the roads with this person? In what fantasy world does this make for a safer community?

While politicians lecture us on the need to be more welcoming to non-citizens who break our laws, the number ofstolen livesresulting from sanctuary laws and out-of-control mass migration only grows.

The claim that sanctuary laws make a community safer is simply the opposite of the truth. The Department of Homeland Securitys Office of the Inspector General just released ascathing reporton the damage caused by sanctuary laws. Its findings showed that forcing ICE to apprehend criminal aliens anywhere besides a controlled environment like a jail causes much greater danger to the ICE agents, those arrested and those living nearby. No one is safer this way.

Another fraudulent argument by defenders of this disastrous policy is that sanctuary laws encourage illegal aliens to cooperate with police, as they will be unafraid of being deported themselves. Aside from the fact that many victims of illegal alien crimes are other illegal aliens, this claim doesnt fly either. ICE does not apprehend or deport anyone who gives them a tip on a criminal alien.

In fact, the federal government specifically protects people in this circumstance. TheU-visasafeguards victims of certain crimes and those who are helpful to law enforcement in the investigation of criminal activity. A pox on local politicians who shamelessly lie to illegal aliens in their communities and stoke fear that cooperation with law enforcement will lead to their deportation.

We as a society would be better served by casting a more skeptical eye toward What We Are Told and placing more trust in Reality. The latter is telling us there is a better way than sanctuary laws. Its up to us to demand it.

Brian Lonergan is director of communications at theImmigration Reform Law Institute, a public interest law firm working to defend the rights and interests of the American people from the negative effects of illegal migration.

Read more from the original source:
Reality is smashing the sanctuary city charade | TheHill - The Hill

Sanders To Lou Dobbs On Immigration Bill In 2007: I Dont Know Why We Need Millions Of People Coming Into This Country – Mediaite

With Sen. Bernie Sanders announcing that he is staying in the race against Joe Biden, attention turned to their first one on one debate in Washington D.C. on Sunday, where the Biden campaign has telegraphed publicly, and suggested to Mediaite, that Sanders previous votes on immigration will come up again.

Biden previously brought up Sanders vote against an immigration overhaul at the February debate, saying the only person in here that has a worse record on immigration is Bernie, because Bernie voted against the 2007 bill. Whenever this topic comes up, Sanders uses the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) as sword and shield, because the national Latino organization opposed the bill, as well. Unfortunately, LULAC, among other groups, Latino groups, saw that bill having provisions akin to slavery, Joe, Sanders replied.

When Beto ORourke endorsed him, Biden started to say that the other guy voted against immigration reform, but stopped himself. Asked about it, a Biden campaign aide coyly suggested it would come up again. Asked for comment, senior advisor Cristobal Alex slammed Sanders for the vote.

In 2007, Senator Sanders sided with Republicans to kill a sweeping reform package that would have brought six million undocumented immigrants out of the shadows and onto a pathway to citizenship, Alex said. The Latino community needs a president who will have our backs and Joe Biden will do just that, by ending Trumps disgusting immigration policies and introducing an immigration reform bill in his first week in office.

A high-level Univision source told Mediaite they expected influential anchor Jorge Ramos, who has been tough on Biden on immigration throughout the primary, to also go after Sanders on his immigration record, which a second Univision source confirmed. But that plan has been thrown into question after Ramos was exposed to the coronavirus and will now not serve as a debate moderator.

A senior Sanders aide said the campaign isnt worried because he is more progressive than Biden. We have an immigration platform written by Dreamers on his campaign, so we welcome that debate.

For these reasons its worth examining how Sanders talked about the 2007 immigration bill at the time, and how he has couched his opposition since, ahead of the March 15 debate on Sunday.

In a June 21, 2007 interview on CNN, Sanders was most worried about the economic implications of the guest worker programs.

If poverty is increasing and if wages are going down, I dont know why we need millions of people to be coming into this country as guest workers who will work for lower wages than American workers and drive wages down even lower than they are now, he said.

The bill would have legalized more than 11 million undocumented immigrants and created a temporary worker program, while strengthening punishments against employers who hired workers illegally and strengthening border security. At the time LULAC executive director Brent Wilkes said it would separate families and lead to the exploitation of immigrant workers, but if this worried the Vermont senator, he didnt bring it up with Dobbs.

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Sanders, as he is now, was also very concerned with big-money, special interests, leading the way on the immigration bill, but said nothing as Dobbs lamented socioethnic-centric interest groups pushing amnesty legislation with very little regard for the traditions of this country, the values of this country or the constituents.

And as we know, the principal industries which hire the bulk of illegal aliens, that is construction, landscaping, Dobbs continued, using the term for undocumented immigrants that many on the right have embraced, but Democrats have since shunned. Those are all industries in which wages are declining. I dont hear that discussed on the Senate floor by the proponents of this amnesty legislation.

Thats right. They have no good response, Sanders said, before adding that he read that a lot of people coming into the country are coming in as lifeguards. I guess we cant find thats right. We cant find American workers to work as lifeguards.

Dobbs went on, railing against Bill Gates as a witness to Congress, telling Ted Kennedy he wanted unlimited H1B visas, obviously uninformed to the fact that seven out of 10 visas under the H1B program goes to Indian corporations that are outsourcing those positions to American corporations in this country and that four out of five of those jobs that are supposed to be high-skilled jobs are actually category one jobs, which is low skill.

Well, you raise a good point, in that this whole immigration guest worker program is the other side of the trade issue, Sanders responded. On one hand, you have large multinationals trying to shut down plants in the America, move to China, and on the other hand, you have the service industry bringing in low wage workers from abroad. The result is the same middle class gets shrunken and wages go down.

By the time February 2016 rolled around, Hillary Clinton was hitting Sanders on his 2007 vote to kill immigration reform. Then, Sanders emphasized different reasoning. The Southern Poverty Law Center, among other groups, said that the guest worker programs that were embedded in this agreement were akin to slavery akin to slavery where people came into this country to do guest work were abused, were exploited.

A month later, at the Miami debate in March 2016, Sanders debuted a line about LULAC opposing the bill.

With regard to that 2007 immigration bill, as you may know, LULAC, the major Hispanic organization in his country, also opposed that bill as did many other Latino organizations, he said. You know, I think its very hard to make the case that Ted Kennedy, Barack Obama, me, La Raza, United Farmworkers, Dolores Huerta, leaders of the Latino community, would have supported a bill that actually promoted modern slavery. That was one of the many excuses used not to vote for the 2007 bill.

As Clinton did then, Biden said at the debate last month that there would be millions of new American citizens if immigration reform had passed in 2007, which is true.

Its also true that groups had reservations about the 2007 legislation, which seemed to be less of an issue in the 2013 Senate overhaul. Sanders said he still had serious concerns over the guest worker provisions in that bill, but ultimately supported the legislation.

This cycle, Sanders has grown his support from the Latino community across the country, including young Latinos who have always supported him strongly, but also from many of their parents. The issue impacts the community but immigration thus far hasnt come up often, or in a robust way, in debates.

That could change Sunday.

Have a tip we should know? [emailprotected]

The rest is here:
Sanders To Lou Dobbs On Immigration Bill In 2007: I Dont Know Why We Need Millions Of People Coming Into This Country - Mediaite

Immigration Bill just the first step, town hall told – Royal Gazette

Published Mar 13, 2020 at 8:00 am(Updated Mar 13, 2020 at 8:00 am)

Town hall meeting: Colin Anderson, the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of National Security, told an audience of about 30 people that the immigration bill was focused on mixed-status families and the repatriation of Bermudians (Owain Johnston-Barnes)

Immigration legislation to be debated next week is only the first step, a town hall meeting was told last night.

Colin Anderson, the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of National Security, told an audience of about 30 people that the Bill was focused on mixed-status families and the repatriation of Bermudians.

Speaking at a town hall meeting at CedarBridge Academy, Mr Anderson said: Immigration reform means something different for everybody.

In some places I talk about immigration reform and they all want to talk about work permits.

Some people want to talk about status or that all they are interested in is the Job Makers Act.

It means something different for everyone, and that is part of the challenge.

He said the changes meant children born overseas to Bermudians up to two generations back will be automatically Bermudian. For children born before the legislation, a Bermudian parent would still have to prove they were domiciled in Bermuda, but he said the process would be simpler.

Children from mixed-status families and earlier left without status, would become eligible to qualify through the Bermuda status of brothers or sisters.

The legislation would also create a two-year window for the children of permanent residents certificate holders to apply for PRC status. Mr Anderson said the window was a temporary solution which would allow the Government two years to tackle the problem of PRC holders.

He said: The issue is how can we have a situation where PRC holders can pass it on indefinitely?

This will lead to other problems. People will not want to stay here indefinitely and be happy that they are not Bermudian. Thats not sustainable.

Mr Anderson added: In the next two years we have to put forward legislation that deals with the issue of PRCs.

Its a compromise, but some times compromise is not a bad word.

The legislation, tabled in the House of Assembly last Friday, is expected to be debated on March 20.

The individuals behind the Supporting Fair Immigration Reform Facebook group backed the legislation earlier this week.

A spokeswoman for the group said: The tabling of this Act is a step in the right direction and shows progress for bipartisan immigration reform.

This Amendment Act will help to regularise families in Bermuda who are divided into different immigration categories.

These people have ties to Bermuda. They have grown up in Bermuda, paid their taxes and continue to live here, but they cant be in the same immigration category as their parents, as the current immigration laws do not allow them to qualify for Bermudian status or a permanent residents certificate.

The spokeswoman added that the Bill was a small step and that more work was needed.

She said: There are much more challenging topics to be discussed.

We look forward to receiving further updates on how this government will fulfil its own stated promise of comprehensive bipartisan immigration reform.

Read the original here:
Immigration Bill just the first step, town hall told - Royal Gazette

Swing voters could sway the 2020 election – Vox.com

Hillary Clintons loss in 2016 was at least partly attributable to the millions of Barack Obama voters who shifted their support to Donald Trump. Four years later, it is now Trump who must worry about losing some of his supporters in November: As many as one in 10 Trump voters is considering voting for somebody else in 2020, according to our analysis of data from the 2019 Cooperative Congressional Election Study survey.

These voters are individuals who neither strongly approve nor strongly disapprove of the job Trump is doing as president. If Democrats want to win over these voters, theyll have to choose their message wisely.

Why should campaigns focus on persuading these potential swing voters rather than turning out nonvoters? Swing voters might be rare but they do exist, and persuading them can be particularly influential for two reasons. First, switching a person from opposing your side to supporting it has a two-vote effect on the margin: It subtracts one vote from your opponent and adds one vote to your tally. Mobilizing an additional supporter to come out to vote has only half that impact.

Second, mobilizing people to vote when they havent done so before can be challenging. Even if Democrats can mobilize more nonvoters to get to the polls, it is not clear that this will help them in swing states like Wisconsin and Michigan, where many nonvoters fit the profile of Trumps base.

The dataset we used, a large academic election survey that YouGov has conducted online every year since 2006, allows us to better understand the share of 2016 Trump voters who are up for grabs. In November 2019, the survey interviewed 18,000 American adults who had been interviewed in 2016 about their vote, asking them how they planned to vote in 2020.

They found that most of Trumps voters plan to stick with him: Ninety percent of those who voted for Trump in 2016 say they plan to vote for him again. But 10 percent seem to be up for grabs. Four percent are already planning to vote for the Democratic candidate, and another 6 percent say that they are still undecided. By contrast, 94 percent of Clinton voters are already committed to the Democrats: just 2 percent of Clintons 2016 voters are planning to vote for Trump in 2020, with another 4 percent undecided.

The largest share of Trumps support in 2016 came from baby boomers, and only 7 percent of them are considering abandoning him in 2020. Trumps older supporters are quite loyal to him. Where Trump is losing the most support is among Americans younger than 40 who voted for him in 2016.

Younger voters are less certain, and as many as 20 percent of Trumps younger voters are considering abandoning him: 9 percent of the millennial and Gen Z voters who supported Trump in 2016 are now planning to vote Democratic in 2020, and another 11 percent say they are not sure how they will vote.

While the persuadable Trump voters are mostly distinguished by their age, they are also more likely to have college degrees and are more likely to be women when compared to the Trump base. They are also much more likely to identify as politically moderate.

Considering that Trump only received about one-third of the vote among millennial and Gen Z voters in 2016, the fact that these voters are at least considering voting for a Democrat in 2020 is important. This erosion of support among younger Republicans continues a trend that has been taking hold since 2016, when many young Mitt Romney voters decided not to vote for Trump. This low support could sink even lower, chipping at the narrow margins we typically see in elections.

But just because these Trump voters say they are persuadable now does not mean that Democrats will necessarily win them over. After all, the fact that these voters supported Trump in the first place means they are likely more ideologically conservative than the typical Democratic voter.

The graph below shows how the 2016 Trump voters who are now unsure of how theyll vote in 2020 compare to the Trump base (those who already say theyll back him again in 2020), the Democratic base (Clinton voters who already plan to vote for the Democrat in November), and Trump voters who have already decided to vote for the Democrat.

On several issues, the persuadable Trump voters do appear to have views that fit well with the Democratic agenda. For example, about two-thirds of persuadable Trump voters want a ban on discrimination based on sexual identity and oppose Trumps decision to leave the Paris climate agreement, putting them at odds with the voters in Trumps base.

On health care, persuadable Trump voters are to the left of Trumps base but less liberal than some of the most progressive Democrats in the field. Fewer than half support Sen. Bernie Sanderss single-payer Medicare-for-all approach, which would ban private health insurance, but more than 70 percent support a public option for health insurance that would still allow people the option to keep their private insurance.

On immigration, persuadable Trump voters appear to support the trade-off that used to be the base of comprehensive immigration reform proposals: increasing border security while giving undocumented immigrants already in the US a path to citizenship.

Breaking with Trumps dedicated voters, this group overwhelmingly supports granting legal status to undocumented immigrants who have held jobs and paid taxes for at least three years. But theyre closer to the viewpoint of the Trump base when it comes to border security, with just 13 percent opposing an increase in the number of patrols on the US-Mexico border. A slight majority 55 percent of the Democratic base would oppose increasing border security.

Finally, the persuadable Trump voters are not quite as convinced as the Democratic base when it comes to increasing the minimum wage to $15 per hour. While this policy is supported by the vast majority of core Democratic voters, only about 50 percent of the persuadable Trump voters are on board.

Of course, the 2020 election can turn on any number of factors, including the likability of the candidates, the potential impact (economic or otherwise) of the coronavirus, and how these persuadable voters evaluate Trumps first term. But to maximize their chances of winning over the persuadable Trump voters, Democrats should focus on issues that appeal to their base like climate change and LGBTQ rights, while favoring more moderate solutions on issues like health care and immigration.

There may be other paths to defeating Trump, including mobilizing progressives who dont usually vote. But if the strategy is to win over persuadable Trump voters, then a moderate nominee like Joe Biden likely has a better chance at appealing to this small but pivotal group who are not only important in 2020 but will also shape election outcomes for many years to come.

Brian Schaffner is the Newhouse Professor of Civic Studies at Tufts University. Laurel Bliss is a research associate at Tufts.

More here:
Swing voters could sway the 2020 election - Vox.com