Mediaboss Marketing

Its National Police Week in the Nations Capital, and during this week, the country pays honor and remembrance to law enforcement officers and survivors. During National Police Week, a number of bills are being introduced or considered in Washington. The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) is supporting efforts to provide immigration authority to officers across thecountry.

Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) and Congressman Buddy Carter (R-Ga.) introduced legislation today that would enhance state and local law enforcement efforts to investigate, identify, apprehend, arrest, detain or transfer to federal custody any alien in the United States for the purpose of assisting in the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws. The bill, titled Empowering Law Enforcement Act of 2023, would help provide critical tools and authorities for state and local law enforcement as they carry out their normal law enforcementduties.

Specifically, the Empowering Law Enforcement Actwould clarify that state and local law enforcement personnel have inherent authority to carry out the enforcement of our immigration laws. It would also clearly define the length of time under which the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) may detain a criminal alien to ensure criminal aliens are released into ourcommunities.

The Empowering Law Enforcement Act also makes it clear that state and local law enforcement are empowered to call on the federal government to request that it take custody of illegal aliens. State and local agencies could detain illegal aliens until DHS takes custody and seek reimbursement for costsincurred.

The bill would also enhance information sharing by requiring DHS to submit information on immigration violators in the National Crime Information Center Database, also known as NCIC. This database, maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), is accessible by criminal justice agencies that make an inquiry about crimes and criminals. According to the FBI, the information in NCIC assists agencies in a variety of ways, including apprehending fugitives, locating missing persons, locating and returning stolen property, as well as in the protection of the law enforcement officers encountering the individuals described in the system. The Tuberville/Carter bill, if passed, would require information on illegal aliens to be included in the NCIC so that immigration violators, such as those who are subject to final orders of removal and visa overstays, would be readily available to state and localofficers.

FAIR supports the Empowering Law Enforcement Act of 2023, and believes now is the time to provide more tools to state and local law enforcement officers who are bearing the burden of our border crisis and mass illegal immigrationsurges.

See the article here:
Providing Critical Tools to State and Local Law Enforcement to Carry ... - Federation for American Immigration Reform

FAIR Take | May2023

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Northern California, the Hastings Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, and the National Immigrant Justice Center have filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of California challenging the new Biden Administration asylum rule. The lawsuit was filed within an hour after Title 42 officiallyexpired.

The rule, which was initially released in February, was released in final form last Wednesday in anticipation of the surge of asylum-seekers. The rule creates a rebuttable presumption that, for a period of two years after the end of Title 42, an alien is ineligible for asylum if the alien illegally enters at the southern border after traveling through a country that offers asylum or asylum-like protection pursuant to the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees or the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status ofRefugees.

However, this presumption of ineligibility for asylum does not apply in many circumstances. For example, it does not apply if the alien is an unaccompanied alien child (UAC). It also does not apply if the alien, or a member of the aliens family was authorized to travel to the U.S. to seek parole. In addition, it does not apply if the alien applied for asylum in a country through which the alien traveled and wasdenied.

Most importantly, however, the presumption of ineligibility does not apply if the alien arrives to claim asylum at a port of entry, pursuant to a pre-scheduled time and place using the CBP One app. It also does not apply if the alien arrives at a port of entry without an appointment, if the alien demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that it was not possible to access or use the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) scheduling system due to language barrier, illiteracy, significant technical failure, or other ongoing and seriousobstacles.

This means that the only real restriction the rule places on asylum is that an alien must make an appointment through the CBP One App and present himself or herself at a port of entry. Contrary to numerous media reports, because of these exceptions the rule does not actually require that an alien seek asylum in another country first before claiming asylum in the United States. And, even if the presumption applies, the new rule provides aliens numerous ways to rebut it and still establish eligibility forasylum.

Section 208 of the Immigration Act, which governs asylum, expressly authorizes the government to issue rules establishing additional limitations and conditions that make an alien ineligible for asylum. It also expressly requires the government to adopt procedures for aliens who want to claim asylum and authorizes the government to issue regulations imposing additional conditions or limitations on the consideration of an application not inconsistent with the Immigration and Nationality Act(INA).

In its lawsuit, however, the ACLU argues that the law does not allow the Administration to limit eligibility for asylum based on where they cross the border or whether they applied for asylum elsewhere. It further argues that migrants cannot meaningfully seek asylum in transit countries because those countries lack a functioning asylum system, others have overburdened systems, and most of these countries are not safe for aliens fleeingpersecution.

Upon filing the lawsuit, Katrina Eiland, managing attorney with the ACLU Immigrants Rights Project, told the media: The Biden administrations new ban places vulnerable asylum seekers in grave danger and violates U.S. asylum laws. Weve been down this road before with TrumpThe asylum bans were cruel and illegal then, and nothing has changednow.

The Biden Administration, ironically, is now defending itself against attacks from the left. After learning of the ACLUs lawsuit, Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas said, We have built lawful safe and orderly pathways for people to use. If asylum-seekers dont adhere to those pathways, he added, they dont face a ban but have a higher burden of proof tomeet.

Continued here:
ACLU Sues to Enjoin New Asylum Rule - Federation for American Immigration Reform

SAN DIEGO I just cant ... Thats what my 18-year-old daughter tells me with an exasperated smile on those frequent occasions when I say something that strikes her as crazy.

What I find crazy is that even with so much being written and said about immigration now that the Biden administration has complied with the order of a federal judge to stop using Title 42 as a public-health pretext for keeping out migrants and refugees the discussion is still full of misinformation.

Such as the popular but inaccurate narrative that Democrats are the good guys in the white hats, always defending immigrants and refugees from racist and petty Republicans who want to deport them.

Take it from someone who has studied and written about immigration for more than 30 years from the American Southwest: There are villains in both parties.

People are also reading

Republicans and Democrats want the same thing: to get elected. So it becomes a perverse contest: Which party can be tougher and meaner on the border?

Since President Joe Biden has now hijacked a handful of Trump policies meant to make applying for refugee status nearly impossible including forcing migrants to apply from their home countries or from the first safe country they get to, both of which are illegal according to human rights lawyers we can declare the competition a tie.

Just how complicated the immigration debate really is was driven home for me recently when my favorite news programCBS Sunday Morning went searching for someone to defend migrants and found, of all people, Cecilia Muoz. The first Latina to serve as director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, Muoz was the chief apologist for the Obama administrations immigration crackdown, and every immigration reform advocate in the country knows it.

Whenever President Barack Obama did a bad thinglike splitting up Central American families at the border or putting kids in cages or deporting so many people (about 3 million in eight years) that Janet Murgua, Muozs former boss at what was then called the National Council of La Raza, labeled Obama the deporter in chief Muoz defended the White House in English and Spanish media.

Ive watched many of Muozs interviews in both languages. In Spanish, the daughter of Bolivian immigrants was compassionate toward people who want a better life. But in English when her audience was mostly White she was a hard case, talking about the rule of law and how people had to come to the United States the right way and how human suffering was inevitable.

That is essentially what Muoz told Latina journalist Maria Hinojosa in a powerful episode of PBSs Frontline called Lost in Detention, which aired in October 2011. Hinojosa told heartbreaking stories of immigrant families callously broken apart by the Obama administration. In response, Muoz said, Even if the law is executed with perfection, there will be parents separated from their children.

Is it cold in here, or is it just her?

In 2014, Marylands Democratic governor, Martin OMalley, criticized Obamas rapid-return policies at the border: We are not a country that should turn children away and send them back to certain death. OMalley called upon the administration to treat the refugee children better, describing the holding facilities as kennels.

According to CNN, the governor got an angry call from Muoz. The two got into a heated discussion about his remarks. At one point, Muoz suggested that the administration might house some of the border kids at a former Army Reserve center in Westminster, Md. Quoting a Democratic source, CNN reported that OMalley pleaded with Muoz: Please dont send these kids to Western Maryland.

Muoz would probably prefer that her critics forget all that ever happened.

Politicians and their lackeys always hope we wont remember their failings. This time, no such luck. Latinos never forget anythingespecially being stabbed in the heart by one of their own.

Now, all these years later, CBSs Lee Cowan interviewed Muoz for a segment about the end of the Title 42 border policies.

Its not about politics, she told him. Its not about ideology. Its about helping people in need at a time of crisis. Its really what we do when were at our best in this country.

At our best? On immigration, Muoz hasnt been at her best for a long time. And were supposed to swallow this nonsense?

Washington Post columnist Ruben Navarrettes email address is crimscribe@icloud.com.

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

Follow this link:
Ruben Navarrette Jr.: Let's not rewrite history. Both parties have ... - Greensboro News & Record

Allowing campuses to employ such workers could change thousands of students lives and invoke a bevy of court challenges. The ten-campus system would be the first to openly skirt a law then-President Ronald Reagan signed in 1986 that banned employers from hiring people who lack federal work authorization.

A group of students and progressive legal scholars led by UC law school deans and professors have argued the Immigration Reform and Control Act does not apply to states. Theyve for months pressured the universitys governing board to allow campuses to hire undocumented students, whove been placed in a precarious position since a federal judge in 2021 blocked the Biden administration from approving new recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

The federal courts have consistently recognized that states have broad power to determine the appropriate qualifications for state positions, including qualifications related to immigration status, the co-directors of the UCLA Center for Immigration Law and Policy wrote in a letter explaining their theory in September.

The prestigious university system of nearly 295,000 students already provides legal advice, financial aid and counseling to undocumented students. Californias Democratic-led Legislature has passed a series of laws since 2001 extending in-state tuition to more undocumented students and making it easier for them to apply for state financial aid, in sharp contrast to Republican-led states.

The latest move by a higher education system with international visibility could be emulated by other universities that market themselves as immigration sanctuaries.

Regent Jos Hernndez said Thursday that UC leadership identifies UC as a progressive leader in the higher education system. And it is my hope that other states, other education entities will soon follow with us.

View post:
University of California considers hiring undocumented students ... - POLITICO

When the U.S. Congress passed the CHIPS and Science Act in August 2022, it committed $53 billion to fund semiconductor research and manufacturing in the United States. As a result of this legislation, advanced chip manufacturers have been racing to build new U.S. factories. Since then, however, it has quickly become apparent that fabrication capacity alone will not be enough to make the United States a semiconductor powerhouse. What the country lacks is not raw materials or capital. The main constraint is a shortage of talent.

According to current projections, U.S. semiconductor companies will have 300,000 unfilled vacancies for skilled engineers by 2030. Targeting, training, and recruiting hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens will be impossible in such a compressed time frame. The only way to meet this demand is to recruit many more skilled workers from abroad. On the face of it, this should not be a problem: the United States has long relied on its companies and universities to attract the worlds best and brightest. Brilliant engineers from all around the world helped me turn Google into a world-leading technology company. But this did not happen because of the U.S. immigration system. It happened in spite of it. For decades, Washington has failed to pass meaningful immigration reform. If the United States wants to remain the world leader in innovation, it can no longer afford to ignore the talent waiting beyond its borders.

As I wrote in Foreign Affairs earlier this year, innovation powerthe ability to invent, adopt, and adapt new technologies to advance national powerwill determine the future of geopolitics. And this ability to innovate depends, above all, on the strength of a countrys talent pool. U.S. professional sports leagues understand this: basketball and baseball scouts scour the globe to find the best players for their teams. But when it comes to recruiting the worlds top AI scientists and semiconductor engineers, the U.S. immigration system has put up unnecessary barriers. Current restrictions are increasingly putting the United States behind countries with points-based immigration systems like Canada and the United Kingdom, which are aggressively courting advanced tech workers and engineers.

The United States is still the worlds most attractive country for immigrants. Its university system is the envy of the world and its companies lead the world in innovation. But if Washington wants to stay ahead and achieve the promise of the CHIPS and Science Act, it must act to remove the needless complexities to make its immigration system more transparent and create new pathways for the brightest minds to come to the United States.

While the United States dysfunctional system increasingly deters the worlds top scientists, researchers, and entrepreneurs, other countries are proactively recruiting them. China is particularly active in doing so, with direction coming from the very top. In 2021, President Xi Jinping declared that the competition of todays world is a competition of human talent and education. At his instruction, the nation, which suffers from an exodus of talent, began to spend serious money to woo back native-born STEM graduates. Today, Chinese research institutions offer some postdoctoral researchers three times the salaries they could make at a U.S. university. Skilled Chinese engineers and scientists who previously moved abroad to work are being offered powerful incentives to return home.

U.S. allies have significantly stepped up efforts to bring in the best talent, too. Last year, United Kingdom Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced a scheme to target and attract the worlds top 100 young AI researchers. The United Kingdom now has a High Potential Individual visa program, which is specifically aimed at graduates of the worlds top universities. In 2015, Canada created an Express Entry system, which allows high-skilled foreign nationals to become permanent residents in only a year. The results are already showing: between 2016 and 2019 alone, the number of Indian STEM masters students studying in Canada rose by 182 percent. During the same period, the number of Indian students studying in the same fields in the United States dropped 38 percent.

To be able to compete in the decades to come, the U.S. economy needs to attract the high-skilled immigrants who will build the technologies of the future, from large language models to quantum computers. Many talented workers who would like to come to the United States are put off by its complex and restrictive immigration rules. These rules particularly affect foreign students, who currently make up over 70 percent of U.S. graduate students in computer science. International students who wish to remain and contribute to the U.S. economy upon graduation usually seek to do so by applying for an H-1B visa. But H-1B visas are allotted not on a candidates relative talent but through an arbitrary lottery that has a success rate as low as 11 percent. A majority of foreign U.S.-trained Ph.D. graduates in artificial intelligence who consider leaving the country cite its immigration system as a main reason. Although U.S. universities continue to train many of the most capable scientists and engineers in the world, it is other countries that are increasingly enjoying the benefits.

60 percent of Republicans and 83 percent of Democrats supported more skilled immigration to the United States.

There is broad bipartisan support for common sense immigration reform.Yesterday, 70 experts and former national security officials published an open letter calling on the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party to attract and retain global STEM talent to maintain U.S. leadership in technology. Last year, in a poll conducted by the Economic Innovation Group Economic Innovation Group, 60 percent of Republicans and 83 percent of Democrats supported more skilled immigration to the United States. Seventy-three percent of the U.S. public favor a visa allowing international graduates in STEM subjects to work in the United States. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have made proposals to increase U.S. competitiveness by attracting more high-skilled foreign workers. But these proposals have been blocked year after year. Last year, there was bipartisan support for making available additional green cards with shorter wait times for STEM Ph.D.s. Yet ultimately this initiative was stripped from the final National Defense Authorization Act.

Still, there are a variety of ways to make targeted changes with the backing of both parties. Today, for example, even a physics or math Ph.D. from the United States best universitiesexactly the type of person needed to spur innovation and scientific discoveryhas no clear path toward obtaining residency in the country. Congress should begin to address this problem by creating a conditional green card for STEM Ph.D.s, perhaps with an initial focus on U.S. partner countries. This visa would give recipients permanent residence for two to three years, with an option of extension upon review. There is precedent for creating such a special entry program: conditional green cards have been successfully used for investor visas, and the United States has, at various times, tailored visas toward nationals of allied countries. Perhaps the most notable example of this is the E-3 visa, which applies to specialist workers from Australia, and could be expanded to other nations. This new type of green card would make the immigration process for STEM Ph.D.s more streamlined and predictable. It would also remove pressure on other visa categories with numerical limits and country caps, as well as allow green card holders to move freely between jobs. At the same time, this new green card should come with sensible restrictions, limiting eligibility to a recognized list of leading research institutions.

To win the global talent competition, the United States needs to not only retain but also attract global talent. As Harvard political scientist Graham Allison and I have argued, the U.S. government should make a concerted effort to identify and recruit top researchers from across the globe. A special green card for exceptional scientists would allow the United States to maintain its edge in technology and help it confront the great geopolitical challenges of the coming years.

In fact, the U.S. government already has a successful history of using such a strategy in the decades around World War II. In the 1930s and 1940s, the United States succeeded in attracting a whole generation of talent, including such luminaries as Albert Einstein and Enrico Fermi. The two left Nazi Germany and fascist Italy, respectively, before coming to the United States, where their research, along with that of other migr scientists, was instrumental to the Manhattan Project. Today, Washington needs to do more to attract leading scientists from nonaligned or even hostile countries, even if doing so requires more extensive security screening. The United States missed a major opportunity last year when U.S. President Joe Biden was unable to persuade Congress to waive visa requirements for top Russian engineers and scientists who were seeking to escape President Vladimir Putins rule. The United States should also do more to attract Chinese scientists and innovators, who have been a huge boon to the U.S. economy. Since 2000, Chinese STEM Ph.D.s have created startups valued at over $100 billion. If Washington wants innovators to start their businesses in the United States, rather than in China, it must be more welcoming to Chinese talent. Although much has been made in Washington of the security risks posed by a few foreign researchers who have been accused of intellectual property theft, far greater harm will be done to the country over the long term by keeping out entrepreneurial Chinese scientists.

Washington must also make it easier for the worlds top entrepreneurs to come to the United States. More than half of U.S. companies valued at over $1 billion were founded or co-founded by immigrants. But, unlike in Canada and Australia, there is no designated startup visa for entrepreneurs who want to found a business in the United States. Congress should resurrect an earlier version of the CHIPS and Science Act that would have created a new visa category for startup founders. And that is only the start. Several other visa classes should be created, including ones for foreign nationals of high aptitude who, in return for residency, agree to work for federal or state governments in areas which most need immigration. Similar to pathways to citizenship for those enrolling in the U.S. military, the United States should use new visas to draw exceptional talent into local government.

There are already signs of progress. The State Department is planning to make it easier for millions of international professionals to renew their visas without having to travel abroad. The department should also relax requirements for the J-1 visa, which requires most holders to return to their home countries and stay there for at least two years before they can return to the United States.

The global contest for talent is too important to hold up these reforms for the sake of an elusive bipartisan immigration grand bargain. Hard though it will be, opening up more pathways for highly skilled workers to enter the United States will be key to preserving and promoting national competitiveness and national security. Without such changes, the promise of the CHIPS and Science Act will remain unfulfilled. The power of the American dream has long allowed the United States to attract the best and the brightest. Washingtons ability to field the best team for the coming geopolitical competition rests on this advantage. The United States cannot afford to lose it.

Loading...Please enable JavaScript for this site to function properly.

See original here:
To Compete With China on Tech, America Needs to Fix Its ... - Foreign Affairs Magazine