Mediaboss Marketing

Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly recently defended his Border Patrol and Immigration officers against congressional complaints that they were being too aggressive.

If lawmakers do not like the laws theyve passed and we are charged to enforce, then they should have the courage and skill to change the laws. Secretary Kelly was absolutely right.

Anecdotes abound about immigration officials treating visitors rudely and arbitrarily at borders. At least 5,000 undocumented persons with no criminal record, including mothers, students and veterans, have been deported this year. Attorney General Jeff Sessions preferred adjective to describe all undocumented immigrants has hardened from illegal to criminal.

None of this is the fault of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Patrol. Yes, individual agents and their supervisors should be held accountable for how they execute their job responsibilities, but their agencies do not control the policies they must carry out.

Immigration is a complicated issue. Tens of millions live in the U.S. without proper documentation. Children who only know themselves as American live under the threat of exile to a foreign country. Entire industries, including the food supply chain, depend on immigrant workers. The best universities in the world develop skills that are drained away to benefit other nations.

Ultra-nationalists have used the nations failure to comprehensively address immigration as an excuse for dehumanizing non-white non-Europeans. Xenophobic language and impossible campaign promises are morphing into federal policy.

House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md., responded to Secretary Kelly by pointing out that Democrats are frustrated by the current administrations immigration policies, but are unable to change laws because they dont currently control Congress. Democratic whining moves the nation no closer to fixing a broken system.

Almost four years ago, the U.S. Senate passed a bi-partisan reform proposal that would have addressed immigration laws, undocumented residents and border security. Republicans in the House have refused to debate it.

The truth is that we American voters are responsible for our immigration mess. We allow employers to treat undocumented workers as little more than slaves. We turn our backs on desperate refugees. We fail to realize that those being demonized are actually our neighbors and friends.

Voters can fix the mess by turning out any lawmaker who does not demonstrate the courage and skill that can make comprehensive immigration reform happen.

Read the rest here:
Immigration reform is the job of lawmakers, not enforcers | Editorials ... - Idaho Mountain Express and Guide

One of President Trump's closest evangelical advisors has a bold new plan for immigration reform that he says will meet the approval of one of the biggest power players in Congress the House Freedom Caucus.

In an exclusive interview on Facebook Live with CBN News, Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Leadership Conference (NHCLC), said he's working with the White House to advance an initiative that would stop short of full citizenship.

It also acknowledges that border security is imperative and that it's logistically impossible to deport some 11 million illegal immigrants currently residing in the U.S.

"So what do we do? We legalize them," said Rodriguez, "by giving them permanent residency as long as they're not dependent on welfare and government welfare. As long as they're already working, we legalize them." Rodriguez believes the plan will ultimately win approval from the House Freedom Caucus.

"At the end of the day, it's the Freedom Caucus," he said, "you can't deny the fact that the political reality is that the president's agenda is basically in the hands of the Freedom Caucus and they have the ability to kill it."

Rodriguez says early indications show support in the NHCLC's 40,000 churches.

He says the plan would allow people to apply for full citizenship but only if they go back to their country of origin and "start from scratch."

Rodriguez said the NHCLC is working with key players in the White House to move the plan forward. Just last week, he joined other members of the Trump campaign's faith advisory board for a private dinner at the White House and tour of the residence.

Rodriguez also joined with the leaders for a Rose Garden ceremony announcing the president's executive order on religious liberty.

While many analysts and faith leaders believe the order did not go far enough, Rodriguez calls it "politically brilliant." He says the strategy of taking a small first step will help to lay a foundation for more substantive initiatives down the road to fight what he calls an "unprecedented assault on religious liberty."

Rodriguez also praised the Trump administration for allowing the NHCLC to help shape initiatives as they're being hashed out.

"Be it a policy issue that we want to help contextualize, address, advance, we have issues with--we have access to the White House," he said. "And I don't mean a junior staffer."

One of those issues, said Rodriguez, is deportation. "We've made some significant inroads," he said. As deportations increased earlier this year, Rodriguez says the NHCLC pleaded with the White House to "make sure that families stay intact."

Rodriguez said a collaborative effort involving the White House, Department of Justice and Homeland Security has made that happen.

See the article here:
Trump Latino Advisor Says New Immigration Reform Plan Could Seal the Deal - CBN News

It was said countless times during the 2016 US election cycle, but it bears mentioning again that the peoples votes represented a referendum on the status quo. Voters from all walks of life expressed deep frustration with the political elite on both sides of the aisle. However, Donald Trump was by far the biggest beneficiary of this sentiment.

As I reflect on last years election, it is clear to me that Trump saw something that no one else noticed. At least, not until it was too late for the other candidates to do anything about it. He knew that anger had built up to a boiling point in average ordinary adults across the nation. He also understood that this frustration cut across party lines but more importantly he understood why people were angry illegal immigration.

Some felt that by looking the other way as migrants crossed the U.S. border that our nations leaders were putting the priorities of others above its own citizens. Still, others are concerned for their families safety, while many blame illegal immigration for the soft labor market. But whatever the case, during the campaign Mr. Trump zeroed in on these sentiments and put illegal immigration at the center of his campaign.

It isnt the migrants fault that Mexico and several other Central American countries are collapsing under the weight of a brutal drug-induced crime spree. Left to choose between staying in a country where either you work for the cartels or you die, is it any wonder that so many flee for safety across the U.S.-Mexico border?

Just on this basis alone, theres a case to be made that at least those affected by the violence be allowed asylum in the U.S. However, there are other issues at play, as well. Such as the fact that many of these undocumented workers have lived here most or all of their lives. As such, asking them to go back is inhumane.

One of the reasons its been so hard to pull off a comprehensive immigration reform package in the past is that given the countrys lax enforcement, the will to get it done has been weak.

The so-called Gang of Eight was made of four Republicans and four Democrats and, including Mr. Rubio represents the most recent attempt. They teamed up in 2013, to draft an immigration bill. Although the bill made it out of the Senate, conservative opposition in the House prevented it from making its way to then President Obama.

The core framework of the immigration bill (S-744) proposed by Schumer and Rubio in 2013 was based on the failed KennedyMcCain legislation of 2005. On amnesty, for example, SchumerRubio granted illegal immigrants immediate provisional status.

One of the reasons opponents of the Schumer-Rubio voted against it is that while it included no immediate border security timetable, illegal immigrants were granted immediate amnesty, albeit through probationary status.

Indeed, the bill was so unpopular that former Tea Party darling, Marco Rubio, fell out of favor with conservatives and was unable to regain his stature within the Rights grassroots community. Its no wonder that many credit the failed initiative with rousing up the same anti-immigrant sentiment that got Trump elected.

Most of the DACA employment authorization documents (EADs) that former President Obama granted to undocumented minors expire within the next year. Their expiration represents a perfect opportunity for the Trump administration.

Although some within his party dont want President Trump to renew the status of the undocumented who came as minors, it may be in their best interest. If the publics lukewarm reception to the American Healthcare Act is anything to go by, the Republicans could use a solid win. And who wouldnt want to be seen as the side that solved this long-standing issue?

Thats what makes Trump the right person for the job. He can convince his party that hes serious about enforcing the law and that the right deal could gain the support of all sides, while make enforcing the law more cost-effective.

Wishful thinking? Consider this since Bannons influence in the administration began to wane, Ivanka Trump has emerged as one of Trumps most influential advisors. The result has been a steady move to the center on Trumps part.

A move towards comprehensive amnesty is certainly within Ivankas wheelhouse, not just because Ivankas a Democrat, but its consistent with many of her other positions. So, the only question is whether she could convince her father that its in his best interest to act.

Anyone who doubts her ability to do so need only recall the Syrian strike for proof that its indeed possible.

See the article here:
Why Comprehensive Immigration Reform May Be Next On Trump's ... - Huffington post (press release) (blog)

posted at 11:01 am on May 7, 2017 by Jazz Shaw

I had thought that the current agenda for any sort of immigration reform was pretty clear following the last election cycle. There would be no discussions of amnesty or any other priorities of liberals and open borders advocates until the border was secure and progress was being made on getting at least the worst offending criminal illegal aliens out of the country. Apparently I was mistaken. Ilya Somin, writing at the Volokh Conspiracy, is pitching a very different vision of reform this week in support of an immigration legislation package being put forward by Republicans Ken Buck and Ron Johnson.

In it, Somin describes a proposal which would revamp and potentially expand portions of the visa program by essentially turning control of issuing them over to the states. And he chooses to frame this argument by saying that its really what the authors of the Constitution had in mind.

For the last century or more, immigration policy has been dominated by the federal government. Thats an inversion of what most of the Founding Fathers expected. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, among many others, objected to the Alien Acts of 1798 in large part because the original meaning of the Constitution did not give Congress any general power to restrict immigration, but rather largely left the issue to the states.

We are unlikely to fully restore the original meaning of the Constitution. But earlier this week, Republican Senator Ron Johnson (Wisconsin), and Representative Ken Buck (Republican, Colorado), put forward a proposal under which states would exercise considerably greater power over migration. The proposal would allow each state to admit guest-workers from abroad for a period of up to three years, that could then be renewed by the state. The visas in question would still be issued by the federal government, but largely at the discretion of the states.

There are two major problems with this approach, one constitutional and the other practical. Lets start with the former. Somin claims that, the original meaning of the Constitution did not give Congress any general power to restrict immigration, but rather largely left the issue to the states.

To back up his claim that Congress has no power to restrict immigration Ilya Somin cites, well Ilya Somin, in a separate article he wrote for an outlet somewhat tellingly named Open Borders. Im afraid Im going to have to take issue with that somewhat daring interpretation which you can click through and read for yourself.

Its true that the Founders didnt seem to spend a great deal of time thinking about the question of immigration. Or if they did, the topic didnt get a lot of play in the final cut of the document they produced. But its not entirely silent on the subject either. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution actually says that Congress, not the states, shall have the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. Somin attempts to argue that naturalization is merely the process of becoming a citizen and not the physical act of entering the country, but thats fairly thin gruel for this debate. In order to become a citizen, the process most certainly involves coming to the country unless you were born here (thus nullifying any questions of becoming a citizen). This is a distinction which the Founders clearly understood when they mentioned similar criteria in Article II Section 1.

But we dont need to simply rely on those breadcrumbs to find out that the authors of the Constitution had already thought this through. The Founders had given the subject even more consideration, because they followed that up in Article I Section 9 by saying, The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person. Clearly they were giving the states the right to make decisions on immigration in the short term, but it was very short indeed. Those powers were designed to expire in a handful of years and they did so. Why on Earth would the Founders specifically reference the power of the states to regulate migration or importation (which obviously and absolutely describes immigration beyond any doubt) and put an expiration date on it unless they were talking about such power shifting to the federal government? Or, if we must dance on the same head of a semantic pin that Somin is relying on, even if the states had the power to regulate the migration or importation of aliens at the beginning, they were only assured that Congress would not prohibit it until 1808. After that, Congress could and did take charge. The premise being argued by Somin seems absurd in light of those facts.

Somins final argument seems to be that absent a clear mandate for the federal government to have this power it should go to the states. Thats an obvious reference to the Tenth Amendment and would clearly hold true were it not for the inconvenient fact that the Constitution does recognize the need for such authority and removes it from states following the year 1808. Enough about that.

On to the practical side of the discussion, which Ill keep short. Allowing the states to take charge of the number of H-1B style visas which are issued in the fashion described would be a disaster on several counts. First of all, we would need to also turn over the responsibility for tracking the visa recipients to ensure they didnt overstay their welcome. We cant even manage that at the federal level today, and thats with several massive law enforcement agencies already in place who are supposed to be taking care of it. Who at the state level will be put in charge of this task and what resources and manpower do they all have to tackle the job, to say nothing of experience in doing so? The answer is that none of them are prepared for the task.

Also, this proposed system wouldnt tie the H-1B visa to any single employer. Currently thats one of the only ways to find out if someone is no longer complying with the rules or is in an overstay situation. By allowing them to switch jobs (or go to having no job) youve lost the one thread you could pull in terms of keeping track of them. Its pretty much a red carpet invitation to abuse the visa system and disappear into the crowd.

Theres simply nothing about this plan which sounds either wise or practical and it opens up the system to even further abuse. We should stick with the program set forth in the conservative agenda. Secure the border. Track down and deport illegal aliens as much as is possible. And maybe then we can talk about various other reforms when the situation is more under control.

See the rest here:
A federalist approach to immigration reform would be a disaster - Hot Air

Immigration hard-liners whose fortunes are rising under the Trump administration have released a confidential year-old letter from the Justice Departments immigration court that blasted left-leaning lawyers for targeting them with derogatory name-calling based on a report by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

At issue was the SPLCs repeated claim that the Federation for American Immigration Reform is a hate group as well as its escalating efforts to prove that the federation, which favors stricter control over legal and illegal immigration, is racist.

The immigration courts letter sent during the Obama administration does not resolve that dispute. But the decision to release it illuminates the fight for credibility in the national immigration debate, with both sides emboldened after the election of President Trump.

[Read the letter from the immigration court]

Advocates for immigrants, who have won key victories to block Trumps immigration crackdown in court, would like the government not to consider the views of the federation and its allies, whose leaders have made statements that critics say evoke racism.

But the federation and other critics of illegal immigration say they do not discriminate and are fueled by concern about jobs and resources for Americans. Trump has embraced many of their views and is appointing top officials whom they count as allies, including former federation director Julie Kirchner, recently named ombudsman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

What [immigrant advocates] want is to delegitimize all skepticism of the open-borders, globalist immigration model, as if such a position can never be legitimate for America, said Dale L. Wilcox, executive director and general counsel of the Immigration Law Reform Institute, the federations legal arm.

They label as morally deficient concerned citizens who happen to worry that theres a connection between things like immigration and urban sprawl or increased labor supply and lower wages.

Wilcox released a letter dated March 28, 2016, from the immigration courts disciplinary counsel, Jennifer J. Barnes, that resolved a dispute about whether the federation should be allowed to file friend-of-the-court briefs on issues before the Board of Immigration Appeals. The board had asked the federation and the American Immigration Lawyers Association to weigh in on cases for years, including in 2014 and 2015.

Lawyers for the SPLC and for groups representing immigrants involved in the cases objected to the request for input from the federation, arguing that it is a hate group, white supremacist, eugenicist, anti-immigrant, anti-Semitic and anti-Catholic, the courts letter said.

The federation called those descriptions McCarthyite ad hominem attacks and asked the board to sanction the lawyers.

In response, Barnes issued a four-page rebuke of the SPLCs lawyer and three others from immigrant advocacy groups. She said their efforts were frivolous behavior that overstepped the bounds of zealous advocacy.

None of this language was related or relevant to the underlying factual or legal matters or FAIRs amicus briefs, and its sole purpose was to denigrate FAIR and its staff, she wrote, using an acronym for the federation. Such language is not appropriate in a filing before the Board.

Barnes asked the lawyers to keep the letter confidential, and did not open a formal disciplinary proceeding. The lawyers said they took the letter as an informal reprimand.

Wilcox said his organization, which wants to slash legal immigration from about 1million people a year to 300,000 a year, an idea also floated by Trump and conservative members of Congress, did not initially consider releasing the letter. Then the SPLC added the federations legal arm to its formal list of hate groups this year. In response, the federation filed a complaint with the IRS against the SPLC, accusing it of violating its tax-exempt status by engaging in political activity, which the SPLC denied.

Richard Cohen,president of the SPLC, saidhis group researched the published papers and remarks of foundation founder John Tanton and other foundation officials and published them on its website. Among the many examples are a 1993 Tanton letter that said he favored a European-American majority in the United States. He also published a journal that critics said featured racist texts.

Cohen said the SPLC typically labels as hate groups those that vilify entire groups of people based on characteristics such as race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation.

The question is whether they are a biased advocate. Are their positions infected with racism? Cohen said. We would say yes.

The four lawyers targeted by the foundations complaints to the appeals board said Barnes never notified them about the criticism or gave them a chance to respond.

The foundation also filed state bar complaints against the four lawyers. Cohen and the other lawyers said the bar complaints were dismissed.

See the original post:
Newly released letter shows growing battle between groups in immigration debate - Washington Post