Mediaboss Marketing

The Texas Major Cities Chiefs and the Texas Police Chiefs Association would like to take this opportunity to respectfully oppose Senate Bill 4 as amended by the Texas House of Representatives.

SB 4 requires law enforcement agencies to become more involved in the enforcement of federal immigration laws.

No one believes in the rule of law more than the agencies represented by these two organizations. We work tirelessly to make our communities safer within the confines of the Constitution by arresting those who commit crimes that threaten our communities. We specifically target individuals committing violent crimes and arrest anyone who threatens the safety of our communities regardless of their immigration status.

Members of these organizations work extremely hard to build and maintain trust, communication and stronger relationships with minority communities through community-based policing and outreach programs. Broad mandates like those imposed by SB 4, require local law enforcement to take a more active role in immigration enforcement and will further strain the relationship between local law enforcement and the diverse communities we serve. Officers will start inquiring about the immigration status of every person they come in contact with or worse, only inquire about the immigration status of individuals based on their appearance. This will lead to distrust of police, less cooperation from members of the community and will foster the belief that they cannot seek assistance from police for fear of being subjected to an immigration status investigation.

Distrust and fear of contacting or assisting the police has already become evident among legal immigrants as well. Legal immigrants are beginning to avoid contact with the police for fear that they themselves or undocumented family members or friends may become subject to immigration enforcement. Such a divide between the local police and immigrant groups will result in increased crime against immigrants and in the broader community; create a class of silent victims; and eliminate the potential for assistance from immigrants in solving crimes or preventing crime.

It should not be forgotten that by not arresting criminals who victimize our immigrant communities, we are also allowing them to remain free to victimize every one of us. When it comes to criminals, we are in this together regardless of race, sex, religion or nation of origin. SB 4 will have the unintended consequence of making our communities more dangerous not safer, as we presume the Texas Legislature had intended.

Law enforcement in Texas works cooperatively with federal law enforcement agencies including Immigration and Customs Enforcement to disrupt violent street gangs and others who threaten our communities. If federal agencies file criminal charges or obtain judicially reviewed warrants on any person, local law enforcement officers arrest the person regardless of immigration status.

SB 4 reinforces the call by some for local police to become more involved in enforcing federal immigration laws; however, to comply with these constitutionally questionable requirements means stretching already-limited resources. At a time of strained law enforcement budgets and critically low jail space, narrowing the focus to violent criminals, human traffickers, gun traffickers and members of organized crime syndicates is critical. Requiring local law enforcement to prioritize immigration efforts without adequate funding or increased support from involved governmental agencies will hinder an agencys ability to focus its limited resources on the unique needs of the community it serves.

Immigration enforcement is first and foremost a federal obligation. Any immigration reform must begin with the federal government. While the federal government has not been able or willing to address this issue, any effort by the state of Texas to address immigration reform will be ineffective.

SB 4 is not the answer to comprehensive immigration reform; it is political pandering that will make our communities more dangerous. If the Texas Legislature is intent on passing legislation to address immigration reform, passing laws like SB 4 that require local law enforcement to become immigration agents is not the answer.

If the Legislature were serious about removing undocumented people, there are better ways to address this issue than forcing law enforcement to become immigration agents. The Texas Legislature could easily start by addressing the businesses that hire undocumented workers, which is why the majority of the honest, hard-working people emigrate to this country with or without documentation. By addressing the primary reason undocumented persons enter this state, it would free law enforcement to address those persons who are committing crimes.

Our organizations respectfully request that the members of the Texas Legislature withdraw the amendments to SB 4 that was passed by the Texas House of Representatives. This legislation is bad for Texas and will make our communities more dangerous for all.

By Austin interim Police Chief Brian Manley; Chief Will Johnson of Arlington; interim Chief David Pughes of Dallas; Chief Joel Fitzgerald of Fort Worth; Chief Art Acevedo of Houston; Chief William McManus of San Antonio; and James McLaughlin, executive director of Texas Police Chiefs Association.

See the article here:
Texas police chiefs: SB 4 is not comprehensive immigration reform - MyStatesman.com

WASHINGTON Lorella Praeli, formerly an undocumented activist, has experience in putting political pressure on the White House.

She fought former President Barack Obama over high deportations during his first term and lobbied Congress on immigration reform. If 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had won, she may have worked on the inside, after serving as the candidates the national director of Latino outreach.

Instead, President Donald Trump is in the White House and shes going back to activism now with a new job as director of immigration policy and campaigns at the American Civil Liberties Union, starting Monday.

I refuse to look at the next four years and say the only thing we will do is defend, she told HuffPost, ahead of her job announcement. It also has to be how do we defend and expand and advance the rights of the community.

The ACLU is ramping up its on-the-ground advocacy in response to Trump, along with its litigation efforts over some of his highest-profile executive orders on immigration those to block refugees and nationals of certain Muslim-majority countriesfrom the U.S.

Praeli will work on policy and advocacy, both nationally and in states and localities, where parallel fights are playing out over immigration, such as an anti-sanctuary city bill that passed in the Texas House of Representatives on Thursday.

She vowed tolook for ways that advocates can not just defend against deportation efforts but also enact pro-immigrant policies where they can, such as laws that allow undocumented immigrants to get drivers licenses and in-state tuition. On the defense, she said the ACLU would do a lot of work on immigration enforcement, including agents going into courthouses and schools.

Praeli offers an important perspective as a former undocumented immigrant herself. She moved to the U.S. with her family without authorization when she was 10 years old, making her one of the so-called Dreamers that came to the country as a child. She was undocumented up until 2012, when she married and received a green card. Praeli became a citizen in 2015 and voted in her first presidential election in 2016.

Being able to bring that experience into the room is incomparable, she said. You can talk about what undocumented people are going through or you can say I know this is whats happening because I myself was undocumented.

Praeli worked for United We Dream, a nationwide network of undocumented youth-led organization, as an advocacy and policy director until 2015, when she left to join the Clinton campaign.

Her history with immigration advocacy groups around the country and reputation in the advocacy community as a Dreamer was important in making the hire, said ACLU National Political Director Faiz Shakir.

What were building toward is being able to tell Trump not just See you in court but also see you in the streets, he said.

Praeli, who spoke at the Democratic National Convention that nominated Clinton, said her November loss was devastating and unexpected. But she did expect what happened next: A Trump crackdown on undocumented immigrants that he promised during the campaign but some people thought he wouldnt follow through on.

Still, its caused many people to engage in advocacy for the first time, which Praeli said she hopes to tap into in her new role.

I was devastated by the outcome of the election, she said. But Ive also known that our country would rise to the moment.

See more here:
Dreamer Lorella Praeli To Be A Leader Of Trump Resistance On Immigration - Huffington Post

This past week, an ABC News/Washington Post survey revealed that, if the election took place again today, Donald Trump would still win, and possibly by a wider margin. Many in the mainstream media, including ABC News George Stephanopoulos, expressed disbelief by these results. But it shouldnt take them by surprise. If members of the media are truly surprised, its because they are deceived by the biased language of many polls.

Polling on immigration exemplifies an inherent bias that produces skewed results. Over the past few weeks, media outlets have touted the idea that Trumps immigration policies counter the will of the people because support for immigration is at an all-time high. The Wall Street Journal went so far as to conclude that their latest poll on immigration suggests backlash to Trump administration policies. A number of other news agencies are also quick to note that their polls apparently signal opposition to Trumps policies.

However, if you take time to investigate the wording of these polls, a different picture becomes obvious. The same Wall Street Journal poll, which reports that 60 percent of likely voters support immigration, is tailor-made for a pro-immigration response. The wording specifically required that respondents decide if immigration as a whole generally helps or generally hurts the nation. As could be predicted, the survey harvested a generally positive view on immigration. Similarly, when Gallup asked voters on the whole, do you think immigration is a good or bad thing for this country? during this past election cycle, a whopping 72 percent cited immigration as a good thing.

Wording poll questions like this leaves likely voters without the ability to expound on their opinions of the American immigration system. If they want to voice displeasure with the current system, they are required to condemn immigration as a whole, which is unfair and illogical.

Surveys mainly non-mainstream media polls that are willing to ask specific questions related to immigration, paint a different picture. While many news organizations reported on the Gallup poll question signaling support for immigration as an overall practice, most ignored a more specific question in the same poll that revealed a vast majority of voters (76 percent) want to reduce immigration levels or leave them the same. In addition, a recent Rasmussen poll that shows only 15 percent of voters oppose Trumps recent Executive Order that includes reforming the H-1B worker program.

Very few Americans believe that immigration, as a practice, is evil and/or entirely without benefit. Neither does President Trump. What Americans do oppose, however, is a broken and out of control immigration system that favors those who violate or abuse the law. Honest surveys show this. However, even if the mainstream media avoids reporting on them, the American people still back President Trumps efforts to enact meaningful immigration reform that serves the best interests of American citizens.

See original here:
Don't Fall For the Mainstream Media's Polling on Immigration - ImmigrationReform.com (blog)

U.S. District Court Judge William H. Orrick blocked President Trumps attempt to defund sanctuary cities on Tuesday, setting a precedent for actions in response to the current administrations conservative platform. The nationwide ruling comes months after Trumps January executive order on immigration, which demanded that the Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security block cities from receiving funds if they refused to cooperate with the controversial order. Orricks ruling further reminds us of the courts rejection of Trumps previous executive order for a seven-nation Muslim travel ban back in February.

According to theNew York Times, thecourt ruled that Trumps move to tie billions of dollars in federal funding to immigration enforcement overstepped his executive powers, since the powers of spending are placed within the responsibilities of Congress. Orricks decision is a temporary one, until the constitutional backing of Trumps executive order is further checked and digested, but it is valid nationwide.

The U.S. courts progress is living proof that the Trump administrations often racist and ignorant plans are supported neither by a large percentage of the American public nor by the Constitution. Many times, the judiciary fails in upholding equality and justice, regarding the loophole-filled lobbying process as well as systemic issues such as racial profiling and mass incarceration. In this case, however, District Judge Orrick of San Francisco blocked a large part of the administrations conservative immigration policy before it had been brought to fruition.

This is win for many proponents of immigration and immigration reform, and may signify a growing understanding among the public through a constitutional and social lens. No longer is immigration reform a debate between the left and the right. The San Francisco case ruled that the federal command of the city to work with immigration agents broke the trust between local authorities and immigrants, who the city argued would become less likely to report crimes or serve as witnesses," The New York Times reported.

According to CNN, White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus claimed on Tuesday that the administration would take action to appeal Orricks ruling. In a late night statement, the White House called Orricks ruling, an egregious overreach by a single, unelected district judge.

Despite the backlash from the White House over Orricks ruling, the judge explained that the ruling does not take the power away from the White House to create its own definition of a sanctuary city, nor deny the government the ability to enforce conditions on federal grants. Additionally, the Justice Department vowed it would continue to uphold requirements for grants and further comply with the legal system.

As LMU students, we are all called to be global citizens, to uphold Jesuit values and fight for the integrity of humanity in the face of adversaries who threaten to demoralize those around us. With Sacred Heart Chapel named as a safe space for undocumented individuals, it is important to recognize the significance of this court ruling and understand the implications that may have occurred on our own campus had Trumps intentions been realized. While it is comforting to know that our legal system prevented racist and extremist values from informing national monetary policy, we must be weary of future legislation that could threaten the integrity of all Americans regardless of citizenship or documentation and actively fight to prevent it from coming to fruition.

More:
Board Ed: Global citizens in the age of immigration reform - Los Angeles Loyolan (subscription)

Following a raucous town hall meeting in Denair on April 17, Congressman Jeff Denham met a much more subdued crowd Wednesday morning, April 19 as he, state Assemblyman Heath Flora and county Supervisor Kristin Olsen highlighted the need for commonsense immigration reform at a roundtable discussion, addressing the critical role that immigrants play in small business, agriculture and other industries here in the Central Valley.

At the panel hosted by immigration reform group FWD.us and the Central Valley Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the three politicians were also joined by Congregations Building Community Executive Director Homero Mejia and Alexis Angulo, Senior Class President at Gustine High School and DACA recipient.

Angulo is a recipient of former President Barack Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) 2012 immigration policy, which allows some undocumented immigrants, known as "dreamers," who were brought to the United States as children to receive deferred action from deportation and eligibility for work permits.

Angulo currently boasts a 4.2 GPA, which has earned him a full-ride scholarship to Dartmouth University where he hopes to study electrical engineering before eventually working for NASA.

"Your story is absolutely incredible," Flora told Angulo. "I'm proud that you're on this panel because you have lived this and you are the expert in this because this is your life."

Dreamers like Angulo have lived in fear of deportation since President Donald Trump took office. He has promised to crack down on illegal immigration and deport those who skirted immigration law. Although Trump has promised to protect dreamers, the recent deportation of a dreamer in Southern California has sparked concern among those protected by DACA. Maria Harrington, a teacher in the audience at the panel, expressed the fear that not only her immigrant students feel under the new administration, but the uncertainty she feels as well.

"I feel that my voice needs to be heard," she said, standing from her chair after both Denham and Olsen stated the climate surrounding immigration and deportations has not changed from the Obama era. "I have a lot of students that are flat-out afraid...It already happened that a DACA student got deported and you're saying don't be scared? Even me, as a teacher...I'm shaking in my boots."

There are around 11,000 DACA-eligible individuals in Stanislaus and Merced counties, and nearly 800,000 dreamers are currently protected nationwide under DACA. Removing them from the workforce would cost the United States $433.4 billion in GDP loss over a decade.

During the panel, Denham highlighted the need to pass bipartisan legislation, rather than an executive order like DACA, which can be eliminated by a new president, in order to protect dreamers from deportation. Comprehensive immigration reform has not emerged from Congress in over 30 years, he said.

"Congress must lead in fixing our broken immigration system, with an important part of the plan being a path to legal status for Dreamers who were brought here as children," said Denham. "These hardworking young people are already part of our communities, and they deserve a fair and thoughtful solution that will bring certainty to their lives."

One such way Denham is trying to help, he explained, is through his ENLIST Act, which promises legal permanent residence to Dreamers who serve in the military, as well as through co-sponsoring the BRIDGE Act and helping to design the RAC Act - both of which aim to provide protection for Dreamers.

"(The ENLIST Act) doesn't solve all of our problems, but it is one small piece of the overall immigration reform that not only needs to get resolved but allows us to start the conversation," said Denham. "If you can agree that Dreamers should be able to serve in the military, that allows you to start the conversation with, Okay, well what else?'"

Dreamers that obey the law and continue to be contributing members of society should be granted legal status through immigration reform, said Flora.

"The immigrants, the folks that come here to better their lives - we want them here. We need them to understand we want them here," said Flora. "We want them to stay here, we want them to be successful as Americans and it is our job to make sure we set up a system that works for everyone."

Real reform happens during discussions like Wednesday's, said Flora, not in Sacramento or Washington, D.C., but in the communities where those who are affected can make their voices heard. Olsen underscored the positive impact that immigrants have on the local economy. Immigrant residents in the Modesto area are 20 percent more likely to be entrepreneurs than native-born residents, and in 2014 paid more than $296 million in state and local taxes.

"Our economic success in the Valley is very closely connected to having an immigration system that works," said Olsen. "There have been numerous studies done showing that if immigration was cut off, how our agriculture communities in particular would survive and it's not a pretty picture."

View post:
Local officials talk immigration reform - Ceres Courier