Mediaboss Marketing

Miami Herald

Step up, Sen. Rubio, and be a leader on immigration reform Miami Herald Sen. Marco Rubio is talking the talk except at town hall meetings, shamefully, shunning any encounters with, yes, angry constituents and now it's time for him to walk the walk. After President Trump's address to Congress last week, in which ... Rubio is asked to leave Tampa office over disruption from weekly protestsTampabay.com Rubio being booted from Jacksonville office due to protestsTampabay.com all 30 news articles »

Read more from the original source:
Step up, Sen. Rubio, and be a leader on immigration reform - Miami Herald

Demonstrators protest Alabama's immigration law at the Capitol in Montgomery, Ala., on Feb. 7, 2012. Much of the law was later struck down. Dave Martin/AP hide caption

Demonstrators protest Alabama's immigration law at the Capitol in Montgomery, Ala., on Feb. 7, 2012. Much of the law was later struck down.

Back in 2011, Alabama passed what was then considered the nation's strictest immigration law. Much of it was later struck down by the courts.

Now, the law offers a snapshot of potential challenges ahead for the Trump administration.

For Fernanda Herrera, a senior at Samford University outside Birmingham, Ala., the current climate surrounding immigration has her scared, just as the Alabama law did in 2011.

"I don't know if I'm going to see my parents tomorrow," Herrera says.

Her father crossed the Mexican border illegally when she was two.

She and her mom flew in months later with visas now expired. Herrera is covered under DACA deferred action for childhood arrivals so for now, she likely won't be deported, but she's afraid.

"It's supposed to be a happy time. I'm about to graduate from college, the first in my family to do so, and my parents have worked so hard to get me through these four years," she says. "And knowing how detention centers are, and thinking about my parents having to go through that, knowing that my family could be separated, it's just really difficult."

Fernanda Herrera, a Samford University senior, says she hopes the U.S. will learn from what Alabama did in 2011 when had the nation's strictest immigration law. People in Alabama, she says, "fought back and had a lot of that repealed." Dan Carsen/WBHM hide caption

Fernanda Herrera, a Samford University senior, says she hopes the U.S. will learn from what Alabama did in 2011 when had the nation's strictest immigration law. People in Alabama, she says, "fought back and had a lot of that repealed."

Her family also feared that in 2011. Alabama had enacted a law that, among other things, nullified contracts leases, water service, anything and even made it a crime to give a ride to someone in the country illegally. The law's author said the goal was to attack every aspect of life. Herrera sees something similar happening nationally now, but she hopes the U.S. will learn from Alabama.

"They'll see in time that attacking a community is just not the way to have immigration reform happen. Because I mean here in Alabama we fought back and had a lot of that repealed," she says.

Suits by advocacy groups and the Justice Department blocked much of the law, including a requirement that schools check students' immigration status. But that was after farmers' crops rotted and other industries lost labor and business as families fled the state.

'A lot of fear'

Jeremy Love, an immigration lawyer, says he's feeling deja vu.

"There's a lot of fear going on right now. I've had people say they want to do a phone consultation rather than come to my office because they were afraid of going out of their house," he says.

Love predicts mass deportations will hurt the U.S. economy and trigger legal backlash similar to what happened in Alabama. He has more immediate concerns for his clients though.

"People are leaving a very dangerous situation in their home country," he says.

State Rep. Jack Williams agrees but isn't swayed. The co-sponsor of the 2011 Alabama law thinks values, not necessarily physical danger, should determine who gets to stay.

"Today many people are coming to America from very unstable situations," he says. "A hundred years ago, people came to America because they wanted to be Americans."

He says his stance against illegal immigration is principle, not personal.

"I think there's a richness that we enjoy from the diversity that comes from people coming from around the world, and I'm not opposed or afraid of immigrants," he says. "I just would like to see us follow the law. I think that gives everybody a clear road map on how we should operate as a civil society."

If Alabama's any indication, that road map could include hard-to-gauge economic disruption and detours for costly court battles over how immigration laws are enforced.

Read more here:
What Happens When US Immigration Rules Tighten? Let's Look To Alabama - NPR

Business groups are sounding the alarm over the need for reasoned immigration reform to provide the future success for outstate Minnesota.

There may be no more divisive issue at the moment than immigration.

Much of the rhetoric of the campaign leading up to the last election suggested that immigrants were a threat to the nations security and a major drain on the economy, taking away jobs from others.

The security risk was always overblown and the economic argument flat out wrong.

Businesses and community leaders across the state know very well that immigrants are taking jobs that would otherwise go unfilled and providing the economic growth that will keep communities and businesses growing and successful.

From time to time, throughout history, immigrants have been targeted as a threat to safety and economic growth by politicians who believe they can capitalize on raw emotions and fear. Many of the immigrants who settled in southern Minnesota in the late 1800s faced persecution.

Now, with a renewed focus on deportation and the construction of a wall on the border with Mexico, business leaders are trying to provide a level of reason amid the din of anger.

The Minnesota Chamber of Commerce and many other groups, including those in agriculture, are sending the message that immigrants must be welcomed if the states economy is to grow and rural towns are to survive. They note that the state will need immigrants to arrive at a higher rate than now in order to keep up with jobs opened by baby boomers retirements, not to mention any new job openings.

No one can accuse this groups members of being politically motivated in their criticism of the current state of affairs over immigrants. No one has ever accused the chamber or other business groups involved of being radical liberals.

The chamber said that the focus on immigration enforcement and a wall is diverting attention from the real need of overhauling the immigration system. They note that the outdated static immigration quota numbers should be replaced by a dynamic system that allows different numbers of immigrants to enter the country based on current economic needs.

And they know reform needs to address the 11 million undocumented people already in the country, providing them some route to citizenship, with whatever requirements Congress and the president believe necessary.

They intentionally list border security as their last goal, believing that if good immigration reform is passed, border security would mostly take care of itself.

Finding ways for more immigrants to legally enter, work and strive toward citizenship doesnt mean security or background checks need to be weakened.

At a time of overheated rhetoric, the message being delivered by Minnesotas business community is a breath of fresh air.

This editorial was distributed by The Associated Press.

Original post:
EDITORIAL FROM ELSEWHERE: Sounding the alarm for reasoned immigration reform - Crow River Media

In January, President Trump signed an Executive Order blocking sanctuary jurisdictions from receiving certain federal funding. Some 300 jurisdictions across the nation maintain policies that protect illegal aliens and/or impede the ability of the federal government to enforce immigration laws. These policies are expressly prohibited under federal statutes.

The Center for American Progress (CAP), which had a revolving door with the Obama administration and was a key player in formulating the former presidents immigration policies, has very helpfully quantified how much sanctuary jurisdictions stand to lose if they persist in these policies. It has also identified which programs and federal grants will be affected. By CAPs estimation, $870 million a year is at stake for state and local politicians as they decide whether keep the cash or preserve their ideological chastity.

Some jurisdictions, like Miami-Dade County, Florida, and Dayton, Ohio, immediately opted to keep the flow of federal dollars coming their way and dropped their sanctuary policies. Others, where coddling illegal aliens is not just an ideology, but their seeming raison dtre, have decided to play a very expensive game of chicken with a president who is not known for backing down.

Unsurprisingly, California, which is one big 163,696 square mile sanctuary jurisdiction and a fiscal mess, stands to lose the most federal money overall, $239.5 million. On a per capita basis, New Yorkers would be the biggest losers as their state would forfeit $191 million in federal program and grant money.

In the most hardcore sanctuary jurisdictions, local politicians are going to face some very difficult choices: abandon their cherished sanctuary policies and alienate their political base, or abandon hundreds of millions of desperately needed federal dollars and alienate voters who would rather their elected officials focused on keeping the lights on. The first such showdown is likely to come in President Trumps home town, New York City, where Mayor Bill de Blasio is up for reelection in November. Due in part to the citys unconditional welcome mat for illegal aliens, the Big Apple is staring at a $3.8 billion budget gap by FY 2019 (the second year of the mayors second term, if the voters decide to give him one).

Of course, its hard to feel too sorry for the political leaders who are going to be forced to make these hard choices. They knew that the policies they were adopting were a violation of federal law, but they did so anyway, believing that their political gestures would come without consequence. Now, it seems, there will be a price to pay $870 million a year, according to CAP and whatever they decide will make a lot of people very unhappy.

See the original post here:
The $870 Million Question | Immigration Reform Blog - ImmigrationReform.com (blog)

Sounding a bit annoyed, U.S. immigration and Justice Department attorneys deny that federal officers erased or changed a statement written by a Seattle Dreamer who is fighting to avoid deportation.

Nor did Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers make up claims about street-gang connections attributed to Mexico-born Daniel Ramirez Medina when he was arrested with his immigrant father in a Seattle suburb, Des Moines, on Feb. 5, the government says in newly filed responses to Ramirezs civil lawsuit in federal court here.

Ramirezs case has garnered attention nationwide because he was enrolled in an Obama-era program that shields from deportation certain immigrants brought to the country as children. His detention also came after the Trump administration promised to crack down more forcefully on illegal immigration.

Now 23, Ramirez was brought to the U.S. illegally at age 7 by his parents, and later obtained protective status under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

Known as Dreamers, those who qualify can remain in the U.S. for renewable 2-year periods without worry of being deported unless they commit a crime. Then-President Obama approved the program as a goodwill gesture to offspring who would otherwise lack a homeland.

Ramirez says hed broken no law and his attorneys say the deportation case against him is untrue and unfair.

Similar claims have been raised by a Dreamer in Mississippi who is also facing deportation. Daniela Vargas, 22, says she was targeted by ICE after recently speaking at a news conference about her hopes for immigration reform. Danielas case is representative of the mean-spirited and misguided immigration policy of this administration, said her attorney, Michelle Lapointe of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

But the government, in its responses to Ramirezs legal actions taking place in federal district and immigration courts in Seattle, says other Dreamers have been arrested and deported in recent years and the action taken against Ramirez is not necessarily a change in policy.

Ramirez had claimed that a line of his post-arrest statement was altered.

A photograph appears to also show smudge marks left by an eraser. The full sentence, which refers to orange outfits given to gang members in custody, reads: I came in and the officers said I have gang affiliation with gangs so I wear a orange uniform.

Ramirezs attorneys allege the first seven words were erased, turning the remaining line I have gang affiliation with gangs so I wear a orange uniform into a confession of gang activity.

Jeffrey Robins, a Justice Department assistant director, said in the court filing that the appearance of the statement can be blamed on the use of two pens.

Ramirez wrote his entire statement in ink, the initial pen that Petitioner used did not write well, and there are no indications that anyone sought to tamper with the document, Robins wrote. Moreover, the claim that an ICE contractor erased the first seven words does not make any sense both because these seven words are legible. Even without the words, it is clear that Petitioner is denying, rather than admitting, to gang affiliation."

In any event, the government maintains that Ramirez has gang ties and that such affiliation ends his DACA status. The government alleges he has a gang tattoo, which Ramirez says is the name of his hometown, La Paz, in the state of Baja California Sur.

Robins said Ramirez also missed his chance at freedom, which is the goal of his district court action. He failed to request an initial bond hearing, but when the immigration court scheduled such a hearing, his attorneys requested it be cancelled.

Had his attorneys not taken this step, it is possible the immigration court would have ordered Petitioner released, mooting out this part of the case, states Robins. The issue may come up again in two weeks at the next scheduled immigration court session.

Last week, Ramirezs father, Antonio Ramirez Polendo, the original target of the ICE agents at the family apartment, was charged with illegal reentry into the United States. Since 2000, he has been arrested for similar violations seven times, and deported seven times. He also has a 2004 conviction for drug trafficking.

Anderson is a special correspondent.

ALSO

Obamacare overhaul faces resistance in Congress from right and left

'A Day Without a Woman' for many means a day without school

Trump's travel ban contains a tool that could change how the U.S. conducts foreign policy

Originally posted here:
Federal officials deny doctoring document central to case of 'Dreamer' facing deportation - Los Angeles Times