Mediaboss Marketing

With Speaker Johnson and House Republicans saying they will not even touch the immigration reform and border security bill being negotiated in the Senate, lawmakers in the upper chamber have a message for House members: Take it or leave it.

During a press conference on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, Senator Graham told the Sun that the deal currently being hammered out by Senators Lankford and Murphy is the best shot his fellow Republicans have at making real change, and they should not wait for a Republican president to get the job done.

If youre really a conservative person, youll want to fix things the best you could, Mr. Graham said of Mr. Johnson. To the conservative world: You have a unique opportunity, as Senator Thune described, to get border security reform without giving amnesty or a pathway to citizenship to one person. This moment will pass. Do not let it pass.

Messrs. Lankford and Murphy have been negotiating the reforms, along with Senator Sinema, since before the Thanksgiving break. Republicans are using the White Houses request for Ukraine aid as a leverage point to demand changes at the border.

The most pressing issue for the GOP is the Biden administrations parole policy, which has allowed millions of migrants to enter the country since 2021. Messrs. Graham and Thune, speaking at the Wednesday press conference, said President Biden and the homeland security secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas, have paroled more than 1.5 million migrants in just the last year, compared to an average of less than 6,000 annually between 2014 and 2020 under Presidents Obama and Trump.

Parole is incentivizing more illegal immigration, is the tool of choice by the Biden administration to implement an open borders policy, Mr. Graham said. Mr. President: There will be no deal, there will be no money for Ukraine, no money for Israel, no money for our own needs unless you stop the abuse of parole.

Mr. Thune said immigration reform has been the most intractable problem for Congress since he was elected to the Senate in 2004. This is the moment, he says, to get something done because Democrats are not demanding comprehensive changes to asylum laws that will pave a pathway for citizenship.

As these negotiations we hope conclude soon, there have been some significant gains made in terms of policies that are real and that reduce these pull factors that are encouraging people to come across the border illegally, he said. You cannot fix the problem that we have the crisis that we have at our southern border unless you address this critical issue of the abuse by this administration of the parole authority.

Mr. Johnson, who is already on thin ice with his partys conservative members because of the budget deal he struck with Senator Schumer, is taking a hard line on this proposal. He says the only viable option for addressing the border and immigration issue is for the Senate to take up his hardline immigration bill known as H.R. 2.

The legislation passed the House with zero Democratic votes last year and quickly died in the Senate when Mr. Schumer refused to take it up.

Absolutely not, Mr. Johnson said in response to the leaked details of the immigration deal, which would reportedly allow for up to 5,000 crossings at the border a day and would expedite work permits for the adult children of migrants, among other things.

The House Freedom Caucus has already paralyzed the House once by voting down a rule in a protest move against Mr. Johnsons budget agreement. They could easily do that again or even introduce a motion to remove the speaker if Mr. Johnson were to take up this much-despised bill.

The Senates Schumer-Lankford border deal is a deal for illegal aliens not Americans, Congressman Andy Biggs said in response to the leaked details of the bill. We need to be securing the border and removing illegal aliens from our country not giving illegal aliens work permits and taxpayer-funded lawyers.

Read more here:
Senators Tell House Republicans To Take It or Leave It on Immigration Reform and Border Security - The New York Sun

House Energy and Commerce Committee Health Subcommittee Chair Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) listens to Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar as he testifies about the the FY20 in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill on Feb. 26, 2020 in Washington. | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Outgoing California Rep. Anna Eshoos biggest tech regret isnt what youd expect: Its immigration reform.

We would not be the nation that we are without being an immigrant nation. And immigrants play a very important role in the technology industry. So many come to the United States to be educated here, Eshoo, whose district covers Silicon Valley, said Sunday during an interview on MSNBCs Inside with Jen Psaki.

We have the finest colleges and universities, Eshoo continued. Certainly, Stanford University, which is the geographic center of my district. But once theyre educated, if they cannot get a green card, they have to leave.

Originally posted here:
Outgoing Silicon Valley lawmaker says big tech needs immigration reform - POLITICO

For three years, the Biden Administration has engaged in egregious denialism, blame shifting and half-truths before now finally conceding the southern border is in crisis and pronouncing itself open to significant changes to stem the unprecedented flood of illegal immigration into the United States.

The dramatic change in attitude burst into the open when the president, discussing his Administrations official posture on immigration, uttered five words significant compromises on the border would be considered by the White House.

While the presidents remark changed the dynamics of the immigration debate, it infuriated the progressive left wing of his party who accused the Administration of caving in to the demands of Congressional Republicans and signaled a return to the Trump era restrictive policies denial of asylum claims, arrests and deportations the president himself repealed immediately upon taking office. Warnings of an immigrant surge went unheeded.

The American people would be encouraged if they believed the change in approach resulted from an epiphany, an awakening in the Administration that the scales have fallen from its eyes and it realized that its indecision and outright refusal to act has exacerbated the financial and humanitarian crisis that has befallen communities along the southwestern border and a number of major American cities as they struggle to provide housing, food and social services to tens of thousands of migrants.

It didnt.

The Administrations hand was forced by the application of a major dose of power politics, an Ill-give-you-what-you-want-if-you-give-me-what-I-want accommodation usually referred to in more polite terms as bipartisan compromise.

The deal shaping up would award the Administration its request for $100 billion in aid to Ukraine to continue its war against Russian invasion and to Israel in its war with Hamas in return for significant changes in immigration policy, including rejecting claims for asylum as well as detention and deportation of those found to have entered the country illegally.

Republican demands that heightened border security measures be included in the Ukraine/Israel aid package has placed the entire issue in the hands of a bipartisan group of Senators to develop a consensus that hopefully will win approval jn the Congress and the White House.

Hopes for an aggressive schedule to reach agreement before years end have faded and action now appears delayed into January.

The Administration desperately needs the legislative victory represented by aid for Ukraine and Israel and, while willing to accept more stringent border security measures to achieve it, has recognized albeit belatedly that it must act to wriggle out from under the perception that it is responsible for an open border and the record influx of migrants into the country.

Mayors of New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, Washington, San Francisco and Denver, for instance, have taken their grievances with the Administration public, demanding millions in Federal aid to deal with the rising migrant population.

They face cutting their municipal budgets for education and policing, for instance, to provide funding for housing and other services to migrants. At the same time, they have come under severe criticism from their citizens and taxpayers who claim their needs are being ignored in favor of individuals here illegally.

That the Administration has bungled the issue since the very outset is undeniable. Its insistence that the border was secure was undermined by news accounts and images of border crossings in record numbers and migrants put up in hotels, police stations and airports.

Secretary of Homeland Security Alejadro Mayorkas and White House press secretary Karine Jean Pierre clung stubbornly and without apparent embarrassment to an everything is under control narrative.

Jean Pierre, faced with mountains of contradictory evidence, attempted to shift the blame to former president Trump and Republicans in Congress for failing to act on comprehensive immigration reform.

She has consistently been on the defensive, scrambling for explanations and excuses while her credibility crumbled.

Even when it became clear that the Administration position had become untenable, it failed to move.

Leaked news accounts describing White House officials as failing to act out of a fear of offending its left wing only added to the poor management of the issue at the highest levels.

The presidents public disapproval of his performance on immigration rose to 65 percent and, when combined with dismal ratings on the economy, inflation, crime and foreign policy, dragged his overall standing below 40 percent. In some surveys, he trails Trump in a hypothetical 2024 matchup.

The Republican demands for including border security measures to the Ukraine and Israel aid package smacks of legislative hostage taking a not uncommon occurrence but also offers the Administration a path toward recovering some level of credibility to its immigration position.

It was all so avoidable, however, if the Administration had recognized and responded to the warning signs rather than allowing ideological pressures and a desire to draw sharp contrast with Trump to dictate policy.

Choosing to allow the issue to fester and produce an enormous and potentially election jeopardizing political headache was a badly misguided and amateurish decision.

As distasteful as it may be to some in the Administration, accepting the recommendations of the bipartisan Congressional committee offers a lifeline, an opportunity to recover and demonstrate they really do understand the severity of the problem.

How far the progressive left is prepared to go to tank the effort remains to be seen. Dealing with them will require direct involvement of the president and convincing them there is far too much at stake a re-election and control of Congress to fail to act.

Not only is addressing immigration at risk, but the potential for long delays in providing aid to Ukraine and Israel if not losing it altogether it would seriously weaken a president already in danger as he heads deeper into his re-election bid.

The blame, though, lies squarely with the Administration. It continued to paint itself into a corner on immigration and, rather than attempt to extricate itself as undamaged as possible, chose to send out for more paint.

Carl Golden is a senior contributing analyst with the William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy at Stockton University.

(Visited 1,234 times, 43 visits today)

Visit link:
Immigration Reform: An Awakening Or Political Reality? - InsiderNJ

Gavin Newsom has a scant history of tough debates over his two decades as governor and lieutenant governor of California and mayor of San Francisco.

But he is nevertheless unusually prepared for his nationally televised face-off on Thursday with Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida: Over the past few months, Mr. Newsom has lived through something of a debate boot camp on how to respond to attacks on California, President Biden, the Democratic Party and his own mistakes over the years.

It came in the form of two lively interviews with Sean Hannity, the conservative Fox News host who will moderate the debate on Thursday. From the moment they sat down, he pressed Mr. Newsom on the differences between them on issues as varied as immigration and law enforcement.

I want border security, Mr. Newsom said, disputing the premise of Mr. Hannitys question in the opening minutes of their first encounter. Democrats want border security.

You dont want any walls, Mr. Hannity responded, referring to the wall former President Donald J. Trump set out to build along the Mexican border. Mr. Newsom kept talking.

I want comprehensive immigration reform, Mr. Newsom said. I want to actually address the issue more comprehensively just like Ronald Reagan did. He added, I dont need to be educated on the issue of the border or issues of immigration policy.

On Thursday at 9 p.m. Eastern, Mr. Newsom will be sparring on Fox News not with Mr. Hannity but with Mr. DeSantis for 90 minutes in a studio in Alpharetta, Ga., with no audience on hand. The stakes will be high for both Mr. DeSantis, 45, whose candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination has appeared to fade in recent weeks, and Mr. Newsom, 56, who has positioned himself for a potential White House run in 2028.

The debate between these two relatively youthful national leaders, one from a Republican state, the other from a Democratic one, will offer sharply contrasting views of Americas future during polarized times. Not incidentally, it offers a glimpse at what could potentially be two leading candidates in the next presidential contest.

These are two of the most dominant governors in the country, Mr. Hannity said in an interview on Monday. Two very smart, well-educated, highly opinionated, philosophically different governors. They are diametrically opposed.

For Mr. DeSantis, this will be his fourth debate since entering the presidential race. In onstage meetings with Republican opponents like Nikki Haley, the former ambassador to the United Nations, he has sought to display a command of conservative policy priorities and has clashed with his rivals only occasionally, and on the edges.

Now, he will be debating a leader of the opposing party, ready to draw sharp differences over U.S. assistance to help Ukraine battle Russia, the turmoil in the Middle East, immigration and over Mr. Trump, the leading candidate for the Republican nomination.

Mr. DeSantis has dismissed the idea that Mr. Newsom has toughened himself up for this debate through his sessions with Mr. Hannity. The Florida governor told reporters in New Hampshire last week that his California counterpart was operating in a left-wing cocoon, and had little sense of voters concerns and the politics of the nation beyond the West Coast.

I think he caters to a very far-left slice of the electorate, Mr. DeSantis said. I think that that will be on display when we have the debate.

Still, that Newsom-Hannity encounter in June, as well as an encore after the Republican presidential candidates debated at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in September, offer a primer of how Mr. Newsom may approach this moment: assertive, engaging, armed with statistics and catchy phrases, plowing ahead to talk over an opponent or disparage a question he finds specious, and not easy to corner into a mistake.

He came into that interview very prepared, Mr. Hannity told a New York Times reporter in September. Ive interviewed people that come in totally unprepared.

This is complimentary in every way: Hes out of central casting, Mr. Hannity said, speaking shortly after finishing his appearance with Mr. Newsom. He has a lovely family. Hes young. Compare his energy level to Joe Bidens.

He will defend California against attacks from Republicans, Mr. DeSantis among them, as a place in moral, economic or political decline: Ive been hearing this nonsense for half a century literally half a century.

He will be contrite if asked about homelessness (Disgraceful. We own this.) or about his unmasked dinner with lobbyists at the French Laundry, a luxury Yountville restaurant, at the height of the Covid crisis. (It was dumb.)

And he might even agree with some attacks on Democratic policy in his state, such as the new mansion tax on property sales above $5 million recently imposed in Los Angeles. I opposed it when I was mayor of San Francisco, so I dont disagree, Mr. Newsom said when Mr. Hannity questioned the wisdom of such a tax.

Mr. DeSantis is not Mr. Hannity, with whom Mr. Newsom has what both men have described as a something of a friendship, albeit a jostling one. (They text each other at night.) Mr. DeSantis has, over the course of the Republican debates, proved to be disciplined, at times almost scripted, and more likely to offer a flash of anger than humor.

Mr. Newsom has had his ups and downs with California voters, and it is far from clear how a politician who looks like a Hollywood actor and often seems to be walking the line between sharp and glib or self-assured and arrogant will come across to a national audience.

But he has proved an elusive target for his states beleaguered Republican Party. He easily survived a recall effort in 2021, with support from 62 percent of voters, and was re-elected to a second term with 59 percent of the vote in 2022.

I think Gavin Newsom is going to be the smooth-talking used-car salesman that he always is, said Jessica Millan Patterson, the chairwoman of the California Republican Party, suggesting what Mr. DeSantis should expect. Unfortunately, a lot of people still fall for that.

The facts are on DeSantiss side, she said. What helps Newsom is his charm and his quote-unquote likability. It doesnt work for me, but it works for a lot of folks.

Mr. DeSantiss agreement to debate someone who will not be on the Iowa ballot in January has baffled some Democrats as well as Republicans. We were all frankly surprised he took the offer, said Sean Clegg, a political adviser to Mr. Newsom.

That said, the debate gives Mr. DeSantis an opportunity to draw attention to his candidacy at a time when Mr. Trump has overshadowed him and Ms. Haley threatens to eclipse him.

And the debate could provide viewers a sneak preview of key 2028 players.

Its going to be one of the more interesting events of 2023, Mr. Clegg said. Its a debate between two of the premier governors of the country. Exhibition games can be highly satisfying in their own ways.

Max Scheinblum contributed reporting.

See original here:
Gavin Newsom Wants Fox News Viewers to Hear Him Out - The New York Times

I vividly remember my parents sitting at the kitchen table practicing the Pledge of Allegiance the night before they were to be sworn in as naturalized Americans. They wanted to get the pledge perfect. My mother fled her home country of El Salvador during the brutal civil war, and to this day has a thick accent. I was about 9 years old and annoyed that they wanted me to listen to them for what felt like hours, but as an adult, I have come to understand their dedication.

On election night in 2022, I met a young man holding a sign advocating for immigrants in Howard County. A voter made a rude comment, but he just smiled. I felt compelled to talk with the young man, and he told me his story. He was a Harvard graduate, author and a Dreamer a participant in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, which allows immigrants brought to America as children to remain here and work or study.

We spoke of our family histories and our common goals for a secure and accessible American dream. My conversation with this young man solidified what I already knew: A Republican with solid policy answers can win in Maryland.

When I was a radio host at WBAL, I interviewed Sen. Alan K. Simpson, co-author of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. I asked him how a Republican senator from Wyoming came to be involved in crafting one of the most critical immigration bills of the century. His answer was practical. Thats the only type of people that are goofy enough to handle it. You have to have somebody who is divorced from the emotion, fear, guilt and racism that goes with this issue.

The border states are overwhelmed and often angry that they have been left to handle this crisis largely on their own. It would be difficult for Republican legislators in those states to acknowledge the concessions needed for real immigration reform without losing reelection.

On the other extreme, Democrats response to illegal immigration has been willful ignorance. Only recently, as cities have been inundated with busloads of migrants, have elected officials in New York, Chicago and other places far from the border started to sound like their southern counterparts.

In addition, Democrats already vote as a unit. They may disagree behind closed doors, but in the end, the way they fall in line would make any kindergarten teacher proud. That means that real reform will require Republican support, but that support must start from within the party itself.

I agree with Sen. Simpson that the plan to fix our immigration system will come from an unlikely place, maybe even Maryland. Marylands 3rd Congressional District encompasses northern Anne Arundel County, all of Howard County and a sliver of Carroll County. It leans left, but without the Sarbanes name running for Congress there, now that John Sarbanes has announced plans to retire, it no longer lies flat in Democrats corner.

This district is full of intelligent and empathetic people. Many are registered Democrats as a last resort, not a first choice. It is the kind of environment that offers a common-sense Republican the political freedom to negotiate real immigration reform.

Ronald Reagan, the Republican president who signed that 1986 immigration bill understood the value of immigrants to this nation. In his final speech as president, he said the following: They give more than they receive But their greatest contribution is more than economic, because they understand in a special way how glorious it is to be an American.

President Reagan signed the bill crafted by a Republican Senator from Wyoming, and a Democratic Congressman from Kentucky, in 1986. That bill opened the door for my parents, and 3 million people like them to become Americans. They never missed an opportunity to tell their children how great this country is.

The young man I met on election night last year has been in this country most of his life. He is educated, works hard and has the same values as a natural born citizen like me. What he lacks is the opportunity to raise his hand like my parents did and pledge an oath to this country.

Democrats are wrong. We cannot pretend the immigration crisis is not real. We start by slowing the flow of illegal immigration, securing the border and simultaneously granting citizenship to the almost 600,000 current DACA recipients. Then we start overhauling our immigration system to allow hard working Dreamers to come to this country.

True immigration reform is needed, and it can come from Marylands 3rd Congressional District. I hope Republicans seize the opportunity to offer voters a sound, policy-oriented candidate in this rare opportunity to shape national policy.

Yuripzy Morgan (yuripzy@ymorganlaw.com) is a Republican, attorney and former WBAL radio host. She challenged U.S. Rep John Sarbanes, a Democrat, in the 2022 election.

See more here:
It will take a Republican to solve America's immigration issues ... - Baltimore Sun