Mediaboss Marketing

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

The company provided employers at its Philadelphia headquarters time off on Thursday to protest Trumps popular policy, which is designed to reduce the inflow of costly refugees and to exclude migrants carrying hostile attitudes. Company protestswere also expected in Washington D.C., New York and California.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Trumps new policy seeks to exclude people who:

do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including honor killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Trump underlined the pro-American nature of his reform today, saying at the National Prayer Breakfast that;

Our nation has the most generous immigration system in the world. But there are those who would exploit that generosity and undermine the values that we hold so dear. We need security. There are those who would seek to enter our country to spread violence or oppressing other people based upon their faith.

We will not allow intolerance to spread in our nation So in the coming days we will develop a system to make sure those admitted into our country fully embrace our values of religious and personal liberty and that they reject any form of oppression and discrimination. We want people to come into our nation but we want people to love us and love our values. Not hate us and hate our values.

In Philadelphia, the 45-minute protest against the hostile attitudes policy was held just after lunch.

The growing campaign by corporations including Google, Starbucks, Amazon, Lyft and Netflix against the newly elected president and his immigration reform is shaped by their bottom-line desire to raise the inflow of immigrant consumers and cheap workers.

But the corporate backlash is also boosted by sympathy from many top-level managers both native-born and immigrant towards striving migrants, regardless of the migrants political or ideological views.

Comcasts Kotay, for example, arrived in the United States as a child and worked his way to the top of the nations high-tech sector, alongside other Indian immigrants who now running Google and Microsoft. In his Twitter account, he describes himself as comcast. chief technology officer. immigrant.

Kotay made his political sympathies clear in a message to his employees, in which he appears to described the elected President as the enemy, and also suggests that Trump is similar to now-dead Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez.

The screenshot was leaked to a radio station,New Jersey 101.5.

Kotays Twitter feed also shows his personal dislike of Trumps policies, which may end up reducing the inflow of Indian-born migrants and contract-workers into the United States.

Trumps policy is designed to exclude hostile immigrants, including those who reject the U.S. constitution or who support violence via Islamic holy war or jihad.The new policy would also exclude people who endorse honor killings of women and girls, which is a widespread problem in Indiaand a growing problem in the United States.

Like many other progressive advocates, Kotay praises immigrants while downplaying the accomplishment of ordinary Americans, who either birthed most of Comcasts workforce and customers, and or remain the vast majority of Comcasts employees and customers.

At a Jan. 26 speech to at an awards event, Kotay declared, according to his notes, that

It is hard, of course, to be up here and not be mindful of the current environment around us the rise of Nationalism, and what that says about patriotism. discussions abound on race and gender, orientation and religion and of course, on that illusive notion of Privilege and how that shapes us (or doesnt)

People are often surprised when I tell them about where I grew upin the middle of nowhere Virginia And yes, as an Indian immigrant, I encountered my share of racismmostly the casual racism of ignorance and exclusion, less so the angry racism of hate and fear and that was its own privilege. Adversity builds characterand, you know, I pushed back too my own brand of casual reactionary-ism. But all things said, it was a wonderfully surprisingly supportive place to grow up

[a] hero of mine, Neil Degrasse Tyson (who I think of as my personal chocolate Jesus:P), recently tweeted: I dream of a world where the truth is what shapes peoples politics, rather than politics shaping what people think is true.

I am also certainly privileged to be an Indian man in the technology industry in the good ol US of A.

During the Philadelphia protest, pictured above, Kotay stood at the front of the crowd of native-born and immigrant workers, wearing glasses pushed back to the top of his head. He also wore a coat with a yellow armband.

Comcast officials downplayed the companys role in the backlash against Trumps popular immigration policies, which complement his Buy American, Hire American campaign promises.

We understand that some of our employees are concerned and we respect theirdesire to express their opinions, Comcast flack John Demming said in a statement to the radio station.

Our primary focus is to make sure that all of our employees feel safe in their jobs, including while traveling. We have assured our employees that no one willbe asked to travel to a place that would result in them feeling vulnerable in any way.

Although progressives argue that Trumps policies promote violence, the actual violence is being directed against Trumps supporters.

Many companies reduce their labor costs and boost their profits by relying on immigrant and foreign contract-worker labor. Since 2013, Comcast has tried to hire hundreds of cheaper foreign white-collar professionals workers to take the jobs sought by young, debt-burdened American graduates. Many of those foreign workers come from India, according to the MyVisaJobs.com website, which displays government provided data. Without the extra inflow, companies would be forced to raise salaries to attract Americans into those professions, so nudging up salaries for all white-collar workers.

The MyVisaJobs.com site also shows that Comcast is seeking Green Cards for foreign white-collar workers.

Each year, the federal government provides up to 150,000 Green Cards to foreign workers sponsored by U.S. companies, such as Comcast. Of course, each new Green Card worker nudges down the average salary that Americans companies have to pay their domestic employees.

Legal immigration also delivers roughly 1 million new prospective customers each year to companies. Legal and illegal immigrants now comprise one out of seven people living in the United States. But many of the migrants are unskilled, and sorely on taxpayer-provided welfare paymentsto fund their living expenses, including Comcast services.

In 2015, Googles chairman Eric Schmidt bemoaned the slow population growth in the United States, Japan and other countries, asking how are you over a couple of decades to deal with the fact that one third of your customers are going to go away?

Well, one [way] is produce more customers through immigration, he said at theMarch 18 event hosted by the American Enterprise Institute.

However, Comcast, like many other companies, has to deal with government on many critical issues. One huge issue for Comcast is the planned merger of AT&T with Time-Warner, which would give AT&T a huge store of media products to help it compete against other companies, such as Comcast. Trump has voiced opposition to the merger, but his deputies have yet to announce a decision.

From 2009 to 2015, Comcast gradually bought the NBC media company.

Follow Neil Munro on Twitter @NeilMunroDC or email the author at NMunro@Breitbart.com

The rest is here:
Corporate Backlash: Comcast Executives Push Employees To Protest Trump's Popular Immigration Reform - Breitbart News

BTW

Last week's restriction on Muslims and refugees was apparently just the beginning of President Donald Trump's immigration reform. Leaked draft executive orders obtained by Vox and the Washington Postshow the White House is considering denying and deporting immigrants on the basis of welfare, with families of those immigrants footing the bill.

The draft order, titled "Executive Order on Protecting Taxpayer Resources by Ensuring Our Immigration Laws Promote Accountability and Responsibility," calls for the Department of Homeland Security to deny immigrants from entering the U.S. if it's determined they will receive any kind of money from the government, be it in cash or in-kind benefits.

"Our countrys immigration laws are designed to protect American taxpayers and promote immigrant self-sufficiency. Yet households headed by aliens are much more likely than those headed by citizens to use Federal means-tested public benefits," the draft order reads.

However, the order fails to provide evidence to support the claim regarding immigrant-headed households, nor have experts reached such consensus, according to the Post.

The federal government can stop someone from entering the U.S. or from becoming a legal permanent resident if it's determined they'll become a "public charge," and depend on federal cash benefits. However, the order would open this determination to include in-kind benefits like Medicaid and food stamps, too.

The order calls for immigrants with U.S. visas who receive such welfare within their first five years in the country to be deported. And the friend or family member who sponsored the immigrant would have to reimburse the federal government for the benefits the immigrant received.

The order also wants to make these numbers publicit would make the government publish biannual reports on benefits used by immigrants, and reports on how much money could be saved, as well as how that money could be redirected to U.S. programs to go to "inner-city communities, and to disadvantaged youth."

Under the order, unauthorized immigrants would be ineligible for the child tax credit, even if the children are citizens, and would be ineligible for Social Security during the time they're unauthorized, even if they paid the tax.

Ultimately the order seeks to crack down on resources used by immigrants, regardless of visa and green card status, as a means to indicate that immigrants are wrongly taking tax money.

A second order, "Executive Order on Protecting American Jobs and Workers by Strengthening the Integrity of Foreign Worker Visa Programs," wants to stop the "jobs magnet" from driving immigration by unauthorized workers, and would rescind work visa provisions for immigrants found not to be in "the national interest" or in violation of immigration laws.

It also wants to make U.S. immigration "more merit based" by having site visits at companies that employ foreign workers, having Homeland Security report the total number of foreign-born people authorized to work in the U.S. biannually, and combating "birth tourism," the concept that non-citizens have children in the U.S. as an effort to gain citizenship.

According to the Post, the draft orders have circulated the desks of administration officials. It's unclear if Trump will move forward with them. The White House did not confirm the authenticity of the draft orders with the publication, and did not return requests for comment.

Read the full reports on the two orders by Vox and theWashington Post.

See more here:
Trump's draft executive order could deport immigrants for being poor - The Daily Dot

In November 2014, the Clayton County Sheriffs Office announced it would no longer honor the federal governments request to hold detainees facing possible deportation beyond their scheduled release date on local charges.

The decision, in effect, madeClayton Georgias sole sanctuary community. Claytons policy largely went unnoticed and unchallenged during the past couple of years. But this week, the Trump administrations crackdown on undocumented immigrants has focused new atttention on Claytons claim, which is also at odds with state law.

News that Clayton may be a safe harbor for undocumented workers broadsided local leaders who now are scrambling to determine whether the county is, in fact, a sanctuary community. Sanctuary cities and communities are illegal in Georgia.

A year ago,state lawmakers tightened up their lawon so-called sanctuary cities by requiring local governments to certify theyre cooperating with federal immigration officials in order to get state funding. The state has banned local governments from having sanctuary policies for undocumented immigrants since 2008.

Along those lines, Clayton faces the prospect of losing federal money as well. President Trump has vowed to cut funding to sanctuary city communities in an effort to tighten national immigration laws.

Were trying to get to the bottom of this. We need to find out where this (designation) originated from and correct it and move on from there, said Clayton Commission Chairman Jeff Turner. We cant afford to lose any money.

Clayton officials have sent a letter to the Department of Homeland Security inquiring about Claytons status as a sanctuary community, Turner said.

The controversy surfaced this week after Clayton officials learned the county is the only community in Georgia listed on The Center for Immigration Studies national list of sanctuary cities. The center is a Washington, D.C. group that advocates for restricting immigration.

I was very surprised. I dont know where that came from, Turner said. He noted that officials in the sheriffs office told him they were not aware of ever claiming to be a sanctuary city.

A spokeswoman with Clayton Sheriff Victor Hills office did not return phone calls or respond to an email about the issue. At the time of the announcement, Hills office said it would not hold detainees beyond their release date and that federal authorities would need a judicial warrant in order for Clayton to hold them longer.

Sanctuary City is a term applied to local governments that dont fully cooperate with federal authorities. The communities often do not hold undocumented immigrants for pending federal violations and in many cases local governments will not inquire about the persons immigration status.

In metro Atlanta, different counties have taken different approaches to dealing with the federal government requests when it comes to immigration issues. Some hold the feds at arms-length when it comes to detainees while other extend a hand in helping with immigration enforcement.

DeKalb, for instance, notifies the federal government of pending releases but we wouldnt hold a person beyond their release date, said Sheriffs spokeswoman Cynthia Williams.

That said, Williams added, We dont consider ourselves a sanctuary city.

DeKalb instituted its policy in December 2014 - a month after Claytons.

Conversely, sheriffs departments in Cobb and Gwinnett are part of whats called the 287(g) program which gives them the ability to perform certain duties on behalf of Immigration and Customs Enforcement or ICE. Gwinnett has been part of the 287(g) program since it began in 2009. It enables deputies to identify and place detainers on illegal immigrant criminals for ICE, according to Gwinnett Sheriffs spokeswoman Shannon Volkodav.

In my opinion, a true sanctuary city is one that doesnt share information thats obtained in the course of the jailing or booking process, said Jessica Stern, who owns The CrImmigration Firm. That information, Stern said, would include addresses as well as dates and places of birth.

Stern said since 2014 she has defended about a dozen noncitizens undocumented immigrants as well as permanent residents with green cards who had arrests or convictions in Clayton that triggered possible deportation. None were deported.

They released my clients when they were supposed to be released on local charges, Stern said of Clayton. They didnt play hide-and-seek games waiting on ICE to see what they would do.

Stern said it was a stretch to label Clayton a sanctuary community.

I dont think its fair to have Clayton singled out in comparison to other counties, she said.Stern agrees with law enforcement agencies that stand up to federal authorities.

They are wanting to see probable cause as a basis for why they should hold people (longer), Stern said. Sheriffs are getting sued for holding people longer than theyre supposed to be held and they have had to pay damages because of it.

The Center for Immigration Studies compiles its list of sanctuary cities using information gleaned from ICE, which comes under the Department of Homeland Security, the centers spokeswoman Marguerite Telford said. The list was updated last month.

An estimated 300 sanctuary cities and counties rejected more than 17,000 detention requests from ICE between Jan. 1, 2014 and September 30, 2015, according to the center.

Theres a human costs to these sanctuary policies because the inevitable results is that criminal aliens who should be deported are released back on to the streets to commit more crimes, Telford said. Too many people have died and been raped because people have not been held.

The July 1, 2015 death of Kathryn Steinle, a San Francisco woman killed by a Mexican national with a lengthy criminal record who had been deported five times, became a flashpoint in the debate over immigration reform.

Trump cited the Steinle case during his presidential bid and some say it served as a lightening rod for his recent orders.

Stern believes Trumps actions are an effort to get buy-in from local law enforcement such as sheriffs departments to act on behalf of the federal government because theres not enough money or manpower for the federal government to carry out immigration enforcement duties.

Theres going to be more pressure on sheriffs than ever, Stern said.

The rest is here:
Clayton at center of Trump's national immigration reform efforts - MyAJC

By Kari Barbic

To be an American generally means to be from somewhere else. With the exception of those of Native American descent, U.S. citizens are the children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and so on, of the people who left another land to make a better life for themselves and their families. Immigration is the story of America. Its the story of my family, and Id wager its the story of yours. But when we lose sight of this, its easy to muddy the waters of an already complex issue, forget what its actually about, and focus instead on what it isnt.

1. Immigration reform is not about creating open borders.

Responsible immigration reform must address border security, especially in this post-9/11 world, according to Farm Bureau. But wed be remiss to not look to the numbers for the full story. Border security has increased, with double the number of agents employed on the Southwest border since 2000 (totaling more than 17,000 in 2016). U.S. Border Patrol reports apprehensions at the Southwest border to be at historic lows (408,870 in 2016 compared to 1,643,679 in 2000). Add to that, for the first time since the 1940s, migration flow between Mexico and the U.S. actually reversed from 2009 to 2014 due to several factors from increased border security to an improved Mexican economy, according to the Pew Research Center.

In fact, a recent Agriculture Department study found that taking an enforcement-only approach to immigration reform could do more harm than good by putting a strain on U.S. agriculture. An American Farm Bureau Federation economic study on farm labor found that consumers also would feel the impact of an enforcement-only option, with an increase in food prices of 5 to 6 percent, as the U.S. would be forced to bring in more imports of fruit, vegetables and meat to fill the gap in domestic production. Theres no way around it: shutting the door on a foreign workforce means sending agricultural productionand the jobs that go with itoverseas.

2. Immigration reform is not about giving away American jobs.

With a serious recession in recent memory and its effect still being felt in many regions, its not surprising that many Americans fear for their jobs when the topic of immigration comes up. But immigrants actually have a track record of boosting the American economy and adding jobs for citizens. According to USDA, agriculture supported 14.7 million food-related industry jobs in 2014. Farm jobs have a direct link down the food chain, but they are not easy to fill.

Immigrants are hard-working, most often taking the jobs Americans dont want or would rather not do. While foreign-born workers come to build a better life for themselves and their families, that process usually begins with tough manual labor. Although those gritty jobs are first offered to citizens, farmers and other business owners regularly report shortages in their workforce, forcing them to turn to H-2A and H-2B programs to help bring in the workers they desperately need to keep their businesses running.

3. Immigration reform is not about turning a blind eye to illegal entry.

Becoming a U.S. citizen is a longoften decades-longprocess, and its understandable why people may bristle at the idea of anyone breaking the rules and cutting in line. It goes against what we know to be fair in society. But we should also bristle at the idea of friends, neighbors and employees being turned out of their homes at a moments notice and separated from their families.

Achieving an adjustment of status should be tough, but fair. Undocumented workers with a proven track record of hard work and civic responsibility should not be given a free pass but should have the opportunity to follow a strict set of guidelinesincluding paying a fine and passing a criminal background checkto earn legal status.

While tackling immigration reform may not be a simple process, its critical to preserving the unique tradition our country was founded upon, protecting American business and improving our economy.

Contact: Kari Barbic Media Specialist (202) 406-3672 karib@fb.org

View post:
3 Things Immigration Reform Is Not - Farm Bureau News

President Trumps executive order seeking to halt federal funding to sanctuary cities contends that the main function of such jurisdictions is to protect criminal aliens from deportation, and warns ominously of a public safety threat. The order also would have us believe that public safety would be enhanced if we expanded efforts to remove undocumented immigrants by enlisting local police in a mass deportation campaign.

Quite the opposite is true. Sanctuary jurisdictions 39 cities and 364 counties across the country have policies that limit local law enforcements involvement in enforcing federal immigration laws increase public safety.

Trumps executive order effectively revives two highly controversial programs that aimed to enlist state and local police and sheriffs in immigration enforcement: the 287(g) program and Secure Communities. The 287(g) program deputized local and state police and sheriffs to serve as immigration agentsand was phased out in the latter years of the Obama administration because of excessive costs and administrative inefficiency. Secure Communities required that people arrested and processed in county jails be screened for immigration violations, and it, too, was phased out during the Obama administration, as mounting evidence showed that the program encouraged racial profiling by local law enforcement.

Those responsible for maintaining law and order believe that sanctuary cities are an important tool for ensuring public safety. In a study published last year by the University of Chicago Press, Policing Immigrants: Local Law Enforcement on the Front Lines, researchers interviewed more than 750 police chiefs and sheriffs across the country. In red states and blue states alike, a majority opposed programs like 287(g), expressed serious concerns about involving their officers in immigration enforcement and said that immigration enforcement should remain a federal responsibility.

In particular, a majority of the interviewees placed a high priority on gaining the trust of immigrants. They reported that in places where local police had been involved in immigration enforcement, immigrants were far more reluctant to contact the police if they were victims of, or witnesses to, a crime. A majority also said that involving local law enforcement in immigration enforcement significantly erodes this critical trust.

Around 9 million people are members of mixed-status families who have both undocumented and legal-resident members. If interaction with police can result in arrest and deportation, this population will be reluctant to report crimes, make official statements to policeor testify in court. This undermines public safety for everyone, not just immigrants.

Additional evidence comes from another recent study, Legal Passing: Navigating Undocumented Life and Local Immigration Law, forthcoming from the University of California Press, for which more than 100 undocumented immigrants in Southern California were interviewed. In the regions 21 sanctuary cities and counties, undocumented residents were generally willing to interact with police. Their fears revolved around potential retaliation for reporting gang-related activity, not deportation.

But in cities that partnered with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, undocumented residents were anxious about contacting local police. One immigrant interviewed for the study had witnessed an attempted carjacking in a dimly lit parking lot. Although he disrupted the crime by shouting, he fled the scene when the victim called police, fearful that giving a statement would put him at risk of deportation.

Another rationale for Trumps attack on sanctuary cities is that their existence stimulates more undocumented immigration, but there is no evidence of such a magnet effect. Undocumented migrants, like the vast majority of immigrants in general, are drawn to the United States by economic opportunity and family ties. Some are fleeing gang and drug violence. None of these key drivers of migration would be weakened by the abolition of sanctuary cities.

Trumps rhetoric also presumes a strong link between undocumented immigrants and crime, but research consistently shows that immigrants are less likely than native-born citizens to commit crimes, including violent ones.

In the absence of comprehensive immigration reform that provides a path to legalization for most of todays undocumented population, sanctuary jurisdictions are an important tool for maintaining public safety. Punishing them fiscally and bullying their mayors and county executives into abandoning immigrant protections will sow fear among undocumented and mixed-status families, making them more reluctant to invest in homes, businessesand education. Meanwhile, very few are likely to self-deport. Two-thirds have been living in the United States for more than 10 years and retain no economic base in their countries of origin, according to a 2015 survey by the Pew Research Center.

We need immigration reform, but sanctuary cities are not the problem. Making undocumented immigrants feel more vulnerable serves no useful public purpose, however politically expedient it may be for President Trump.

Wayne A. Cornelius is emeritus professor of political science at UC San Diego. Angela S. Garca is a sociologist at the University of Chicago and the author of Legal Passing: Navigating Undocumented Life and Local Immigration Law. Monica W. Varsanyi is an associate professor of political science at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice and a co-author of Policing Immigrants: Local Law Enforcement on the Front Lines.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter@latimesopinionandFacebook

Read the original:
Giving sanctuary to undocumented immigrants doesn't threaten public safetyit increases it - Los Angeles Times