Mediaboss Marketing

A poll of 40,000 people reveals that the areas of consensus are broader than many suspect.

On immigration reform, rhetoric has often been out of sync with public opinion. Despite roughly three-quarters of Americans supporting the goals behind President Obamas executive action on immigration, Obamas new immigration plan has run into repeated Republican roadblocks. Republican governors in 26 states are suing the Obama administration, claiming that the order exceeded Obamas authority. A Republican-appointed judge in Texas ruled in favor of the GOP governors and issued an injunction halting the policys implementation. Republican congressional leaders are pursuing a parallel track to block the implementation of the executive action. GOP lawmakers have set up a partisan showdown by attaching riders to the Department of Homeland Security funding bill that would defund Obamas executive action on immigration. That bill, or a continuing resolution, must pass this week in order for DHS to remain open.

Today, the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) released the American Values Atlas, an online interactive map that provides an unprecedented portrait of Americas changing religious and political landscape. The AVA was designed to harness the power of big datamore than 40,000 telephone interviewsin order to provide a lens for understanding public opinion at levels not typically possiblesuch as at the state and metro levelor among smaller subgroups of Americans whose voices cannot be discerned in typical surveys. The AVA includes two measures in the area of immigration, one focused on policy, and the other on how immigrants are perceived. And the results are revealing.

At the national level, the AVA finds solid support for a path to citizenship. When asked to identify the best approach for dealing with immigrants who are living in the country illegally, six in 10 Americans say there should be a way for such immigrants to become citizens provided they meet certain requirements, while 17 percent say they should be allowed to become permanent legal residents but not citizens, and 19 percent say they should be identified and deported. Similarly, Americans hold fairly positive assessments of the economic impact of immigrants, with 55 percent saying that immigrants strengthen the country because of their hard work and talents, while only 36 percent say that immigrants are a burden on the country because they take jobs, housing, and healthcare.

A quick look at the AVA state map reveals that there is a broad consensus across the country about immigration policy solutions. For example, majorities of the residents of all 50 states support a path to citizenship for qualified immigrants currently living in the U.S. illegally. Support for a path to citizenship is fairly consistent across states, ranging from almost two-thirds in Delaware, Kansas, and Vermont, to just over half in Louisiana and Wyoming.

There is a broader span of opinion across states regarding the economic impact of immigrants. At one end, 52 percent of West Virginians and Mississippians say immigrants are a burden because they take jobs, housing, and health care. At the other end, only 26 percent of California residents say immigrants are a burden on the countrywhile two-thirds of state residents report that immigrants strengthen the U.S. because of their hard work and talents.

A couple of key patterns are evident here. First, it is notable that there are only 5 statesWest Virginia, Mississippi, Wyoming, Maine, and Alabamain which half or more of residents say immigrants are a burden on the country. Second, generally speaking, the states that tend to hold the most negative judgments about the economic impact of immigrants are not states that have historically had high levels of immigration. The reverse is also true. The four states in which residents hold the least concerns about immigrants being a burden are California, Hawaii, New Jersey, and New Yorkthe historic centers of immigration in the country.

Because of the AVAs large sample size, users are able to look at attitudes of demographic subgroups with an unprecedented degree of confidence. For example, the AVA demonstrates that the consensus across states on a path to citizenship largely holds across subgroups, including conservative subgroups. Majorities of Republicans (52 percent), white evangelical Protestants (54 percent), seniors (56 percent), and non-Hispanic whites (59 percent) all support a path to citizenship for immigrants currently living in the country illegally. Those numbers are based on interviews among random samples of over 9,400 Republicans, 7,900 white evangelical Protestants, 11,500 seniors, and 27,700 non-Hispanic white Americans.

This broad level of support is not always reflected in the polarized political debate, but not because of state-level differences. Residents of the 26 states bringing legal action against the Obama administration are only slightly more likely than average to say that immigrants are a burden on the country (39 percent vs. 36 percent respectively), and their support for a path to citizenship, at 59 percent, is statistically indistinguishable from the national average. These 26 states are set apart less by the views of their residents than the actions of their governors.

The pioneers of modern public opinion polling understood their craft as providing a vital democratic function in an increasingly fast-paced world. George Gallup promised that surveys would allow the American people to speak for themselves, and Elmo Roper referred to scientific surveys as democracys auxiliary ballot box. The immigration debate is a clear example of a terrain on which the pitched partisan battles waged by politicians have obscured the broad agreements of their constituents. If the public opinion data from the AVA can serve to remind our leadersand even ourselvesthat there is common ground available on an important issue like immigration, it has come close to realizing some of its civic and civilizing potential.

More:
What Americans Actually Think About Immigration

Updated: 02/25/2015 10:33 AM Created: 02/25/2015 9:07 AM WNYT.com By: Ben Amey

ALBANY - The immigration debate in Washington, D.C. is also of interest to farmers in New York. They use a lot of migrant labor. The president of the New York Farm Bureau is traveling from Albany to Washington Wednesday to talk to members of Congress.

Dean Norton, president of the New York Farm Bureau, says that immigration reform is the bureaus top legislative priority this year, the same as it was last year. The Farm Bureau supports a flexible visa plan for migrant workers, rather than a plan that supports amnesty or one that solely focuses on enforcement.

An article in the New York Times from a year ago quotes an American Farm Bureau study as saying if an enforcement-only policy was adopted, fruit production could drop up to 60 percent and food prices would increase 5 percent over the next five years.

Part of the flexible visa program would involve the replacement of the season visa to one that would let workers get a three-year visa to work on a farm. The New York Farm Bureau says that without a stable, legal workforce to help work on farms, it will become more difficult to provide food.

Other topics that the farm bureau will discuss with New Yorks congressional delegation include President Obamas immigration executive order, food safety, trade policy, and funding for federal school and local food programs.

Continue reading here:
New York Farm Bureau pushes immigration reform

SPOKANE, Wash. -

Immigration reform is a topic that is constantly making headlines from the Executive Branch of government all the way down to local jurisdictions.

The issue currently remains halted at the national level after the Obama administration's actions for immigration reform were blocked by a U.S. District Court Judge's order. The order prevents the President from granting quasi-legal status and work permits to millions of undocumented immigrants.

Here in Spokane, a citizen initiative regarding immigration status is in the signature gathering phase. Jackie Murray is the sponsor of that initiative which aims to repeal a municipal code change that made a decade old police policy law. That policy prevents officers from asking about immigration status when a person is pulled over for something else.

Murray says the law has made Spokane a "sanctuary city", meaning it is a safe haven for undocumented immigrants.

Although she is behind the initiative, Murray tells KHQ that she is not against immigrants as a whole. Murray's father was a Jamaican immigrant but became a citizen through legal channels.

"It's the ones that aren't coming through the system that I object to," says Murray. "We don't know who they are and what they're up to. I just think everyone should have to jump through the same hoops."

Those who want more options for people trying to become U.S. citizens say it's not that simple.

"When advocates for immigration are very adamant about immigration reform and meaningful immigration reform, it's because there is no legal way," says Gloria Ochoa, Chair of the Commission on Hispanic Affairs.

Ochoa says there are two ways for immigrants to become citizens. The first is labor based, meaning you can come to the country if you can demonstrate a shortage of jobs, particularly in the fields of science and medicine. According to Ochoa there is no category for unskilled laborers to come to the U.S. for jobs.

See the original post here:
Immigration debate continues in Spokane

St. Louis, MO (PRWEB) February 24, 2015

Attorney Susan Cho Figenshau has spent a lot of time counseling her clients on the impact of President Obama's executive action regarding immigration policy since last November when the White House announced the executive orders. According to the New York Times (02/17/2015), a federal judge in Texas has ruled that the president's actions were unconstitutional. Now that the proposed programs have been delayed by the court order, clients and attorneys alike are seeing mass confusion.

Because the executive order was a widely-reaching action, some of Susan Cho Figenshau's clients are confused about what does and does not apply to them. Many of her clients are businesses and documented immigrants who are wondering how the action will impact their applications for green cards and work permits.

"Whereas all of us get frustrated when there's a lack of action, immigration law services clients are expressing concentrated, deeper frustration, " explained Susan Cho Figenshau. She added that the executive order and the backlash it has received are causing a gridlock in the entire immigration process for immigration lawyers, their clients, and employers of immigrants throughout the country.

The law firm is attempting to reduce the stress of navigating the immigration process for clients, and the uncertainty and frequent changes in expectations and timelines due to the President's executive order and resulting adverse reactions in congress and by this weeks court order.

The first phase of the executive order, an expansion of a 2012 program delaying deportation for immigrants brought to the United States as children (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program), was set to begin on February 18, 2015. Thousands of undocumented immigrants had already prepared to submit applications with filing fees prior to the February 17, 2015 court order. Although the expansion has been delayed indefinitely, would-be filers are looking to immigration lawyers for up-to-date information and to seize the opportunity if the expansion does roll out.

"This is a situation we have to watch day-by-day. As an immigration lawyer, my job is to look behind the headlines. Whereas headlines highlight undocumented immigrants, other components of the President's executive order and other components of proposed immigration legislation that has deep and broad impact on national security, employers, and legal immigrants," Susan Cho Figenshau stated.

About Susan Cho Figenshau, P.C.

Susan Cho Figenshau, P.C. is an immigration lawyer with 20 years of experience in immigration law. She represents employers in numerous fields, including technology, telecommunications, healthcare, educational and more. To learn more, visit http://www.strictlyimmigration.com

See the rest here:
Attorney Susan Cho Figenshau Discusses Recent Delays to Immigration Reform

WASHINGTON (CNN) -

Hollywood stars turned the stage into a soapbox at the Oscars on Sunday night, advocating on issues ranging from NSA surveillance to equal pay; the Voting Rights Act to immigration reform.

Even before the stars hit the main event, the red carpet was tinged with political protest, with actress Reese Witherspoon taking to Instagram to call for entertainment reporters to ask questions with more depth than the usual, "Who are you wearing?" of female stars.

Gender equity got another star turn with perhaps the most well-received speech of the night, given by Patricia Arquette for her Best Supporting Actress win from "Boyhood." She called for women to be paid the same as men, a reference to the fact that Congress hasn't passed the Fair Pay Act, which remains divisive with Republicans.

"To every woman who gave birth to every taxpayer and citizen of this nation, we have fought for everybody else's equal rights," Arquette said, reading from prepared text. "It's our time to have wage equality once and for all, and equal rights for women in the United States of America."

The audience went wild, and gifs of Meryl Streep and Jennifer Lopez's delighted responses blew up across social media. Pro-women's rights groups, including EMILY's List and the Center for American Progress, along with a handful of Democratic lawmakers, tweeted support.

".@pattyarquette THANK YOU for using your special moment to stand up for #equalpay for women! Congratulations on your Oscar!" tweeted Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Immigration reform got its moment on stage as well when Mexican filmmaker Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu won Best Director for "Birdman" and cracked a joke about the fact that last year's Best Director winner, Alfonso Cuaron, was also Mexican.

"Maybe next year the government will inflict immigration restrictions," he said. "Two Mexicans in a row. That's suspicious, I guess."

And the documentary exploring the story of government whistleblower Edward Snowden, "CitizenFour," nabbed an expected win for Best Documentary. The film's director, Laura Poitras, was joined on stage by journalist Glenn Greenwald, who also helped interview Snowden for the doc. Poitras praised Snowden and "all the other whistleblowers," and he, in return, congratulated her through a statement released by the ACLU.

Continued here:
Equal pay for women, immigration reform take center stage at awards show