Mediaboss Marketing

TORTOLA Premier Natalio Wheatley said the British Virgin Islands must begin a dialogue in earnest on what is in the best interest of the Virgin Islands, beginning with the granting of residency status for the purpose of belongership.

Wheatleys comments came during a radio address Monday night, where he noted that the topic of immigration reform is one of the most sensitive issues that the territory must address.

Like most other countries, he said, the BVI government has an immigration policy in place to select persons living and working in the territory and participating in community life that residency can be granted to.

However, residency for belongership is a privilege, not a right, Wheatley said. It is important to make this clear. And because residency for this purpose is a privilege and not a right, the government has developed arrangements by which to determine who has earned that privilege.

The premier said that residency for belongership is not automatically granted based on the duration of time one is in the territory, and the number of years spent on the island cannot be the sole determining factor in granting belongership.

Patriotism, a sound knowledge and history of the Virgin Islands and your social and civic contributions to the society are all very important things, among other factors, he noted. Residency and belongership are privileges that must be earned.

Wheatley said that over the years, the BVI government has instituted various arrangements to determine who has earned the privilege of residency for belongership. He said that more than 20 years ago, the existing eligibility criteria contained in the Immigration and Passport Act was put in place in the House of Assembly, which at the time was referred to as the Legislative Council. This law, he said, permits persons to apply for residency for belongership as early as 10 years of living in the territory.

A subsequent government who saw the amended law as open-ended, convoluted and unsustainable because it would change the social fabric and political landscape of the Virgin Islands, adopted a policy in Cabinet in 2004, that doubled the duration to 20 years before an application for residency for belongership could be made, and limited the number of persons who could be approved annually for residence to 25, Wheatley said, adding that its legality was questioned in 2013 by the Complaints Commissioner due to its inconsistency with the law.

The policys contradiction of the law was also captured in the annual report of the International Ombudsman Institute 2012-13. This problem was also picked up during the Commission of Inquiry, he said referring to the more than 900-page report released by the Commission of Inquiry to Gov. John Rankin following a 15-month probe into widespread fraud in the BVI government.

The COI was requested by Rankins predecessor August Jaspert. Since its release, the report has been driving change in the British territory.

The Commission of Inquiry report recommended a review of the existing residency policy and processes for granting residency and belongership status, including the open discretion by Cabinet to grant such statuses, and the length of residence required for belongership, among other things, he said.

In the report, COI Commissioner Sir Gary Hickenbottom said in relation to belongership applications that the Board is allowed to play its full role, and the Cabinet follows the Boards recommendation in most cases.

However, evidence was presented to the COI that shows that the Cabinet has been and is prepared to exercise its discretion in a legally arbitrary way and, if necessary, in a manner which is inconsistent with the statutory criteria for these important statuses.

On the evidence, it seems quite clear that at least 224 applicants for belongership were granted that status outside the framework of the law in 2011, he said.

Hickenbottom recommended a review of processes for granting residency and belongership status, and in particular the open discretion currently held by Cabinet to make grants. He added that any such powers should only be maintained where necessary; and, where any such powers are maintained, then they should be subject to clearly expressed and published guidance.

Wheatley said in his Mondays radio address that currently there is an immigration law that allows for applicants to apply for residency for the purpose of belongership after 10 years, and sets no set limit on how many applications can be approved per year.

He said there also has been a policy in place for some time that is inconsistent with that law, as it doubles the time required to begin application for residency for belongership and severely limits the number of approvals per year.

Both the existing law and longstanding policy are not fit for purpose and have been the cause of much confusion, Wheatley said. The answer has always been to further amend the Immigration and Passport Act, as opposed to the various fixes that have been tried.

Wheatley pointed out that while applications for residency for such a purpose can be submitted as early as 10 years under the law, there is a process that must be followed to consider whether applicants have earned the privilege of being granted residency.

Previous governments have failed to amend the law or change policy as was previously recommended, but the Government of National Unity will do so in a manner that is clear, fair, and socially and economically sustainable, he said. However, we are not going to make any legislative amendments without consulting the public. This is why we must begin a structured dialogue to find the best way forward. We will be announcing public meetings very soon.

Read more here:
Wheatley to tackle immigration reform in BVI - Virgin Islands Daily News

A Border Patrol agent walks along concertina wire at Border Field State Park. Photo by Chris Stone

A routine press release from the Border Patrol caught my eye because of its detailed tally of the countries of origin of two groups totaling 224 individuals apprehended this month in Imperial Beach. The list read like the United Nations.

Yes, there were Mexicans, as everyone assumes, but the majority were from Brazil. Also in the mix were immigrants from Sierra Leon, Peru, Nigeria, Nicaragua, Haiti, Gambia, India, Cuba, Romania and Nepal.

They crossed the border through drainage tubes, with smugglers using blowtorches to cut bars inside the tubes.

These groups caused a minor problem for the Border Patrol because most of the migrants didnt speak Spanish.

Americans, especially those who regularly watch Fox News, can be forgiven for thinking we have a problem with immigration from Mexico. Its a narrative that has unfortunately become as American as hamburgers, French fries and pizza.

Brazil? That countrys authoritarian president is already warning that the upcoming election may be rigged against him. And he speaks glowingly of the days when that country was ruled by a military junta. So it makes sense that smart Brazilians would want to leave.

Nigeria? Its booming with oil wealth, but also crime ridden and polluted. These immigrants clearly arent worried about the American cesspool of crime seen by Donald Trump .

Romania? Its near Ukraine and might be Vladimir Putins next target in creating a new imperial Mother Russia. Unless you like one-man rule, you might want to leave now.

Nepal? In the 1960s counter-culture Americans flocked there to seek the enlightenment of the gurus. Maybe now an economic future outweighs inner peace.

The truth is, people from all over the globe are risking all to come to the United States.

This is generally considered a problem. Many Americans dont appreciate an influx of people bringing other cultures that some worry will undermine our society. They also worry that immigrants will take jobs and drain public coffers through welfare.

But what if we viewed this influx as an opportunity? If you have a business and people are literally risking life and limb to get your product, then you have an opportunity.

This opportunity is clouded by preconceptions, of course. Many people think immigrants are only coming for handouts. But why would you travel thousands of miles, even across the ocean, with just the clothes on your back for food stamps? There has to be a more significant reason.

The answer is ironically opportunity itself. Immigrants have a reputation for working hard and taking jobs natives wont. Whos going to pick tomatoes, deliver Amazon packages and care for millions of aging Baby Boomers? We have jobs, and immigrants know it. Furthermore, they know that here at least they have a chance to improve their situation by working hard, maybe even starting a business.

Many Americans, even those opposed to immigration, would recognize this in their family history. My wifes ancestors, who came from Belarus and Ukraine, were trash haulers when they first arrived in America. Their children went to college and founded companies. Maybe even the immigrant owners of Fox News can recognize this in their past.

So why dont we find a way to harness the risk-taking drive of most immigrants?

In a world where Americas chief adversaries China and Russia have negative population growth and citizens clamoring to leave, maybe immigrants are an opportunity for America?

In a world where oligarchs and crony capitalists dont want change, why dont we welcome talented entrepreneurs to America with open arms?

In a world where education is restricted and autocrats want to control thought, why dont we educate the most promising students here to help build the American economy.

I dont have the answer, but comprehensive immigration reform should leverage the opportunity presented by the United Nations of migrants arriving at our border.

America is still, as the Pilgrim John Winthrop said, and President Reagan famously reiterated, a shining city upon a hill. Lets take advantage of this.

Chris Jennewein is editor and publisher of Times of San Diego.

Originally posted here:
Opinion: Maybe America's Immigration 'Problem' Is Really an Opportunity - Times of San Diego

After 11 years, Republican Rep. Vicky Hartzler is vacating her congressional seat to run for the U.S. Senate. The absence of an incumbent in Missouris 4th congressional district has attracted no fewer than seven GOP candidates in what political forecasters consider a safe Republican seat.

The district takes in the southern Kansas City region, including Cass County and part of Jackson County, and stretches through mid-Missouri south of the Missouri River.

The race is possibly the most competitive and crowded in the state, and Republican candidates have raised nearly $4 million between them.

The seven GOP candidates vying for the seat are State Sen. Rick Brattin of Harrisonville; Taylor Burks, a former Boone County Clerk; Mark Alford, a retired Fox 4 Kansas City newscaster; Kalena Bruce, a CPA and farmer from Stockton; Bill Irwin, a retired Lees Summit police officer; Kyle Stonner LaBrue, a property developer from Osage Beach; and Jim Soupy Campbell, a bar owner and former Saint Louis Blues player from Climax Springs.

Campbell, who could not be reached for comment, does not have any social media accounts or website presence. Of the more than $1 million he has raised, all except $6,050 in individual contributions consists of a loan he made to his campaign.

The remaining six candidates unabashedly support former President Donald Trump and his America First agenda. All of them are opposed to increased gun regulation and abortion rights.

In May, Missouris congressional redistricting took effect. Rep. Sarah Walsh of Ashland quit the race because the new map put her in the 3rd district.

The change left Burks, Alford and LaBrue outside the 4th district, and Bruce made it a campaign issue. In May, she called for them to quit the race. But Missouri law does not require a candidate to live in the district they represent.

Brattin, who has spent nearly $46,000 on television ads, has been criticized by his opponents for sending out more than 76,000 pieces of official mail drawing on his budget as a state senator.

While the mailers are legal, critics say its a questionable use of taxpayer money to campaign for a different office. According to the Missouri Independent, the mailers were directed to those most likely to vote in the primaries.

I have a mailing budget to communicate with my constituency about the things that I'm doing or have done in the past session, and that's exactly what these mailings did, Brattin told KCUR. I'm not gonna negate speaking with the people that I represent about the things that I have done over the past session, just because it actually shows that I'm working and being a voice of them in Jefferson City.

Abortion

Although all the GOP candidates oppose abortion rights, they differ on what role the federal government should play.

LaBrue says that since birth control is readily available, there should be no right to abortion. After Missouris near-total abortion ban went into effect following the U.S. Supreme Courts reversal of Roe v. Wade in June, some health care providers have said the legality of birth control measures like Plan B is unclear.

If you make an exception for rape or incest which I think most people logically would does that mean that every abortion that's performed now is rape or incest? LaBrue told KCUR. How do you separate the two? You have to be careful because with the government, if you give em an inch, theyll take a mile

Brattin and Irwin support banning all abortions, even in cases of rape and incest.

At a debate earlier this month broadcast by Kansas Citys PBS and sponsored by the Missouri Times and KMBC Channel 9, Brattin noted that he sponsored a bill allowing lawsuits against anyone helping a woman cross state lines to obtain an abortion.

Brattin said he would support a federal bill making it a crime for doctors to provide abortions to a person from another state.

Burks and Bruce would support exceptions to Missouris abortion ban in cases of rape or incest or where the health of the pregnant person is endangered.

This is a state issue and it needs to be done on the state level, Bruce told KCUR. On the federal level, we can defund Planned Parenthood. We can do some of those other things to help in states, maybe, where their voters aren't holding their legislators accountable.

Burks told KCUR that the federal government should not regulate who crosses state lines and should play no role in abortion policy beyond defunding Planned Parenthood and making sure military facilities are not used as safe havens for abortion.

Education

Brattin told KCUR he opposes critical race theory and supports school choice. He wants to dismantle the Department of Education and stop linking federal funding to school districts.

The federal government doesn't need to be involved in education at all, Brattin said. [Parents know] what's best for their child and not only are they going to get a great education, but a value system that backs up their values while they get educated, not one that's hostile to it and undermines people's beliefs. That's what the education system's supposed to be, not an indoctrination process.

Bruce said she supports federal funding for schools but does not want the money tied to curriculum and testing requirements. She also wants to create a task force to address the teacher shortage.

While LaBrue supports school choice, he wants guarantees that school vouchers can be used for private religious schools and homeschooling.

I feel like at the end of the day, how a child is educated should be in the hands of the parent, not an acronym or some kind of federal statute, he said.

Immigration

At the July 15 debate, Bruce was the lone candidate to endorse even modest immigration reforms. The other candidates want to shut down the border completely.

Immigration reform has been kicked down the road by Congress after Congress, Bruce said. Farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, we need a reliable workforce. We need the migrant workforce that is used to doing those jobs because there are a lot of those jobs that Americans simply dont want to do.

But somewhat contradictorily, she also said that at the end of the day, we have to close the borders, we have to secure our farms, ranches and businesses there on the borders, and we have to cut down our spending.

Brattin noted his sponsorship of legislation to ban sanctuary cities and impose penalties on companies hiring undocumented workers.

As a state senator, Brattin voted for legislation making it a crime for an immigrant to be found in Missouri after being deported, requiring public universities to charge out-of-state tuition to undocumented immigrants and denying them the A+ scholarship program.

Irwin, Labrue and Alford likewise say they want to secure the border.

Weve got to finish President Trumps wall, we must deport illegal aliens, Alford said during the debate. We have enough jobs here in America for Americans to fill and we need to stop paying people to stay at home and not work so those positions can be filled so we can get our nation back on track.

Transgender rights

Brattin and Burks, both veterans, dont want transgender people serving in the military.

The Obama administration reversed the ban on openly trans military service in 2016, but in August 2017 the Trump administration reinstated it. In January 2021, President Biden reversed Trumps ban.

Burks said that since transgender people are nondeployable during their transition period, they should only be allowed to serve under the sex they were assigned at birth.

I have a few service members that I served with who are transgender, Burks said. At the time they served in their born gender, and I think that's an appropriate way for transgender service members to serve. I'm not trying to put anybody back in a closet, but we also have to recognize that there are several physical and psychological conditions that disqualify somebody from serving in the military.

At the debate, Brattin said transgender people should be banned from the military.

I find it to be a difficult situation to say yes but not realize the ramifications that will come, the aftermath of that, Brattin said. I dont want to adopt any policy that will end up turning our military into a social experiment.

Alford and Bruce both said that they would support transgender military members so long as there was no conflict with their service.

I believe the dont ask, dont tell situation makes the most sense for our military and our country, Bruce said. As long as it doesnt affect the purpose of our military, as long as our military stays strong and its not something our leaders focus on, I believe that we can coexist together.

Jack Truman, a Democrat from Lamar, and Randy Langkraehr, a Libertarian from Warrensburg, will face the winner of the Republican primary on Nov. 8. Political forecasters consider the 4th district to be solidly Republican and rate the possibility that either will best the GOP nominee, whoever that turns out to be, as highly unlikely.

See the rest here:
Missouri's 4th district GOP primary is one of the most competitive races in the state - KCUR

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The Washington Post editorial board knocked Democratic Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser for apparently not doing enough to handle the influx of illegal immigrants being bussed into town while appearing to give the Biden administration a pass.

Migrants by the busloads have been sent to the capital by GOP governors Greg Abbott of Texas and Doug Ducey of Arizona as a political statement over President Biden's handling of the immigration crisis at the southern border.

Bowser has vocally complained about the migrant surge in her city, suggesting those entering the country are being "tricked" into coming to D.C. but stressed it is "a federal issue that demands a federal response."

In a piece published Tuesday, the Post editorial board claimed Bowser "has largely sat on her hands."

CNN PANEL REJECTS BIDEN WHITE HOUSE SPIN ATTEMPTING TO CHANGE DEFINITION OF RECESSION: YOU CANT FAKE THIS!'

Mayor Muriel Bower delivers remarks at the Legacy Leadership Luncheon & Awards during National Urban League Conference 2022 - Day 3 at Walter E. Washington Convention Center on July 22, 2022 in Washington, DC. (Brian Stukes/Getty Images)

"That inaction further victimizes vulnerable people and fuels the success of Mr. Abbott and Mr. Duceys political stunt," the editorial board wrote. "Its time for Ms. Bowser to provide more concrete leadership."

"Ms. Bowser is not wrong in arguing that federal help is needed, and the District gets credit for facilitating a conversation between the Federal Emergency Management Agency and SAMU First Response, an international humanitarian nonprofit, that resulted in a grant to support about half of the arriving migrants. But even with federal assistance, the D.C. government needs to play a role. Volunteers estimate that 10 to 15 percent of migrants arriving in D.C. stay in the area; the rest leave within a few days to their intended destination," the board continued.

WHITE HOUSE COVID CZAR SAYS VIRUS IS HERE FOREVER AFTER BIDEN VOWED TO SHUT DOWN PANDEMIC DURING ELECTION

The Post praised the city of Brownsville, Texas for its municipal government that established a migrant processing center and partnered with local nonprofits to meet various needs, urging Bowser's administration to "replicate that approach."

WASHINGTON, DC - FEBRUARY 28: Washington DC Mayor Muriel Bowser (C) speaks during a press conference on February 28, 2022 in Washington, DC. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

"It could direct D.C. staff to assist the organizations already supporting migrants. It could apply for FEMA funding, while considering calls by council members to draw from the citys $500 million budget surplus for fiscal 2022. It could find a place close to Union Station as a respite center for arriving migrants, along with providing coronavirus testing, masks and isolation spaces. Since April, Ms. Bowser has been relying on unpaid labor and donations from local residents to help arriving migrants. They cant and shouldnt continue to do governments job," the Post wrote.

NEW YORK TIMES SAYS BIDEN'S AGE IS UNCOMFORTABLE ISSUE FOR WHITE HOUSE, DEMOCRATS IN STUNNING REPORT

The editorial board concluded, "Mr. Abbott and Mr. Ducey hope to cause trouble, to make it seem as though migrants inevitably lead to chaos and thus compel the federal government to pass more draconian border policies. The District governments inaction, and local aid groups being overwhelmed as a result, threatens to create a narrative of crisis that plays into the hand of the Republican governors. But it doesnt have to be like this: By implementing humane and effective programs, D.C. could model immigration solutions. The city should waste no time in acting."

Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser speaks about the city's preparations for the white nationalist-led rally marking the one year anniversary of 2017 Charlottesville "Unite the Right" protests in Washington D.C., U.S., August 9, 2018. (REUTERS/Brian Snyder)

In May, the Washington Post editorial board similarly scolded Congress for failing to pass immigration reform, laying little to no responsibility at the feet of the Biden administration as it mulled lifting Title 42 enacted by the Trump administration that barred migrants from coming into the country during the pandemic.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The board was even defensive of DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, saying GOP lawmakers will use border crossings to "skewer" the top Biden official and amplifying calls for his impeachment, declaring the political threats "preposterous on the merits."

"Notwithstanding the Biden administrations floundering performance and mixed messaging on the border, the real immigration policy failure has been Congresss," the Post declared. "Its proven inability over decades to enact meaningful reform has left the nation, and Mr. Mayorkas, to grapple with dysfunction."

Joseph A. Wulfsohn is a media reporter for Fox News Digital. Story tips can be sent to joseph.wulfsohn@fox.com and on Twitter: @JosephWulfsohn.

Follow this link:
WaPo editorial board hits Muriel Bowser for 'inaction' on migrants bussed to DC, but gives Biden admin a pass - Fox News

Written by Nihal Krishan Jul 26, 2022 | FEDSCOOP

A bipartisan bill intended to boost domestic semiconductor manufacturing and help the U.S. compete with China in the development of cutting edge technologies has passed a key Senate vote.

The legislation, known as CHIPS-plus, passed 64-32 in the Senate Tuesday, and includes approximately $52 billion in government subsidies for U.S. semiconductor production. It also includes $24 billion in investment tax credits for chip plants and other funding to spur innovation and research of other key U.S. technologies.

The bill, which is expected to get a final vote in the Senate and the House in the coming week, could significantly affect the federal governments IT components supply chain along with domestic manufacturing supply chain security that is monitored by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

Semiconductors, which are essential and expensive components of modern-day technology ranging from cell phones to sophisticated military systems, have seen an explosion in demand in the past decade. Supply chain issues resulting from the pandemic have contributed to a global shortage of the component.

In a new report published Tuesday, the Government Accountability Office highlighted the importance of bolstering the chip manufacturing workforce, including through new training programs and immigration reform to allow skilled workers into the country.

The watchdog, which interviewed over 70 semiconductor policy experts for the most effective measures to address the shortage, also suggested securing access to critical manufacturing materials, improving supply chain security and prioritizing chip supply based on industry need.

In a joint letter to Congress sent July 13, Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said semiconductors are ground-zero in the tech race between the U.S. and China.

They are driving innovation and competitiveness in nearly every emerging technology including AI, and also have a wide range of critical national security applications, they wrote.

More here:
Bill to boost US chip production and competitiveness with China advances in Senate - FedScoop