Media Search:



FAIR Applauds Court Order Blocking the Biden Administration from Inflicting Further Grievous Harm at the Border – PR Newswire

WASHINGTON, April 25, 2022 /PRNewswire/ -- The following statement was issued by Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) in response to an impending Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) preventing the Biden administration from ending Title 42:

"Today U.S. District Judge Robert R. Summerhays agreed with 21 states that the Biden administration's impending cancelation of Title 42 would cause significant and irreparable harm to state and local jurisdictions.

"The assertion by the states of what would likely happen if Title 42 were lifted was not even contested by the Biden administration. The administration has, in fact, assembled a multiagency task force to manage what they anticipate to be an unprecedented surge of migrants crossing our borders illegally after May 23.

"We applaud the attorneys general of Missouri, Louisiana, and Arizona for originally filing this lawsuit and adding 18 states shortly thereafter. When the federal government does not fulfill its border security responsibilities, states are compelled to take legal action to protect their residents. They acted not only in the best interest of their residents, but the health and well-being of the American public overall.

"From a purely public health perspective, Title 42 is still urgently needed. Not only is the national emergency declaration still in place, a new strain of COVID currently has the city of Shanghai, China under lockdown, while the flow of deadly fentanyl across the already lawless border has been acknowledged as a public health threat by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).

"The White House should view Judge Summerhays' TRO as a reprieve from an even bigger self-inflicted national health and security crisis, and to use it as an opportunity to reinstate effective policies that will restore order to what is already a dangerously chaotic border."

ABOUT FAIR

Founded in 1979,FAIRis the country's largest immigration reform group. With over 3 million members and supporters nationwide, FAIR fights for immigration policies that serve national interests, not special interests. FAIR believes that immigration reform must enhance national security, improve the economy, protect jobs, preserve our environment, and establish a rule of law that is recognized and enforced.

Contact: Preston Huennekens, 202-328-7004 or[emailprotected].

SOURCE Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)

Go here to read the rest:
FAIR Applauds Court Order Blocking the Biden Administration from Inflicting Further Grievous Harm at the Border - PR Newswire

We need to hire three people for my biotech company, but the worker shortage is standing in our way – New Hampshire Business Review

Justice Amoh

Ever since my asthmatic childhood, I dreamed of building technology to help the estimated 545 million people worldwide who suffer from respiratory diseases. When it came time for college, I left my native Ghana to attend Dartmouth, where I studied engineering as an undergrad and a Ph.D. candidate. By the time I graduated in 2019, I had my patented invention: a pendant-like device leveraging AI to continuously monitor the lungs.

To date, our company Clairways, has raised $1 million in investment capital and has funding from two federal agencies. One pharmaceutical company will soon be piloting our device in a clinical trial. Were in talks with another major pharma company for a project with potentially global impact. This interest makes sense; our product enables pharma companies to objectively track respiratory components during clinical trials, which helps speed up the development of life-saving drugs. Our technology provides both moment-by-moment data and a long-term picture of respiratory health. The pandemic has laid bare the necessity of these technologies.

While Clairways is growing, one crucial pain point relates to hiring: it is difficult to find qualified engineers to hire in the Upper Valley. In our attempts to hire, weve found that there is a limited pool of American applicants with the necessary technical skills. While the greater Boston metropolitan region is near and boasts a larger pool of technical talents, there isnt much appeal for applicants to move to rural New Hampshire.

International graduates of schools like Dartmouth are a great secondary option, but immigration policy makes them nearly impossible to hire. Thats a serious problem for us and for many small tech companies.

The worker shortage is real; there are 13 STEM jobs posted for every unemployed STEM worker, according to New American Economy.

I was encouraged by recent moves to address this problem. Recently, the House of Representatives passed the America Competes Act, paving the way for more international STEM Ph.D.s to apply for permanent residency. And earlier this year, the White House introduced several measures to help more high-skilled immigrants, including international STEM students, work for American companies.

This could be a game-changer for companies like mine but a temporary one. Most of the measures only provide short-term visas, which means any international talent we hire will inevitably have a limited impact. Ultimately, these two shifts represent piecemeal change at best. If America truly wants long-lasting economic vitality, we need robust immigration reform.

Its incredibly difficult to hire an international worker, even when there are no American applicants. We have to spend large sums to sponsor their temporary visa without any guarantee theyll receive one; the visas are granted by lottery, and last year, 300,000 people applied for 85,000 spots. Even if we do secure a visa, my employees could spend decades in limbo waiting for their green card. Thats partly because every country gets the same number of green cards each year, regardless of population size. As a result, applicants from India and China have wait times of up to 150 years.

As a Ghanaian and an advanced degree holder, I was fortunate. After graduate school, I worked in the U.S. for two years under a temporary training program for STEM graduates. Eventually, given my doctorate degree and valuable contributions to my industry, I sought a national interest waiver and self-petitioned for a green card. Since Im from a low-population country, I received my permanent residency only a year and a half later.

The new White House regulations will allow a larger spectrum of international STEM graduates to take advantage of the same training program I completed. But theres no guarantee that these grads, especially those from high-population countries, will be able to stay long term. At this early stage, our young startup simply doesnt have the bandwidth to cover the expense and time required to enter the high skilled visa lottery.

We are currently trying to sponsor one employee now, but the process is a resource drain. Meanwhile, our three unfilled jobs are dramatically restricting our output and growth.

That slows down our time to market, which means pharma companies cant use our products to speed up drug development, which ultimately hurts Americans suffering from respiratory health issues.

Industry leaders across STEM fields are making the same plea: We applaud the new White House rules and the House passage of the America Competes Act, but we need more to be done. We need Congress to reform the green card rules that put high-population countries at a serious disadvantage. We need them to clear the current green card backlog. And we should be awarding green cards to international STEM graduates so that we dont lose them to countries like Canada and Australia, which are considerably more hospitable to international talent.

Thats important for towns like Lebanon, where Clairways is based. Dartmouth turns out brilliant graduates, but many want to move to big cities. International students are an exception. Theyre much more willing to take a job in a smaller city or town and put down roots there.

Further, most New England states have aging populations. But from New Hampshire to Massachusetts to Maine, immigrants are much more likely to be of working age. We need this fresh blood to power our businesses and fuel our public services.

Thats why I started my company here in Lebanon. But we cant innovate, expand or compete if were perennially short of employees. Our device will help ease the suffering of millions with chronic respiratory diseases, so I make this appeal with urgency. Congress needs to get serious; give American businesses their workforce.

Justice Amoh is co-founder and chief technology officer of Clairways in Lebanon.

See the original post here:
We need to hire three people for my biotech company, but the worker shortage is standing in our way - New Hampshire Business Review

Destroying Immigration Laws Isn’t the Way to Help Ukrainian Refugees | Opinion – Newsweek

As it continues to ignore the wholesale breach of our nation's borders, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) just announced the launch of "Uniting for Ukraine," a historic effort to welcome 100,000 Ukrainians into the U.S. through various admission pathwaysmost prominently through humanitarian parole.

The full details have yet to be announced, but early indications are that this program will be yet another example of the Biden administration usurping congressional authority through an expansive and illegal use of humanitarian parole.

DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas has continually abused the limited discretion delegated by Congress in order to run his own mass immigration and refugee program. His abuse of humanitarian parole, expansion of Temporary Protected Status (TPS), weakening of asylum standards and non-existent interior immigration enforcement all amount to a lawless destruction of our nation's immigration limits and controls.

We are a compassionate nation with the world's most generous immigration system. Granting temporary refuge to people whose country was invaded by a malevolent, expansionist neighbor is the right thing to dobut it must be done lawfully.

Statute requires that parole be used temporarily, on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian or significant public benefit reasons. In this case, humanitarian parole, rather an actual immigration status authorized by Congress, is being used to circumvent immigration caps that Congress established in order to move hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals into the United States.

By any measure, the United States has over the last two years done more than its fair share of worldwide immigrant and refugee admissions.

The Biden administration and lawmakers in both parties also continue to improperly frame the plight of displaced Ukrainians. The fact is, nearly all Ukrainian refugees are already being properly assisted in the region, and there are plenty of ways for us to assist with monetary aid to ease suffering, restore stability and ensure that they can easily return home once the conflict subsides.

In early March, the European Union generously granted three-year residency to all Ukrainian refugees to live, work and access health care in 27 of the world's most secure and developed countries. Why not assist this effort rather than ignoring our own laws to give Ukrainians one more option halfway around the world?

Of course, Ukrainians are a group with compelling humanitarian needs and we share the Biden administration's sympathy for their plight.

However, Congress created the refugee admissions process and authorized TPS specifically to address these types of humanitarian situations, and has repeatedly sought to rein in the executive branch's abuse of humanitarian parole.

Humanitarian parole is not the appropriate mechanism to help Ukrainian refugees. "Programmatic" or class-based parole is unlawful and being used to get around caps that may have required the United States to accept fewer refugees from other regions.

With Mayorkas continuing to improperly invoke parole authority, it raises the questionwho's next and how many? Congress, not the executive branch, has plenary authority over immigration. Americans must demand that their government respect its limits.

Dan Stein is president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) in Washington, D.C.

The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.

View original post here:
Destroying Immigration Laws Isn't the Way to Help Ukrainian Refugees | Opinion - Newsweek

To Rep. Tom Tiffany, Co-Sponsor of Impeaching a Biden Cabinet Officer: Don’t Go There – UpNorthNews

Congressman Tom Tiffany should have resigned long ago. His latest stunt is only more evidence that he is hostile to American democracy and would support a coup to install an unelected authoritarian government if given the chance.

Already infamous for promoting an an effort to overturn the will of Wisconsin voters (through supporting a failed Texas lawsuit that sought to throw out certified vote totals from multiple states) and opposing a symbolic resolution to stand with NATO as it faces the war designs of Russias dictator Vladimir Putin, Tiffanys latest stunt is to sign on as a co-sponsor of a resolution to impeach one of President Joe Biden Cabinet secretaries, Alejandro Mayorkas of Homeland Security. The Hazelhurst Republicans well-known infatuation with demonizing immigrants shines through in a letter he co-signed Monday to Mayorkas.

Tiffany is part of the latest GOP effort to divert attention from the investigation of the attack on the US Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021joining other right-wing Trumpers at the US southern border this week to make loud noises about a genuine problem while rejecting the only workable solution: true immigration reform. The folly of a massive, wasteful wall is their Holy Grail. Failure to support it, they claim, is reason enough to impeach Mayorkas.

This is not new territory for Tiffany. Prior to his special election to Congress in May 2020, he took part in a stunt by Republican state senators who refused to confirm several of Gov. Tony Evers cabinet heads and other nomineesan unprecedented and now permanent stain in the history books of Wisconsin Republicans. So its only in character for Tiffany to now want to impeach someone in the line of succession to the US presidency for partisan purposes rather than actual crimes. The only impeachment of a Cabinet secretary took place in 1876 amid charges of bribery.

This is extremistand arguably treasonousbehavior: undermining election results and thwarting the will of duly-elected chief executives at the state and federal levels for the sake of creating instability that threatens democracy itself.

In more normal times we would warn Tiffany that this is a dangerous game he and former President Donald Trumps other sycophants are playing. But we no longer believe this is just another game. Crazy as it sounds, these people arent merely trying to make political hay out of creating a Constitutional crisis, nearly overthrowing election results, and aiding an attempted coup. They believe it needs to happen and are seeking just enough public support to give them cover.

Dont go there, Congressman. The country you profess to love is in trouble, but its trouble caused by your inability to be a patriot and accept that your party continues to lose nationwide and statewide races because it has lost its way. Instead of seeking to govern, your party seeks to rulethrough gerrymadering, voter obstruction, and stoking fear. Its an authoritarian flirtation that needs to end before you and other co-conspirators drag this nation into even darker places.

Read more here:
To Rep. Tom Tiffany, Co-Sponsor of Impeaching a Biden Cabinet Officer: Don't Go There - UpNorthNews

Understanding Censorship – Censorship – LAWS.com

What is Censorship?Censorship is the act of altering, adjusting, editing, or banning of media resulting from the presumption that its content is perceived to be objectionable, incendiary, illicit, or immoral by the presiding governmental body of a specific country or nation or a private institution. The ideology and methodology of Censorship varies greatly on both domestic and international levels, as well as public and private institutions. Governmental Censorship

Governmental Censorship takes place in the event that the content, subject matter, or intent latent within an individual form of media is considered to exist in contrast with preexisting statutory regulations and legislation. In many cases, the censorship of media will be analogous with corollary laws in existence. For example, in countries or nations in which specific actions or activities are prohibited, media containing that nature of presumed illegal subject matter may be subject to Censorship. However, the mere mention of such subject matter will not always result in censorship; the following methods of classification are typically enacted with regard to a governmentally-instituted statutory Censorship:Censorship within the Public SectorThe public sector is defined as any setting in which individuals of all ages inhabit that comply with legal statutes of accepted morality and proper behavior; this differs by locale the nature of the public sector is defined with regard to the nature of the respective form of media and its adherence to legislation:The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) sanctioned by the federal government of the United States in order to regulate the activity taking place in the public setting-based mediaCensorship and IntentWith regard to Censorship, intent is legally defined as the intended result for which one hopes as a result of their participation in the release or authorship of media; typically, proponents for individual censorship will be required to prove that the intent latent within the media in question was enacted knowingly and deliberately in any lack of adherence to legislationCensorship and Privacy

With Regard to censorship, privacy is a state in which an individual is free to act according to their respective discretion with regard to legal or lawful behavior; however, regardless of the private sector, the adherence to legislation and legality is requiredPrivate and Institutional Censorship

Private institutions retain the right to censor media which they may find objectionable; this is due to the fact that the participants in private or independent institutions are defined as willing participants. As a result, upon joining or participating in a private institution, the individuals concede to adhere to applicable regulations:

In many cases, the party responsible for an institutions funding may reserve the right to regulate the censorship of media undertakenThe modernization of censorship laws within the United States, the Federal Government will rarely call for specific, nationalized Censorship unless the content is agreed to be detrimental to the public wellbeing; in contrast, an interest group may choose to censor media that they feel may either deter or contradict their respective ideologies

comments

See more here:
Understanding Censorship - Censorship - LAWS.com