Mediaboss Marketing

It is critical to distinguish the reform that the public seeks from the deceptive package of measures that the immigration lobby is peddling. We feel it time the nations largest immigration reform organization speak out about true comprehensive immigration reform.

The evidence that illegal immigration and mass immigration are harming our country is overwhelming and irrefutable. Congestion, environment, crime, health care, education the costs are too high for the American family to continue to bear.

Since immigration burst on the scene as a major national issue some 20 years ago, the term reform has been associated with those who believe that large-scale illegal immigration is a serious problem and overall levels of immigration need to be reduced. Weve been educating the public for the last 25 years on the need for true and comprehensive reform, so when it comes to defining reform, weve written the book on it. Opponents of these reforms claimed that a problem did not exist and therefore reform was unnecessary.

Recently the political winds have shifted. As opponents of reform learned that the majority of the public were pro-reform, they changed their tune and have tried to wrap their defense of unchecked illegal immigration and record levels of legal immigration as being reform measures when, in fact, they are measures that will deform our already broken system.

True comprehensive immigration reform, as FAIR the nations largest immigration reform organization and the overwhelming majority of Americans believe it to be, must adhere to this set of immutable principles:

Any level of illegal immigration is unacceptable, and current legal immigrant admissions of about one million persons each year are entirely too many. Any measure that increases either illegal or legal immigration violates this principle. Immigration is a discretionary public policy. Its primary purpose, since our founding, is to advance the interests and security of the nation.

The 1986 amnesty was a failure; rather than reducing illegal immigration, it led to an increase. Any new amnesty measure will further weaken respect for our immigration law. Therefore, all amnesty measures must be defeated.Laws against illegal immigration must be enforced, if they are going to act as a deterrent. Redefining illegal aliens as guest-workers or anything else is just that: a redefinition that attempts to hide the fact it is an amnesty, not reform.

Immigration policy should not be permitted to undermine opportunities for America's poor and vulnerable citizens to improve their working conditions and wages. The need for guest workers must be determined by objective indicators that a shortage of workers exists, i.e., extreme wage inflation in a particular sector of the labor market. The current system accepts self-serving attestations of employers who seek lower labor costs as protections of American workers. True reform requires an objective test of labor shortage demonstrated by rising wages to attract more American workers.

Employers who knowingly employ unauthorized workers are the magnet that attracts illegal entry into the U.S. These employers are complicit in the illegal alien cartel activity of smuggling, trafficking, harboring, and employing and must be punished. We must reform the current system by enforcing employer sanctions and fully punishing employers who break the laws of this country. These punishments will be fines, jailing for repeat offenders, and loss of corporate charters.Employers who knowingly or unknowingly employ illegal workers must be weaned off of their growing use of such workers by assuring a level playing field for all employers and demonstrating effective enforcement actions against employers who continue to exploit illegal workers. No U.S. industry has jobs in which there are no American workers. If illegal workers are decreased over time, wages offered will rise to attract back more American workers. Real shortages, as noted above, can be met with short-term temporary foreign workers.

The Basic Pilot Employment Verification program must be made mandatory and at no extra cost to employers.

Effective immigration enforcement on the border and the interior of the country requires that staffing, equipment, detention facilities, and removal capabilities be adequate to fully meet current needs. The measures needed to identify and remove illegal aliens will also remove the ability of potential terrorists to operate freely in our country as they plot the next catastrophic attack on our people.

Reforming the refugee and asylum system means returning to the original purpose and definition of the program: any person who... is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion....America must honor it responsibilities to protect people who are fleeing true political persecution as defined by U.S. and international law. Efforts to expand those definitions to include all forms of social persecution invite massive fraud and endanger the security of this nation. Similarly, treating aliens illegally residing in the country the same as foreigners on legal visitor visas for purposes of the Temporary Protected Status designation is illogical and a form of amnesty that must be ended.

We must restore moderation to legal immigration. Beginning with the recommendations of the Jordan Commission in 1995, we need to restrict immigration to the minimum consistent with stabilizing the U.S. population.Overall immigration must be reduced to balance out-migration, i.e., about 300,000 per year while still permitting nuclear family reunification and a narrowly focused refugee resettlement program. A moratorium on all other immigration should be immediately adopted pending true comprehensive immigration reform. We should abolish the extended relation preferences.

There should be no favoritism toward or discrimination against any person on the basis of race, color, creed, or nationality.All admission of immigrants should come within a single, stable ceiling which is periodically reviewed on the basis of a reasoned, explicit goal of achieving population stability. We should abolish special preferences such as the Cuban Adjustment Act.

7 Principles (252 KB)

More here:
7 Principles of True Comprehensive Immigration Reform ...

By Kathryn Brown

Raleigh, N.C. Representatives from the construction, hospitality, farming and seafood industries sat down with U.S. Sen. Thom Tillis in Raleigh on Monday to share their concerns about possible immigration reform.

Tillis has been hosting a series of roundtable discussions with New American Economy,a coalition of business leaders and mayors working toward comprehensive immigration reform, to get different perspectives as Congress once again tries to tackle U.S. immigration policies, which have proved nettlesome for decades.

"What were really trying to do is connect to the individual impact, the impact on employers. I think it's really trying to make this real," the North Carolina Republican said.

Richard Gephart said many of the workers at Gephart Building Company are undocumented, but his business couldn't survive without them.

"They build our houses. They pave our roads," Gephart said.

The self-described political conservative said he can't get on board with the Trump administration's immigration plans, noting chants of "build the wall" and "ship them out" make him sick with worry for his workers.

"I have one [worker] who is raising three wonderful girls, all on the honor roll, all born here legally," Gephart said. "The father was not born here legally, and he really worries about driving home every night that he's going to be picked up and sent back."

Business leaders said the red tape required for visas for immigrant labor is often too overwhelming and too expensive. Like Gephart, others expressed concern that stepped-up enforcement of immigration laws will hurt their companies.

"There is a great nervousness not only on the part of the farm workers but the employers as well because these people are vital to the success of these farms and businesses," said Larry Wooten, president of the North Carolina Farm Bureau.

Tillis said his efforts to hammer out a compromise in Washington, D.C., will include solutions, such as pairing tighter border security with a revamped work visa program, that make many in the industries that rely on immigrant labor nervous.

"Were going to propose things that push people out of their comfort zones, but it's absolutely necessary to get those votes in the middle that I think exist," he said. "Until we start coming up with these policies that are balanced, that address the legitimate concerns from either side of the aisle, then we're going to be at the same place 40 years from now if we don't have somebody step up and be willing to take the kinds of political hits in the interim work products that are necessary for you to get something done."

Many in the room said they didn't expect to agree with Tillis, but they left feeling surprisingly satisfied.

"I think I was encouraged," said Jennifer Dionne of the American Seafood Jobs Alliance. "The fact that Sen. Tillis is willing to look at pairing certain issues together and taking this at bite-size chunks and not trying to fix all of it at once is probably the only way we're going to get this done."

Follow this link:
NC business leaders appeal to Tillis on immigration reform :: WRAL ... - WRAL.com

New York Times

Is It Possible to Resist Deportation in Trump's America? New York Times During the Obama years, most immigrant rights organizations focused on big, idealistic legislation: the Dream Act and comprehensive immigration reform, neither of which ever made it through Congress. But Puente kept its focus on front-line battles ...

Here is the original post:
Is It Possible to Resist Deportation in Trump's America? - New York Times

Patch.com

Cheshire Students Debate Immigration Reform Patch.com Using high-touch technology on tablets provided by the Institute, students took on the role of U.S. Senators and worked together to build and pass a bill renewing the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013.

Read the original here:
Cheshire Students Debate Immigration Reform - Patch.com

Washington has mistakenly joined a handful of other states in what appears to be a coordinated effort to battle the First Amendment.

A proposal to prohibit protesters from wearing masks or hoods during demonstrations is so obviously unconstitutional, its a wonder state Sen. Jim Honeyford, R-Sunnyside, thought it was a good idea.

The Legislature already decided to not even give a hearing to a related proposal from Sen. Doug Ericksen, R-Ferndale, earlier in the session. That one would have made it a crime for protesters to cause economic disruption, such as blocking railroad tracks.

The First Amendment is a powerful protection of the right to free speech and all manner of peaceful protest, masked or unmasked. But the people of Washington state already know that.

Lawmakers have much bigger problems to solve right now, such as passing a state budget and answering the Supreme Courts 2012 McCleary decision on school funding.

So why are these bills popping up in our state this year? According to the National Lawyers Guild, anti-protesting legislation is a national trend, partially tied to protests after the presidential election.

Lawmakers in at least 19 states have proposed bills that would criminalize or penalize protesting in various ways. A handful focus on tampering with infrastructure or trespassing. Missouri also proposed a mask law. Among the most alarming bills is one that would remove liability from drivers who accidentally hit and kill protesters.

Washington is used too often as a proving ground for ideas from out-of-state hyperpartisan groups from protest bills on the right to Democracy vouchers on the left, which were embraced by Seattle but rejected by statewide voters.

The mask bill would make it illegal for someone to stand on a sidewalk, road, alley or any public area with his face covered, but it grants religious and holiday exemptions.

Would the bill exempt people who wear heavy makeup because they are making a choice to alter their appearance? What if someone decides to cover her face for modesty or health reasons, but is not associated with any religion?

Just like Sen. Ericksens bill, Honeyfords bill should not get a hearing in any legislative committee. Lets cut the marionette strings and prevent coordinated attacks on the First Amendment from gaining a foothold in Washington state.

Continued here:
Attacking the First Amendment with mask bill is wrong and a waste of legislators' time - The Seattle Times