Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON Democrats have invited immigrants, refugees and Muslim Americans to President Trumps first address to Congress on Tuesday in a political statement against his immigration policies.

Members of Congress are taking full advantage of their one invite each for presidential speeches by filling their lists with guests who could be harmed by the White House policies or who have made significant contributions despite discrimination.

Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-Brooklyn) invited Hameed Darweesh, an Iraqi refugee who was detained at Kennedy Airport in the chaos of Trumps initial travel ban issued last month.

Hameed Darweesh risked his life in dangerous circumstances in Iraq, working alongside the U.S. government. Now that hes relocated to our nation, his presence Tuesday will send a powerful message about Americas greatness and its diversity, Velazquez said in a statement to The Post.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi called the decision to bring people affected by the presidents policies a normal thing to do.

I, myself, would bring a guest who is a DREAMer. I would bring a guest who lost her son through gun violence, Pelosi told ABCs This Week. And Ill bring a guest who is a symbol of the freedom of the press, which the president, in his authoritarian manner, is attacking.

Pelosis office said the name of her guest will be released on Tuesday.

She and Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer will deliver a pre-buttal to Trumps speech Monday afternoon.

Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.) is bringing Dr. Mona HannaAttisha, an Iraqi-American pediatrician who helped to expose the Flint water crisis.

Rep. Luis Gutirrez (D-IL.) invited Fidaa Rashid, a Chicago immigration attorney whose parents were refugees from Gaza.

I want Trump to see the face of a woman, the face of a Muslim, and the face of someone whose family has enriched and contributed to this country despite starting out as refugees,Gutirrez said in statement. Trump needs to know that real people are hurt by his policies.

Here is the original post:
Democrats invite immigrants and refugees to Trump's first address to Congress - New York Post

An immigration reform bill was introduced in the Senate earlier this month. Normally, that would be an event with about as much news value and as the sun rising in the east.

But there is something different about the Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment (RAISE) Act, sponsored by Senators Tom CottonTom CottonCotton: Special prosecutor talk is 'getting ahead of ourselves' Finally, an immigration reform bill that tackles family migration Perez to hit the Sunday shows following election victory MORE (R-Ark.) and David Perdue (R-Ga.). The bill actually lays down some clear public interest objectives for U.S. immigration policy and recognizes the American people as the primary stakeholders in their nations immigration policy.

Immigrants selected for their job skills currently comprise only about 6 percent of the current immigrant flow. Significantly reducing overall immigration and eliminating preferences for extended family members would ensure that those selected to come to the U.S. would be more likely to succeed, and would complement, rather than compete with, American workers.

The RAISE Act reflects the recommendations of a bipartisan commission that reviewed every aspect of U.S. immigration policy. That commission, chaired by the late civil rights leader and Texas congresswoman Barbara Jordan, issued its final report 20 years ago. The commissions blueprint for immigration reform was endorsed by President Bill ClintonBill ClintonFinally, an immigration reform bill that tackles family migration 5 ways politics could steal the show at Oscars Clinton: Dems will be 'strong, unified' with Perez MORE and by congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle.

The core recommendations of the Jordan Commission included ending extended family chain migration and shifting the selection criteria to favor people who possess skills that are most beneficial to the country.

Among its key provisions, the RAISE Act would eliminate all immigration entitlements outside of the nuclear family (spouse and minor children) of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents, ending the long and ever-growing list of relatives who are now eligible to come here, regardless of their likelihood to succeed in this country.

Elderly dependent parents of U.S. citizens would still be permitted to come to the United States on temporary visas, but sponsors would be required to guarantee support and health insurance.

Under the RAISE Act, the 1960s concept of family chain migration a form of codified nepotism would be ended in a way that is not only beneficial to the nation, but also to the integrity of the immigration process.

Other relatives of green card holders and U.S. citizens, who once constituted a significant portion of the immigrant flow, would be free to compete on their own for entry. By eliminating these needless preference categories that contain the seeds of their own growth, experts say that we will be able to reach the Jordan Commissions target of 550,000 immigrants a year within a decade a level that would still be at the high end of historic norms.

American workers who have lost job opportunities and suffered wage erosion as a result of decades of irrational immigration policies would be the biggest beneficiaries of this legislation. For the first time in generations, immigration would be treated like every other public policy: one that maximizes the public good, while minimizing the harm to workers and taxpayers.

Other recent attempts to enact immigration reform have been centered on granting amnesty to millions of people who broke the law and making our already dysfunctional immigration process even bigger (and, likely, more dysfunctional). Not surprisingly, those efforts were rejected by the American people, who recognized that almost nothing in those bills protected or promoted their core interests.

The decline of the American middle class and immigration were the two issues that dominated this last election cycle. The RAISE Act responsibly addresses both of those concerns almost precisely as recommended by the bipartisan Jordan Commission in 1997. That constitutes not only real news, but real reform of our immigration policy.

Dan Stein is president of Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

See more here:
Finally, an immigration reform bill that tackles family migration - The Hill (blog)

In 2013, the Senate passed a bipartisan -- do you remember that word? -- immigration reform bill that provided a pathway for undocumented immigrants to earn their way to citizenship.

The bill included tough new border security measures along the Mexican border: More fencing and thousands of more border patrol agents.

That negotiated legislation, which passed on a 68-32 count, garnered 14 Republican votes.

People like McCain and Rubio and Graham and Flake and Corker and Hatch and Ayotte.

The pathway would be no easy road; the requirements could have taken 13 years to fulfill.

But Republicans buried the bill in the House where bipartisan legislation generally goes to die.

Now, the Senate too is hopelessly split by partisanship and party, and the White House no longer is open to immigration reform.

In view of today's sharp division and fiery rhetoric, it's startling to recall there was such an opportunity just four years ago.

Lincoln Catholic Bishop James Conley spoke up powerfully about illegal or undocumented immigrants in an op-ed published in the Catholic Southern Nebraska Register this weekend and posted on Facebook.

"Our immigration system is broken because overhauling it would require that political leaders on all sides put aside partisan posturing and incendiary rhetoric in order to reach meaningful and comprehensive agreements," the bishop wrote.

"Surely, our government, in wisdom and creativity and human decency, can find just means of addressing the crime of illegal immigration without severing marriages, sending children to foster care and returning people to situations of abject hopelessness," he wrote.

"Surely, if America is truly great, it can respond to these challenges with ingenuity and virtue and charity," Conley stated.

"I stand in solidarity with immigrant families living in fear of what might be coming for them.

"I stand in solidarity with American citizens looking for real security instead of political showmanship and rhetoric.

"I stand in solidarity with those politicians and law enforcement agents working to find fair and humane solutions to complex problems.

"I stand in solidarity with those living in poverty or danger seeking some promise of safety and opportunity for their children.

"As Catholics," he wrote, "we must continue to call for real, comprehensive, safe and just immigration reform.

"But we cannot accept the panacea of mass detention and deportation," Conley wrote.

Guessing the end game at the Legislature.

Who can tell how this ends?

Tax cuts -- property and/or income -- remain the explosive political issue.

Rural interests appear to be drawing a deep line in the sand this time, calling for an undivided focus on meaningful property tax reduction.

Hanging in the air, whispered in text messages but undeclared, is the possibility -- but not the certainty -- of political consequences if that does not happen.

Legislative seats are in play next year and so is the governorship and rural Nebraska dominates statewide Republican primary elections.

Sen. Ben Sasse's remarks to a Lincoln Chamber of Commerce coffee gathering last week were the latest reminder of how gifted this guy is.

In introducing him, Chamber executive vice president Bruce Bohrer described Sasse as "a walking think tank."

Sasse walked the crowd through a broad sweep of history, centered on the present and cast an eye on the future, all of that delivered seamlessly and with hardly a pause.

The top headlines from JournalStar.com. Delivered at 11 a.m. Monday-Friday.

It was the kind of performance that challenges all of us to up our game.

Police officers did a professional job of keeping a lid on the demonstration that confronted Sen. Deb Fischer in Lincoln last week.

They respected the right of assembly, calmly and patiently talked protesters out of the Grand Manse building after they became disruptive and were blocking the hall, and did so with no threat or show of force.

No confrontation; no escalation; no injuries, no arrests; noisy, but no harm done: that's an A-plus in crowd control.

Jane Kleeb was featured on MSNBC during the election of a new Democratic national chairman in Atlanta on Saturday.

Kleeb, the new chair of Nebraska's Democratic Party, supported Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota, who lost in a narrow contest with Tom Perez.

"We are in the streets, energized and progressive," Kleeb said, and Ellison would have been the bridge to connect activists with the party apparatus.

Kleeb told MSNBC she is ready to work with Perez.

"Of course," she said. "But it's his responsibility to build a bridge, not mine."

* A view from the west in this paragraph in the North Platte Bulletin about a town hall meeting with Sen. Mike Groene: "It turned out there was no need for law enforcement even though some Groene critics from eastern Nebraska were said to be in the audience."

* Baseball is in the air.

Visit link:
Don Walton: Immigration reform was within reach - Lincoln Journal Star

Fort Worth Star Telegram

Appeals court: First Amendment gives public right to video police Fort Worth Star Telegram A witness, Brandon Brooks, uploaded this video of the incident to YouTube. In a recent 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, Justice Jacques Wiener wrote: Protecting the right to film the police promotes First Amendment principles. Brandon Brooks YouTube.

See original here:
Appeals court: First Amendment gives public right to video police - Fort Worth Star Telegram

The First Amendment is stronger than ever, and is being exercised more freely and aggressively than at any time in our nations history.

That may seem a surprising conclusion based on the handwringing from Big Media outlets like CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, The New York Times, the Washington Post and others who claim that the First Amendment is under attack from President Trump. But it is nevertheless true.

The Big Media outlets are doing their best to conflate themselves with the First Amendment, i.e., an attack on CNN, they say, is an attack on freedom of the press. That is a lie, as CNN would quickly label a dubious assertion by the president. CNN is merely an organization that takes advantage of First Amendment rights to do its job. CNN is not the embodiment of the First Amendment. Neither is The New York Times or the Washington Post.

What really bothers Big Media is that they are not as relevant, respected or necessary as they once were. But they want to be treated as if they are, as if its still 1950 or 1960 or even 1990. They want to be the filter through which news and information flows, but they are no longer that, and it is that fact that leads to their frequent hissy fits.

In this internet age, there are tens of thousands of alternative sources for news and information when it comes to national events, at least several hundred of which are regularly consulted by the masses on a daily basis. Most of these newer, alternative news sources are firmly planted in one ideological corner or the other, and their credibility is often suspect but unfortunately the same can be said for CNN, MSNBC, FOX, ABC, CBS, NBC, The New York Times, the Washington Post and countless additional metropolitan newspapers.

The cratering of respect and credibility for the once powerful Big Media outlets is not the fault of President Trump. It is the fault of the media outlets themselves. Their low standing is the result of their own irresponsible choices, culminating in their outrageously biased coverage of the 2016 presidential election.

Trump is off the mark when he criticizes certain outlets for delivering fake news. The news itself the content is real enough. Its the delivery that is flawed. The problem is not fake news. The problem is horrible journalism.

Understanding good journalism does not require an advanced degree. Good journalism is accurate. It is fair. It does not have an agenda. It is not out to get someone. It presents facts as completely as human beings are capable of gathering them. It does not seek out only the negative or the positive about the subjects that are covered. It follows the facts where they may lead, without a preconceived end result. Virtually none of the Big Media outlets follow these simple precepts anymore.

The First Amendment states, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What a thing of beauty. So much is covered in so few words. But for todays purpose, our focus is on free speech and the press. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press

The First Amendment does not say, The president shall not criticize the media or call it fake news. It does not say, Certain media outlets above others will have rights of access and the front row at press briefings. It does not say, The president shall always call on CNN for a question during press conferences. None of those examples, when they happen or do not happen, in no way threaten, harm or violate the First Amendment.

When he or his staff holds a briefing or event, the president of the United States can handpick any group of media outlets he desires and exclude any he wants to keep out. Doing so violates no ones First Amendment rights. The only way CNNs First Amendment rights could be violated is if Congress passed a law taking CNN off the air.

Everyone associated with the news media, big or small, has gone through battles with various public officials, whether local, state or national, over access and inclusion. There are always cases where some officials or organizations or groups invite some media outlets to an event and not others, or send press releases to one while not sending to the others, or provide information later to others while getting it into a preferred outlets hands first. These are age-old games that are as ancient as the written word.

When it happens, it is not a violation of anyones First Amendment rights. In some cases, open record or freedom of information laws might be violated, but First Amendment rights are not. Nothing is preventing a media outlet from exercising its First Amendment rights, both by complaining loudly about the treatment and by pursuing the information through a less convenient avenue than having it handed over on a silver platter.

But meanwhile, the First Amendment itself is being exercised in this internet age so freely, so aggressively, so without boundaries that it could be mistaken for being on steroids. Anyone with internet access and a blog, anyone with email, anyone with a Facebook or Twitter account both media members and non-journalists has a worldwide platform to exercise their freedom of speech, even the worst kinds of free speech (anonymous and therefore irresponsible). Far from inhibiting the exercise of free speech and a free press, President Trump, intentionally or not, is demonstrating that the jealous entitlement CNN and other Big Media outlets have had on the First Amendment is a thing of the past.

The only way the traditional Big Media outlets can recapture their special claim on the First Amendment and the respect they once enjoyed is by doing what they are most unlikely to do return to a form of journalism that is fair and unbiased, tough but respectful. Short of that, their standing and influence will continue to diminish. The fault will be theirs, not the presidents.

Reach Gary Abernathy at 937-393-3456 or by email at [emailprotected]

http://timesgazette.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/web1_Gary-Abernathy-CMYK-9.jpg

.

Read more from the original source:
1st Amendment stronger than ever - Hillsboro Times Gazette