Mediaboss Marketing

Media Matters for America (blog)

Facebook CEO's Immigration Reform Group Donated To Trump's Transition To Curry Early Favor With Administration Media Matters for America (blog) Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg's immigration reform lobby FWD.us, donated $5,000 to President Donald Trump's transition according to a report from Politico. Despite a contentious history opposing Trump's anti-immigrant policies, the group donated to ... Zuckerberg group donated to Trump transition | TheHillThe Hill (blog) all 4 news articles »

Go here to see the original:
Facebook CEO's Immigration Reform Group Donated To Trump's Transition To Curry Early Favor With Administration - Media Matters for America (blog)

Iowa knows better than perhaps any other state in the union the tendency of politicians to talk about one of the most pressing issues immigration just once every four years. Then the issue fades away, with little meaningful action taken, until the next election. In the meantime, our outdated immigration system hampers our nations economic opportunity, preventing Iowa businesses from reaching their full potential.

To draw attention to the economic benefits immigrants provide, the Ames Chamber of Commerce is joining the New American Economy (NAE) and thousands of business and community leaders across the country. Armed with critical data to support our cause, we are making a case for common-sense immigration reform.

Iowa is home to more than 150,000 immigrants, a population more than twice the size of the city of Ames. In our congressional district alone, immigrants paid $205.4 million in state and local taxes in 2014. Of that, over $135.1 million went to mandatory spending programs such as Social Security and Medicare. Statewide, immigrants have $3 billion in spending power. These financial resources are reinvested into our communities, our small businesses, our schools and our public infrastructure. Additional revenue is not the only reason immigration reform is necessary and right for Iowa.

The single biggest issue for our employers is workforce availability and finding a steady, reliable source of employees to fill the growing need for qualified labor across all sectors of Iowas economy. This is especially true in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) fields. In 2014 alone, 32,697 STEM jobs were advertised online in Iowa. At that time, there were only 628 unemployed STEM workers to fill the positions. This translates to a staggering 52-to-1 employment gap.

At that time, students on temporary visas made up roughly one out of every four students earning a STEM masters degree at an Iowa university, and 48.6 percent of students earning a Ph.D.-level degree in STEM. The bad news? Even after receiving their degree, many of these promising students struggle or are unable to remain in the country after graduation. In 2014, Iowa State University had 4,802 foreign-born students, 58.2 percent of whom were enrolled in a STEM field. Unfortunately, due largely to outdated immigration policies, only 28.9 percent of these highly-skilled students were able to stay in Ames and Story County upon graduation.

Our antiquated immigration system makes it difficult for STEM employers to sponsor the high-skilled workers they need to fill key positions. This is problematic as it slows business growth and expansion, and limits the employment opportunities firms can provide for foreign and U.S.-born workers alike.

What is especially troubling is that STEM fields continue to expand at a record pace and are helping the economy grow by continually adding promising job opportunities to the market. NAE estimates that there will be 800,000 new STEM jobs created nationwide by 2024. These are lucrative careers in innovative fields, and attracting an educated workforce to fill these positions will allow us to capitalize on this growth and seize this opportunity.

If Iowa truly wants to reach its economic potential, we must be able to recruit, and more importantly, retain the workforce our local employers need. We must stop allowing bright, highly trained individuals, educated at American institutions of higher education, to go out into the world and compete against us, rather than working with us.

The longer we allow our current immigration system to remain unchanged, the easier we make it for competing nations to attain the highly-skilled and talented individuals we are denying. That is why the Ames Chamber of Commerce stands with the New American Economy in strongly encouraging our elected officials to implement a responsible, pro-growth immigration reform that will allow us to retain the best and brightest and give our employers the help they need.

Read the original post:
Letter: The state of Iowa needs responsible, pro-growth immigration reform - Iowa State Daily

Northwest University, a private Christian college in Kirkland, is hosting a symposium of immigration experts in hopes of finding common ground across political divides.

Were living in a country of uncompromising division. It seems that just about every issue demands alignment with a political party or ideology and none more than immigration.

But local conservative leader Joseph Castleberry disagrees.

Castleberry is president of Northwest University, a private Christian college in Kirkland. An evangelical and a Republican, he also identifies as pro-immigration and thinks more religious conservatives should do the same.

The most-often repeated ethical injunction in the Old Testament is the injunction to be kind and to be just with immigrants, says Castleberry. In the New Testament, there are many scriptures that call on us to be hospitable to foreigners and strangers.

Whats more, immigrants are the source of a red-hot religious revival in Christian communities in America, says Castleberry, who wrote about this phenomenon in his recent book The New Pilgrims: How Immigrants are Renewing Americas Faith and Values.

But he says religion isnt the only reason conservatives should soften their stance toward immigrants including those who live here illegally and support comprehensive immigration reform.

He says immigrants provide needed labor in our state. They also pay taxes, create jobs through entrepreneurship and represent billions of dollars in spending power. And research released this week by the New American Economy, a bipartisan coalition of business leaders and politicians for comprehensive immigration reform, agrees.

The report, Map the Impact, explores the economic role of immigrants across the United States. It confirms that Washington state boasts the 10th-largest immigrant population in the country, and that our region benefits from their contributions in sectors such as technology, agriculture, service, education and tourism.

Republicans, naturally, normally, would be pro-immigration because of the economic benefits, says Castleberry, who believes this natural alliance has been further obscured by a bitter election year.

In an attempt to start a dialogue exploring those similarities, Northwest University is hosting a symposium Friday, Feb. 24, titled Immigration in Uncertain Times: Goals for a New Immigration System. The event brings together immigration experts from around our region and Mexico.

Jorge Madrazo is an organizer of and speaker at the symposium. Hes a former attorney general of Mexico and current director of a local satellite of UNAM, the National Autonomous University of Mexico. He says his first concern is preserving the civil rights of Mexicans living in the United States and planning for how Mexico might respond to mass deportations.

Unfortunately, our people are living in fear. Children not going to school; people of faith are not going to church, says Madrazo, explaining the community impact of threatened deportations. He hopes Fridays event will help provide a road map for moving forward.

What is our common ground? Do we have common ground? he asks, urgency in his voice. Can we work to realize that common ground?

Castleberry believes we can, and he spends much of his time propagating that belief on conservative talk-radio shows around the country.

He is a proponent of an expanded guest-worker program to help meet labor needs in sectors like agriculture, as well as the legalization of people living illegally in the U.S. and expanded quotas to allow more people to enter legally.

But Castleberry says compromise is the key to moving forward on immigration reform.

To that end, he says he supports increased border security, believes immigrants living here illegally should pay a fine that covers the cost of their legalization and agrees that immigrants who are violent felons should be deported (though he disagrees with the deportation of people guilty of minor infractions).

Not everyone will be happy, says Castleberry, referencing the compromise required to reach a new agreement about immigration. But there needs to be a rational process for providing for our labor needs and providing a safe haven for people who literally are fleeing for their lives.

So is compromise possible in todays political climate?

Its a complex problem, but were Americans, says Castleberry with a smile. Were problem-solvers.

Lets hope thats enough common ground to get us started.

See the original post:
Can religion bridge the divide over immigration policy? - The Seattle Times

Its been a long and winding road, this journey to craft effective immigration policy in the U.S., and one that has encountered not a few dead-ends along the way.

Experts say the modern debate over immigration has its roots in a 1986 law signed by President Ronald Reagan, which enabled 3 million people in the country illegally to attain legal status. It became known as the Reagan Amnesty.

There were promises of a new era of enforcement, and strict adherence to a law barring employers from hiring workers who didnt have permission to work in the U.S. But they were never fully realized.

Revisions were completed in 1990 under PresidentGeorge H.W. Bush and in 1996 under President Bill Clinton. Still there was dissatisfaction.

In the 2000s, Republican President George W. Bush proposed a comprehensive immigration reform package. That went nowhere. Democratic President Barack Obama also tried and failed to steer something through both houses of Congress.

In the absence of reform, there have been persistent cries that the system is broken. Against that backdrop, Donald Trump road a tidal wave of discontent all the way to the White House. And on Tuesday, the president gave the clearest indication yet where he is going on immigration, when it was announced federal authorities would deportanyone convicted of any criminal offense, whether serious or minor.

Trump is not only different from Obama, he is very different from George W. Bush, saidKarthick Ramakrishnan, UC Riverside professor and associate dean of the universitys School of Public Policy.

Experts suggested that both Bush and Obama were tough in their approach to enforcing immigration laws. Deportations reached 2 million under Bush and exceeded 2.5 million the most of any president under Obama.

Obama was not called the deporter-in-chief by accident, saidRamakrishnan, who authored a book titled, The New Immigration Federalism.

Yet, said Jack Pitney, a government professor at Claremont-McKenna College, They were both broadly sympathetic to immigration and not wanting to deport millions of undocumented immigrants.

Manuel Pastor, USC professor of sociology and director of the universitys Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration, saidBush set the stage for Obama tried to do later.

Bush was a border governor and had a great deal of familiarity with immigrants in his own state, Pastor said.

At the same time, Bush sought to bolster the GOPs outreach to Latino voters, he said.

Advertisement

But then something called 9/11 happened. The response to the nations deadliest terror attack consumed Bushs agenda, and immigration became predominantly a national security issue.

When youre worrying about whether your gardener is illegal, thats different than worrying about whether the person sitting on the airplane next to you is illegal, Pastor said.

In his second term, Bush circled back and tried to push forward a program for immigration reform.That ran into a buzz-saw of opposition from conservatives and also from trade unions who were worried about competition, he said.

Then, when Obama leaped onto the scene, Pitney said, he vowed to deliver comprehensive immigration reform as well. But, like Bushs, Obamas plan was abruptly reshaped by a earth-shattering event early on: the worst economic crisis to hammer the country since the Great Depression, he said.

Pastor saidObama was absorbed with trying to rescue the economy, expand health care and reform immigration.

He focused on the first two and squandered a lot of political capital, Pastor said.

Meanwhile, Obama stepped up deportations, he said.

Pastor said Obama believed that, if he signaled he was tough on enforcement, hed garner political support to pass reform legislation. And he managed to persuade the Senate to pass a bill in 2013.

It got bottled up in the House, he said.

Frustrated with the roadblock in Congress, Obama signed an executive order in 2014 providinga legal reprieve for undocumented parents of U.S. citizens.

And here we are today.

What Trump is doing now is dramatically increasing the number of people who are going to get targeted for deportation, Ramakrishnan said.

He said the president set the stage for many more deportations than were processed under either Obama or Bush.

Ramakrishnan said the stepped-up enforcement comes when the undocumented population is stable: There are an estimated 11 million living in this country, as many as were here a decade ago.

The Pew Research Center and the Public Policy Institute of California say more than 10 percent 1.3 million reside counties Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties.

Because the population is stable, Pastor said, todays community is different than a decade ago. In 2008, he said, 40 percent of undocumented immigrants had been here a decade. Today, 60 percent have been here that long.

And, he said,Heavy removal is much more likely to affect a family now someone who has kids, someone who has a home, someone who is a neighbor, someone who has had a job for a very long time.

Pitney it is unclear how the administrations policy will play out.

With Donald Trump, the one certainty is that what he says and what he does is not always the same thing, said Pitney. But already he has taken a tougher approach to immigration than his predecessors.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Read this article:
Immigration reform failures set stage for Trump's strategy - LA Daily News

The following might be offensive to some.

But that's okay, according to Rep. Wesley Morgan, R-Richmond. It's free speech and protected by the First Amendment of our nation's constitution.

A right, he said, that is being infringed upon on many of Kentucky's college campuses.

Morgan is trying to change that with Kentucky House Bill 127, or the Campus Free Expression (CAFE) Act, which will prohibit publicly-funded universities and colleges from restricting a student's right to free expression.

"I filed the bill because I believe in it, whole-heartedly," Morgan said. "You need to have the freedom of speech on college campuses. Students shouldn't be restricted to a circle 50 feet from the sidewalk."

Morgan said many state universities have policies that restrict student's First Amendment rights by forcing them into so-called "free speech zones."

The representative said these zones are often small areas hidden away from public view.

The CAFE Act will prohibit schools from imposing those types of zones, and defines any "outdoor areas of an institution's campus" as "traditional public forums."

"Students should have the right to express themselves in an open space and have the opportunity to have people listen to what they have to say," Morgan said. "It's a matter of fairness. Students have a right and it should be protected. There are public institutions of higher education that are not allowing students the right to have an open dialogue. You don't want that to continue in the state."

Kentucky House Bill 127 states clearly colleges "shall not restrict the right to free expression." In line with the Constitution, colleges can only place "reasonable" restrictions on the "time, place, and manner" of student expression. Even still, these restrictions must be "narrowly tailored... based on published, content-neutral, and viewpoint-neutral criteria... [and must] provide for ample alternative means of expression."

Inspired by Morgan's efforts to protect students' rights, Eastern Kentucky University's student government association (SGA) passed a bill endorsing HB 127 and encouraging other student governments across the state to do the same.

Sebastian Torres, EKU SGA executive vice president, said the bill passed unanimously and the organization has been working closely with Morgan and others to educate universities about the bill.

"It is a real issue on Kentucky campuses that needs to be addressed," Torres said of the fight to keep free speech. "It's not just Kentucky that has these policies that restrict students' First Amendment rights. At a university in Indiana, a group of students were arrested for passing out copies of the Constitution. This is real and it's happening."

In fact, on a recent trip to Murray State University, Torres said he and other SGA members had difficulty locating the campus' free-speech zone. After a search of the grounds, the students were directed to a small cement circle tucked away out of sight. Torres added students have to apply for a chance to speak in the zone and applications can be denied.

The EKU student said limiting an open exchange of ideas to a certain area on a college campus was "ridiculous" and goes against not only a right protected by the Constitution, but also the nature of higher education.

"Students come here to learn and grow and expand their ideas. We are trying to educate a workforce at this university and create productive citizens, but college is also a chance to have your ideas challenged and see if they stand up against facts," Torres said. "If it doesn't happen on a college campus, where do we expect it to happen."

Torres said you don't have to agree with everything said and you don't have to listen if you don't want to. He added free speech can be uncomfortable for some, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be said.

Torres said EKU's student government felt it was especially important to support Morgan's bill, due to the fact that EKU is the first "green light" school in the state.

The university earned that distinction from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), which awards institutions of higher learning with a green, yellow or red categorization based on the constitutionality of speech policies.

In 2012, the university worked with FIRE attorneys to bring the campus into compliance with the Constitution and make the campus more First Amendment friendly.

Some of the important steps taken by the university included modifying vague wording in the student handbook and policies.

One example was the phrase in the student handbook that stated students should not "engage in a course of conduct intended to harass, seriously annoy and alarm another person." FIRE suggested the university amend the phrase "seriously annoy," as it goes against the First Amendment to regulate student speech in that manner.

Another part of the handbook read: "No one should either offend the wider community or infringe upon the rights and privileges of others."

"Sometimes people might find what you say offensive," Torres said. "However, I think what is becoming prevalent in today's society is the idea that if they find it offensive or uncomfortable then it should be stopped. That's infringing on free speech.

"Why should certain kind of speakers be banned from campus. That shouldn't be allowed, especially if a student group is sponsoring that speaker. Those that don't agree with the speaker don't have to listen to the lecture or they can bring in their own speaker who has a different viewpoint."

Another reason Torres said the SGA is promoting the bill is the fact that while the CAFE act protects students it also will protect universities. He said with budget crunches, it is not a good time for universities to get sued because it didn't have the forethought to not infringe on a student's right to free speech.

Torres said he hopes that other universities step-up and make their campus' more First Amendment friendly, but unfortunately that doesn't seem to be happening.

"I wish that universities and colleges would do it on their own, but that is why it is so important for the state house to step in and go ahead and do it for them," he said. "Our SGA feels that this is an important issue for students and we feel compelled to let our legislators know that we are invested in our First Amendment right. I'm very proud of the SGA for endorsing this and we encourage every other student government to jump on the bandwagon."

Both Morgan and Torres said the new bill does not do away with university protections against hate speech, harassment or incitement of violence.

The CAFE Act provides universities with the ability to enforce certain restrictions on acts of free speech in an outdoor area of campus regarding reasonable time, place and manner. The bill makes it very clear these restrictions must have a clear, defendable basis, Torres said.

Torres said in no way does the bill encourage or enable hate speech and harassment by promoting the right of free speech for students.

"You are protected from any kind of violence or mistreatment," he said. "That doesn't mean you are protected against different ideas, views, cultures or opinions that you might not like."

Reach Ricki Barker at 624-6611 or follow her on Twitter @RickiBReports.

Continue reading here:
Protecting free speech: House bill would protect students' First Amendment rights on campus - Richmond Register