Mediaboss Marketing

President Trump is gambling on his immigration policy. But its a risky bet.

The president is going full-steam ahead with the hard-line approach that his team believes fueled his election win last year. Whether he can bring the country with him is another matter.

On Tuesday, the administration announced a host of changes to immigration enforcement. The shift includes the hiring of thousands of new Border Patrol officers, a major expansion in the number of people subject to expedited deportation and the establishment of a new office focused on immigration crime.

The announcement came in two memos from the Department of Homeland Security. The documents reiterated Trumps plan to press ahead with his famous promise to build a wall along the southern border with Mexico, and underlined his administrations opposition to the policies of so-called sanctuary cities.

Meanwhile, a new, revised version of Trumps earlier executive order suspending travel from seven majority-Muslim nations is expected soon though that release has been delayed until next week.

Trump has asserted that he is a standard-bearer for the forgotten men and women of America who feel that their nation has changed for the worse.

Weve defended other nations borders while refusing to defend our own, Trump said in his inauguration address.

Earlier this month on Twitter, hewrote, The crackdown on illegal criminals is merely the keeping of my campaign promise. Gang members, drug dealers & others are being removed!

Trump aides make no bones about their belief that his immigration stance was fully endorsed by the electorate last November.

White House spokesman Michael Short told The Hill, He campaigned hard on this issue and won 306 electoral votes the most for a Republican nominee since 1988.

Short also noted a Harvard-Harris Poll survey, exclusively provided to The Hill, which found that 80 percent of voters believe cities that arrest illegal immigrants for crimes should turn them over to the immigration authorities.

Trump himselftweetedabout that pollon Tuesdayafternoon a sign that the presidents political antennae are closely tuned to public opinion on the issue.

Advocates for stricter immigration policies also believe Trump is on the right side of public opinion.

This is one of the reasons why he is president, said Ira Mehlman, the media director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a group that seeks to stop illegal immigration and reduce legal immigration.

Improbable as it was, he ended up winning the election based on addressing the real concerns that the American public has had over immigration, as well as some other things, Mehlman added.

The polling on the issues is not so clear-cut, however.

Trumps election win could just as easily be seen as coming despite his immigration stance, rather than because of it.

Election Day exit polls showed that a clear majority of voters 70 percent believed illegal immigrants should be offered some form of legal status. Only 25 percent favored deportation.

Those same exit polls showed Trumps proposed border wall with Mexico was supported by 41 percent of voters but opposed by 54 percent.

Findings like that bolster liberal confidence that Trump is making a political misjudgment in pressing ahead.

People roundly reject the idea of mass deportation, said Tom Jawetz, the vice president of immigration policy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a liberal group. The American public does not support building his border wall. The American public does not support, and is increasingly opposed, to his Muslim ban.

Trump supporters would contest that view. Polling on the travel ban is inconclusive so far. The most recent major poll, from the Pew Research Center,showed a very clear majority against it: 59 percent to 38 percent. But three other surveys not long before, from Quinnipiac University, CBS News and CNN respectively, showed a closely divided public.

Debate will also rage for years about how big a part Trumps immigration stance played in his election victory especially when it comes to the key Rust Belt and Industrial Midwest states that sealed his win.

In Ohio, a full 36 percent of voters believed illegal immigrants should be deported, compared to just 25 percent nationwide. In neighboring Pennsylvania, the figure was 31 percent. But Trump also won Wisconsin and Michigan, where the pro-deportation vote was almost indistinguishable from the national norm, at 26 percent and 27 percent respectively.

Terry Madonna, a public affairs professor and polling expert at Pennsylvanias Franklin and Marshall College, argued the importance of immigration as a primary factor in the election is overstated. He asserted that the economy, jobs and wage stagnation were more potent.

But he added that immigration played into a broader picture of cultural anxiety among Trump supporters.

For many, many voters in small-town and rural America, they wake up and think they are living in a strange land a land of immigration, of gay marriage and of the people who want to take my guns away, he said. That side of it played a role too.

On Wednesday, Speaker Paul RyanPaul RyanCornyn: Border wall 'makes absolutely no sense' in some areas CNN to host town hall featuring John McCain, Lindsey Graham GOP senator won't vote to defund Planned Parenthood MORE (R-Wis.) toured a section of the border with Mexico for the first time. In a statement, he promised that the Republican Congress would work with Trump in securing the border and enforcing our laws.

Whether that approach bears political dividends or extracts a price remains to be seen.

The Memo is a reported column by Niall Stanage, primarily focused on Donald TrumpDonald TrumpCompanies stuck in crossfire between Trump and his critics Bannon rips 'corporatist, globalist media' DNC candidate Harrison drops out, backs Perez for chairman MOREs presidency.

More:
THE MEMO: Trump's big immigration gamble - The Hill

5495682

Donald Trumps executive order travel ban met with predictable resistance from the activist judiciary, whether the US District Court judge in Seattle or the far-left Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Despite being called a Muslim ban by the purveyors of fake news and useful idiots in the GOP establishment, there is no mention of religion in Trumps executive order. Instead it simply identifies 7 countries, already labeled as countries of concern by the Obama administration and temporarily halts unfettered travel from these countries to the US until a proper vetting system can be implemented.

Trump can certainly fight the Ninth Circuit, taking his case to the US Supreme Court. The four liberal justices are likely to side with the Ninth Circuit and there is no guarantee that Justices Roberts or Kennedy wouldnt side with the four black-robed progressives, striking down the executive order. Even a tie vote would be a loser for Trump as the original Ninth Circuit decision would stand.

Wisely President Trump has decided to reword his executive order, excluding green card residency holders and those already in transit to the US. This should address the concerns of the Ninth Circuit. Key word is should. As the Ninth Circuit has its rulings frequently overturned by the Supreme Court, there is no guarantee that they will not block Trumps new and reworded travel ban order. Ditto for the Supremes. Remember how Justice John Roberts twisted himself into a legal pretzel, basically rewriting the Obamacare statute to find it constitutional?

I have an additional recommendation for the Trump administration. It follows along the lines of a constitutional amendment introduced by Senator Rand Paul that could be called the Whats good for the goose is good for the gander amendment. The amendment wording is simple. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to Congress.

Why not apply the same reasoning to illegal immigration? Start with sanctuary cities. There are about 300 jurisdictions in the US that have, a policy that is non-cooperative and obstructs immigration enforcement. The map of these cities, not surprisingly, is remarkably similar to the red-blue electoral map of the 2016 presidential election. Any guess as to how most sanctuary cities voted on November 8?

Until Trumps travel pause is in place, refugees continue to stream into the US. The State Department doubled the rate of refugees from the seven targeted countries since Judge Robarts February 3 ruling. 1,100 refugees and counting in one week.

The Trump administration should settle all of these refugees in sanctuary cities, specifically in the most progressive neighborhoods, whose residents so vehemently oppose anything and everything Trump, including his travel restriction.

In Judge Robarts turf, settle the nice young men from Syria and Somalia in Bellevue or Mercer Island. In the back yard of the Ninth Circuit, place the refugees in Nob Hill or Berkeley. Dont forget college towns like Boulder, Ithaca and Cambridge. Include Manhattan and the tony Washington, DC suburbs, home to the deep state bureaucrats and #NeverTrumpers.

Apply the NIMBY principle, not in my back yard. Those favoring a feckless, open border immigration policy should live with the consequences of such a policy. In their back yard.

Remember how ten years ago Ted Kennedy, staunch environmentalist, blocked a wind farm in the Nantucket Sound because it cluttered the view from the Kennedy vacation home in Hyannis Port? A perfect example of NIMBY.

Lets see how the progressives in Westchester County or Santa Cruz enjoy becoming Germany with Angela Merkels open-arms refugee policy. Gangs of violent men roaming the streets, harassing and raping women, defecating in public pools, forcing women to cover their heads and bodies. How will this go over in these uber-tolerant enclaves? Im sure the Ninth Circuit judges wont mind a refugee resettlement home in their neighborhoods, along the route that their kids or grandkids walk to school.

Its easy to be compassionate, open-minded and welcoming when ensconced within a gated community, country club and private school. Not so much from the real world of Kate Steinle and others terrorized or killed by unvetted or illegal immigrants.

No executive order is needed for this. Simply a memorandum from the director of Homeland Security as to where the refugees should be settled.

Just as Congress needs to reap the misery of their legislation, liberal activists and politicians should practice the tolerance they preach regarding illegal immigration.

I wonder how long my home town of Denver would remain a sanctuary city if a few refugee boarding houses popped up in the Bonnie Brae or Hilltop neighborhoods?

After all, whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

Brian C Joondeph, MD, MPS, a Denver based physician and writer. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter.

Read the original:
The Missing Piece From Trump's Immigration Reform - Daily Caller

Steve interviewed the Senate minority leader on Wednesday in Buffalo.

WGRZ 1:11 PM. EST February 22, 2017

Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) interviewed by Two On Your Side's Steve Brown on 2/22/17.

The Department of Homeland Security issued a sweeping set of orders Tuesday that implement President Donald Trump's plan to increase immigration enforcement, placing the vast majority of the nation's 11 million undocumented immigrants at risk of deportation.

The move comes on the heels of a federal appeals court striking down a Trump executive order that temporarily restricted entry to the United States from citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries. Trump said he will issue a revised version of those travel rules this week.

On Wednesday, Senate minority leader, Charles Schumer(D-NY) was in Buffalo and Two On Your Side's Steve Brown asked what the senator thought of the development?

"Those who have done nothing and are just trying to become part of the American dream, working hard as many have here in western New York, the answer there is comprehensive immigration reform," said Schumer.

You can see the full interview in the video player on this page. Steve Brown also asked Schumer about the confirmation process for Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch.

A portion of a USA Today article byBrett Molina was used in this article.

( 2017 WGRZ)

More here:
Schumer questioned on Immigration Reform - WGRZ.com

Immigration hard-liners are holding their fire against President Trump's decision to keep an Obama administration program allowing young dreamers who entered the country illegally to remain.

Trump is generally clamping down on immigration enforcement, implementing policies that could cause a dramatic wave in deportations.

But he has explicitly avoided canceling President Obamas Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which has allowed about 750,000 young people brought to the United States illegally as children to get permission to stay and work in this country.

The decision was a disappointment to groups who hoped to end the program.

Conservative lawmakers who campaigned on tougher immigration policies say they want to hear more from Trump before jumping to conclusions.

With all the fake news he is countering on a daily basis, I think he is just being pragmatic. And right now, I hope we can focus on ObamaCare repeal, said Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.), a Tea Party darling.

Brat said its possible more could be coming.

Attorney General Jeff SessionsJeff SessionsGovernor: NY will protect transgender students DeVos responds to revoked transgender protections: Example of Obama admin 'overreach' ACLU: Trump action wont stop transgender teen's lawsuit MORE was finally put in place a couple weeks ago, so I think we have to be realistic, he added. I will wait to see how he addresses it. He is very big on keeping his word.

Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, said leaving DACA untouched for the moment would give the administration leeway to negotiate immigration reform in the Senate if you assume that Trump is interested in getting some legislative action from Congress.

Theyre the negotiating tool, he said.

Trump promised to end DACA on the campaign trail, but he has also spoken sympathetically of those who benefit from the program.

Last week, Trump said DACA is a very, very difficult subject that had to be dealt with with heart.

You have these incredible kids, in many cases, not in all cases. In some of the cases theyre having DACA and theyre gang members and theyre drug dealers too, he said. But you have some absolutely incredible kids ... they were brought here in such a way, its a very, very tough subject, said Trump.

GOP leaders have also spoken positively about the program.

In January, Speaker Paul RyanPaul RyanCornyn: Border wall 'makes absolutely no sense' in some areas CNN to host town hall featuring John McCain, Lindsey Graham GOP senator won't vote to defund Planned Parenthood MORE (R-Wis.) told an undocumented woman brought to the United States as a child that she would not face deportation.

What we have to do is find a way to make sure that you can get right with the law. And weve got to do this so that the rug doesnt get pulled out from under you and your family gets separated," said Ryan.

That said, its unclear if the administration is committed to keeping the program indefinitely.

Asked whether a decision on DACA could come any day, White House press secretary Sean Spicer on Tuesday said, Yes, exactly.

Activists are angry over the detention of Daniel Ramirez Medina, a dreamer in Seattle accused of having accepted gang membership. Ramirez's lawyer said he was pressured by federal agents to falsely admit affiliation.

Proponents of the program are worried that the Medina case is a sign of things to come.

Under DACA, recipients received a two-year renewable work permit.While the program remains in the books, new applicants would have to provide the federal government with personal information and an admission of being in the country illegally. One of the hurdles the program faced under Obama was getting applicants to trust that the information wouldn't be used against them.

Medinas detention, as a result, could become an argument for not signing up for the program.

Opponents of DACA see it as a way of slowly killing off the program.

Its one thing to say that were not going to deport people who have received DACA documents, but its another to give out renewals, said Beck.

Letting it expire is different than immediately rescinding it, said Stein. Theres something to be said in a policy that allows a transition.

Read more from the original source:
Immigration hard-liners hold fire on 'dreamers' program | TheHill - The Hill

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 more here:
Immigration reform failures set stage for Trump's strategy - San Bernardino County Sun