Mediaboss Marketing

NEW YORK (WABC) --

It comes on the heels of President Barack Obama's executive action to help approximately five million undocumented immigrants.

The meeting at Gracie Mansion focused on coordinating and sharing expertise for the implementation of the changes, as well the road ahead and strategies to push for comprehensive immigration action.

Those in attendance signed on to a what de Blasio calls a Five Point Challenge aimed at:

--Launching a mayoral war room for federal action on immigration reform --Establishing local Cities United for Immigration Action coalitions --Safeguarding immigrants from fraudulent services --Reaching all eligible applicants through community outreach and public education --Auditing services and programs to ensure efficient and affordable delivery of services to maximize enrollment by city residents

Following the summit, the cities will look to build grassroots support at the local level through strategies including:

--Organizing local coalitions for action-including faith, business, community and labor leaders-before Congress gets back for unified demonstration of solidarity. --A Mayoral Lobby Day in DC-after matching congressional members to mayoral coalition members-to push back against any efforts to dismantle the President's Executive Actions and push for comprehensive immigration reform. --Convening state tables of mayors in key states, working with allies to have parallel organizing, labor, faith tables in each state, and bringing in key suburban or county leaders. --Generating constituent call-in and email-in to push for action with key targets in each state. --Coordinating Know Your Rights events in all cities with allies, partners, and stakeholders as the first phase of the President's plan goes into effect. --Highlighting stories of DREAMers who have been or will be helped by the President's Executive Actions.

"The president's plan to act on immigration reform is crucial to creating a more just country, and the federal government is depending on cities to implement the plan," de Blasio said. "It is critical that we get it right. Mayors are in the trenches and see firsthand the need for comprehensive immigration reform. We will take this opportunity to lay the ground work for a deeper national movement from the grassroots up."

The summit included Mayors and staff representing 25 cities from across the country, including: Atlanta, Boston, Buffalo, Charlotte, Dayton, Hartford, Houston, Jersey City, Los Angeles, Louisville, Madison, New Haven, Newark, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Providence, Salt Lake City, San Francisco, San Juan, Santa Fe, Schenectady, Seattle, Syracuse, Tacoma and Washington, D.C.

The Cities United for Immigration Action coalition, launched two weeks ago, includes an additional 18 cities who were not able to join the summit.

Originally posted here:
Bill de Blasio hosts 20 mayors for New York City immigration summit

........................................................................................................................................................................................

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. President Obamas sweeping order to free from the threat of deportation some 5 million illegal immigrants just resets the comprehensive immigration reform debate to zero at best. At worst, it could completely derail it at a time when a new set of lawmakers is due in Washington to try its hand.

Last month, the president announced executive action that would defer for three years the deportation of about 5 million of an estimated 11.7 million illegal immigrants now living in the United States. The order applies mostly to people who have been in the country five years or more and have kids who are citizens. It also broadens a deferred action program for children brought to the U.S. illegally.

And while Obamas order may not be the type of amnesty the U.S. offered during the 1980s, when there were about 3 million illegal immigrants, it sends a message that it may still be worth it to enter the U.S. illegally or overstay a visa in the hopes of hitting the forgiveness period the next time a free pass of some sort is offered.

Already, the immigration plan is mired in questions.

Since Obama wont be president three years from now, what happens after his reprieve is up? Will the immigrants be booted out of the country after registering with the government and living openly? Since criminals do not qualify, will presenting documents to prove residency that include a fake or stolen Social Security number count as a crime? Are people who have children here but were unlucky enough to have been deported shortly before Obamas order simply out of luck?

Obamas order does nothing to recognize would-be immigrants who have played by the rules and are still waiting in line to enter the country through legal means. What kind of lesson should they take away?

Immigration reform is long overdue and lawmakers of both parties have kicked it down the road too long. But, after putting action off for six years himself for cynical political reasons including times when his political party controlled both houses of Congress Obamas move simply starts a process that may not last beyond early next year, when Republicans take control of the Senate.

It also underlines that he isnt serious about border security in the sense of preventing another wave of illegal immigration even if we have comprehensive reform and cant be trusted on that score. Because border security isnt simply about interdiction, its about consequences.

The new Congress should get serious about passing legislation that deals with the issue for all 11.7 million keeping U.S. interests at the forefront. Most Americans, and immigrants who would be affected by real reform, would likely prefer that to a temporary executive order.

Here is the original post:
Editorial: Immigration action does too much and too little

Reappropriate: The Podcast, Ep #12 | Free speech vs. online threats
The Supreme Court is considering a case that might radically redefine what is considered a threat when made through digital media, with possible First Amendment ramifications. To talk about...

By: Jenn Reappropriate

See the original post here:
Reappropriate: The Podcast, Ep #12 | Free speech vs. online threats - Video

People across the country are using their First Amendment freedoms to respond to the results of the grand juries in the Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases. They are speaking out to draw attention to issues including race, police brutality and the workings of our justice system. Whats happening in your town?Are you covering local events and protests for your school newspaper or magazine?

If so, please email your story to DigitalClassroom@newseum.org! We will consider sharing it on our blog and for possible inclusion in our Digital Classroom Civil Rights Media Map. The deadline is Fri. Dec. 12 at 11:00 EST.

To learn more about the protests, and how they relate to the First Amendment, be sure to read the following Newseum-produced story and blog post. We will look for stories that also discuss how the First Amendment has played a role in the actions in your town.

Be sure to include your name, grade, name of newspaper, publication date, and the name and email address of your faculty advisor to the newspaper.

We want to have the chance to share your story so Newseum blog readers across the nation-and around the world-can learn more about how students are reporting on this volatile issue. We look forward to reading your story!

View original post here:
Calling All Student Journalists

The case of a Pennsylvania teacher fired because of blog posts that criticized her own students has taken an interesting turn, as her lawyers claim viral Internet and television interest in the story protect her First Amendment rights.

The teacher, Philadelphias National Constitution Center is the first and only nonprofit, nonpartisan institution devoted to the most powerful vision of freedom ever expressed: the U.S. Constitution. Constitution Daily, the Centers blog, offers smart commentary and conversation about constitutional issues in the news, drawing insights from Americas history and a variety of expert contributors., caused a quite a stir back in 2011 and became a national media figure. Munroe lost her job at a suburban Philadelphia public high school after writing a series of blog posts that called her students jerks, rat like and whiny, among other things.

Monroes attorneys filed a civil suit against the Central Bucks school district in 2012, seeking $5 million in damages. In late July 2014, a federal district court judge in Philadelphia ruled against Munroe. But her attorneys have appealed.

Third District Judge Cynthia M. Rufe only decided one of two questions presented in the lawsuit. Rufe said Munroes statements werent protected by the First Amendment under a test established in two Supreme Court cases, so she didnt need to decide if the statements directly caused her termination.

In 1968 in a Supreme Court decision calledPickering v. Board of Educationand a later decision from 2006,Garcetti v. Ceballos, a balancing test was set by the Court about public employee statements and the First Amendment.

Commonly known as the Pickering test, a plaintiff such as Munroe must prove that her First Amendment interests as a public employee, and also as a citizen, in commenting on matters of public concern outweigh her public employers need to promote efficient public services.

Judge Rufe found that in this case, Munroes speech, in both effect and tone, was sufficiently disruptive so as to diminish any legitimate interest in its expression, and thus her [First Amendment] expression was not protected.

Rufe stated that, although Munroe may have occasionally written as a private citizen on matters of public concern, she chose to do so in an opprobrious tone that was likely to generate a strong reaction from anyone connected with the school who read it.

Read more:
Do viral stories protect our 1st Amendment freedoms?