Mediaboss Marketing

Thank you.

Immigration reform, a lot of people say -- it makes sense and is what we should be doing, but for whatever reason we can't get both sides to the table.

Realistically, can we get a bill through this year?

I do.

We did not take it on because it is easy.

Look, nothing is easy to do in washington these days.

But we have made more progress than we have in 30 years.

The bill last year in the senate , from speaker boehner and many members of the republican house caucus, they have said they want to get this done this year.

We want -- they want to get something done.

When you have 700,000 students being educated in this country from foreign countries, they are here and getting degrees.

Visit link:
Why Immigration Reform Matters to Silicon Valley

The GOP shouldnt even field a presidential candidate in 2016 unless Congress passes immigration reform this year, U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue said Monday.

If the Republicans dont do it, they shouldnt bother to run a candidate in 2016, Donohue joked at an event on infrastructure investment in D.C. Think about that. Think about who the voters are. I just did that to get everybodys attention.

Republicans have focused on an immigration overhaul as a way to woo Hispanic voters, who have increasingly drifted to Democrats over the past two election cycles. Growing Hispanic populations in Nevada, Texas and elsewhere could make those states more amenable to Democrats in the future.

(Also on POLITICO: Boehner can't promise another two years as speaker)

Donohue, whose group has spent months pushing House Republicans to support immigration legislation, was speaking about what he thought a dysfunctional Congress could still get done in 2014.

You think Congress can get immigration reform done this year, in an election year? moderator Eamon Javers asked Donohue.

Yes, yes, Donohue replied.

National Association of Manufacturers President Jay Timmons said he also thought immigration reform could pass this year, perhaps in a lame-duck session.

(Also on POLITICO: Boehner bans a return to earmarks)

This is a unified position of the business community, Timmons said.

Continue reading here:
Chamber gives ultimatum to GOP

While Republican House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) visited San Antonio today to speak before a roomful of business and professional groups at a chamber of commerce-hosted luncheon, dozens of local community members rallied outside the Marriott Rivercenter calling on Boehner to get comprehensive immigration reform on track.

Speaker John Boehner talks immigration reform in San Antonio. Photo by Jonathan Alonzo via KGBTX.

Inside, Boehner answered questions from Texas Tribune Editor-in-Chief Evan Smith (and from the audience) about the newly formed special committee to investigate the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, as well as veterans affairs, the Affordable Care Act and, as anticipated, immigration.

Last month, Boehner saw backlash for chiding his Republican colleagues for their unwillingness to work toward a solution for immigration reform. Mocking their reluctance, he said, Ohh dont make me do this, ohh this is too hard. Feeling the heat from colleagues, Boehner soon backpedaled, steering the blame toward President Obamas leadership. The biggest impediment we have in moving immigration reform forward is that the American people dont trust the president to enforce or implement the law, he said. Boehner reiterated his position at todays event.

I put the ball back in the presidents court, said Bohener. He is going to have to do something to demonstrate some level of trustworthiness. (And regarding the imitation of his stubborn colleagues, Boehner said during the luncheon, I can get a little carried away with my teasing.)

While the Senate passed a bi-partisan immigration reform bill last June, that includes border security and a pathway to citizenship for the estimated 11 million undocumented U.S. immigrants, it has yet to reach the floor of Congress for a voteimmigration reform advocates and Democrats are pressuring the speaker to see it through. However, Boehner expressed support for legislation broken up into five to six chunks (with border security as the first legislative portion) rather than a comprehensive package an approach the San Antonio Hispanic Chamber of Commerce opposes, as Smith pointed out. In order for immigration reform to be effective, a comprehensive plan must be addressed as a whole, because the system and its deficiencies are so interconnected, the Chamber wrote in a January 2014 white paper report.

Boehner also shot down criticisms that his seeming failure to get immigration reform rolling on the Congressional side is a purely political move, as hes up for reelection this November (although, he wouldnt verbally commit to serving out a full term if reelected). Meanwhile, murmurs of a conservative-led ousting of Boehner have begun, lending critics reason to challenge Boehner as acting extra cautious with controversial issues.

This is not about politics, this is not about elections, its about doing the right thing for the American people, its about doing the right thing for this country, said Boehner.

Immigration reform activists protest outside an event featuring Speaker John Boehner. Photo via Bexar County Young Tejano Democrats.

Outside the hotel, a coalition of immigration reform advocates gathered to protest the slow progress made at the federal level and to call on Boehner to bring the immigration bill to a vote. The Bexar County Young Tejano Democrats, the Brown Berets of San Antonio, Texas Young Democrats, local LULAC members, the Texas Organizing Project and the San Antonio Immigrant Youth Movement chanted and held up signs at the corner of E. Commerce and Bowie Street during the event.

Read more from the original source:
House Speaker John Boehners San Antonio Visit Draws Immigration Protest

The Clash Between the First Amendment and National Security in Times of War Symposium
Commemorating the 100th Birthday of alumnus and former Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell participants spoke at a symposium titled "The Clash Between the First Amendment and National Security...

By: Reuben Halper

Link:
The Clash Between the First Amendment and National Security in Times of War Symposium - Video

The Providence (R.I.) Journal, May 8, 2014

Reasonable people can disagree vehemently on the meaning of the First Amendment, as demonstrated by the 5-to-4 margin of Monday's Supreme Court ruling on prayer. The court ruled that the First Amendment permits even a Christian prayer at the start of a government board meeting, as long as there is no attempt to proselytize or pressure citizens to go along.

That seems a reasonable interpretation of what the First Amendment actually says. The amendment does not permit the federal government to prohibit the free exercise of religion by Americans, nor does it permit the government to establish a religion.

Does a voluntary prayer before a meeting -- something with a long tradition in America -- establish a state religion and force others to practice that religion? Only by the most extreme interpretation. In the real world, people are perfectly free to ignore the prayer, leave the room or petition their elected representatives to alter or drop the prayer. They may safely join any religious group they wish, or decline to believe altogether.

The First Amendment, in short, is a bulwark of liberty, protecting the right of people to express religious ideas even in public settings. But this guarantee of freedom does not preclude citizens from showing respect for diverse beliefs. Those who seek God's blessings at the start of government meetings may do so in a non-sectarian manner, striving not to exclude or offend any believers. Or they may eschew any prayer at all. Those approaches would be our strong preference to a sectarian prayer, which can hurt people's feelings and sow divisions.

In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan cited George Washington's famous 1790 letter to Newport's Touro Synagogue, in which he embraced America's support for religious liberty. Quoting the Bible's Old Testament, Washington wrote: "every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid." He added: "For happily the Government of the United States gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support."

It seems clear, though, that neither Washington nor the other Founders regarded public prayers as giving sanction to bigotry and assistance to persecution. Indeed, in his role as president, Washington issued a proclamation calling for a national day of prayer and fasting in service to "that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be." He stated: "it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor." He did not believe that eradicating any public mention of God was the American way.

While America is markedly more diverse and secular than it was in Washington's day, we should strive to emulate his support for religious liberty, and to give no sanction to bigotry. Surely, as free people of good will, we can do that without eradicating the freedom to express religious ideas and without banishing prayer from public life.

Continue reading here:
Their opinion: Disagreeing on the First Amendment