Mediaboss Marketing

Focusing on the quality of enforcement actions, the administration proposes a $38.2 billion budget request for the Department of Homeland Security. Within that is a $2.6 billion allocation for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to use to identify, detain and remove undocumented immigrants from the country.

Some $131.6 million is to go towards the apprehension of immigrant fugitives in the country who are considered public safety risks. Another $322.4 million will be used to remove those are in federal, state and local prisons.

But the policy proposal that continues to anger some advocacy groups is the $24 million funding to retain ICEs 287(g) program, which deputizes local and state law enforcement officials to take part in the immigration process.

Pablo Alvarado, executive director of the National Day Laborer Organizing network, said keeping programs like 287(g) is a waste of money.

The presidents budget belies his rhetoric on immigration, and it calls into question whether he is sincere about protecting immigrants and advancing immigration reform in the Congress, Alvarado said. The administration cannot hide its own record behind Republicans extremism when it continues to propose funding for extremely cruel enforcement. The President must stop ratifying the premises of the nativists, and he must resolve the hypocrisy reflected in his budget.

But it wasnt all bad news for immigrants in Obamas 2015 budget. He took steps to reduce the controversial 34,000 per day immigration bed mandate to 30,539. DHS argued last year that it could save money by cutting back to about 31,000 beds under the $2 billion a year detention program by looking to cheaper alternatives. Obama has proposed $1.3 billion to fund the reduction as well as to supervise some 60,000 undocumented immigrants. Additionally, some $94.1 million would go towards alternative programs that put low-risk undocumented immigrants under supervisions such as electronic monitoring.

Still, the amount of dollars being spent on the dentition programs is worrying for experts who study the issue. New York University Professor Alina Das, who serves as co-director of the Immigrant Rights Clinic, said research has found that DHS often uses appropriations as a symbol of a mandate for its detention and deportation activities. She said it a mistake but the agency, but certainly one the administration can fix either through decreasing the allocated funds or by clarifying that those funds dont mean specific number of people must be detained.

You are simply expanding the net of people who will end up being forced into the detention and deportation system, Das said. I worry that when you see these kinds of high numbers and allocations for what I view to be an arbitrary number of detention beds ... will result in continuingly high numbers of people who are being detained even though the smarter solution and the more humane solution would be to shift to alternatives to detention.

Das would rather see a much higher amount of funds allocated to alternatives to detention. When asked if she thinks Obama, who deports about 1,100 people per day, is trying to send a message to his detractors that he is tough on immigration law breakers, Das said, I don t think they will ever be satisfied so I hope the administration isnt using these numbers to satisfy them. The budget is really about good governance and making smart choices and giving people on the ground the flexibility to exercise discretion to make sure that we are not wasting billions of dollars locking people up and putting them in deportation proceedings when we are at the cusp of possible reform.

Originally posted here:

Immigration Reform: Obama Proposes Bed Mandate Reduction, Keeps Program That Deputizes Local And State Law Enforcement

As the federal government continues to drag its heels with regard to immigration reform, two Utah laws that provide common-sense solutions to intractable immigration problems are in a state of legislative limbo.

Jen Pilgreen, Deseret News

Enlarge photo

As the federal government continues to drag its heels with regard to immigration reform, two Utah laws that provide common-sense solutions to intractable immigration problems are in a state of legislative limbo.

The laws in question were passed three years ago, but their implementation has been delayed because they require federal approval in order to be workable. One would allow those here illegally to stay in Utah as guest workers if they submit to a background check, pay a fine, and demonstrate a degree of English proficiency.

The other would let Utah residents sponsor undocumented immigrants in order to allow them to work in Utah. Both are consistent with the Utah Compact, which calls for a compassionate and realistic approach to immigration. It articulates five principles to guide the immigration debate: seeking federal solutions; focusing law enforcement on criminal activities, not civil violations of federal code; uniting rather than separating families; recognizing immigrants contributions to the economy; and adopting a humane and inclusive attitude toward immigrants.

The Utah Compact has been endorsed by a wide range of political, business, law enforcement and religious groups, including this paper.

The problem is that immigration is the sole province of the federal government, and Washington would have to provide waivers to existing immigration law in order for these measures to be enforceable. Sadly, there is no movement in Congress to even consider granting such waivers. Consequently, Utah Sen. Curt Bramble, R-Provo, is proposing to delay implementation of the two laws until 2017, to buy more time to persuade Congress to cooperate. These laws demonstrate that elected officials can come together and address in a responsible manner immigration," said Bramble.

Partisan rhetoric has made it challenging to find practical solutions in the immigration debate. Millions of lives are impacted by this intransigence in Washington. The Utah laws represented a good faith effort to step up and fill the void left by Congresss inaction. Such measures would not be necessary if Congress were actively addressing the problems at hand. Absent genuine leadership on this issue, they are an appropriate response to a pressing need.

While we support Senator Brambles proposed delay of implementation, we recognize that this is merely a stopgap measure, and that Congress had a responsibility to pursue immigration reform. The principles at the center of these laws could provide the framework for effective national legislation, and Congress would do well to emulate them.

Read the original here:

In our opinion: Immigration solutions

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) is a national, nonprofit, public-interest, membership organization of concerned citizens who share a common belief that our nations immigration policies must be reformed to serve the

WASHINGTON, March 4, 2014 /Emag.co.uk/ A new study released by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) finds that providing education, health care, law enforcement, and social and government services to illegal aliens and their dependents costs North Carolina taxpayers more than $2 billion a year an increase of some $700 million since 2008. These costs that do not include federal outlays amount to a $578 a year burden per North Carolina household headed by a U.S. citizen.

The report, The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on North Carolinians, estimates that about 410,000 illegal aliens resided in the state as of 2013. In addition, there were about 120,000 U.S.-born children of illegal aliens living in North Carolina who, like other U.S.-born children, may participate in means-tested programs and benefits. Though these children are U.S. citizens, they would not be in North Carolina if not for the fact that their parents violated U.S. immigration laws.

Among the reports key findings:

Illegal aliens pay about $293 million per year in taxes collected by state and local jurisdictions. However, the report concludes that even these minimal payments do not represent a real offset to the expenses: if the jobs were instead filled by legal U.S. workers, they would likely earn higher wages and have a much higher rate of tax compliance.

The net cost of $1.73 billion to state and local governments represents an enormous and unnecessary burden at a time when all states are hard pressed to meet the needs of their citizens. That is money that is not being spent on other pressing needs such as improving schools, or expanding and maintaining vital infrastructure, noted Dan Stein, president of FAIR.

Proposed amnesty legislation in Washington, which has the support of some North Carolina legislators, would only exacerbate the burdens on state taxpayers, Stein cautioned. Because most illegal aliens in North Carolina are poorly-educated and poorly-skilled, they would remain in low-wage jobs even after gaining legal status. However, over time, they would gain access to all means-tested benefits and assistance programs offered by state and local government.

While the federal government is primarily responsible for enforcing laws against illegal immigration, North Carolina state officials are not powerless to deter illegal aliens from settling in the Tar Heel state. State policies that deny non-essential benefits and services to illegal aliens, and require employers to electronically verify workers employment eligibility have been upheld by the courts and have worked effectively in other states. In addition, North Carolinas congressional delegation has the power to put pressure on the Obama administration to fully implement existing laws against illegal immigration, Stein concluded.

About FAIRFounded in 1979, FAIR is the countrys largest immigration reform group. With over 250,000 members nationwide, FAIR fights for immigration policies that serve national interests, not special interests. FAIR believes that immigration reform must enhance national security, improve the economy, protect jobs, preserve our environment, and establish a rule of law that is recognized and enforced.

Logo -http://www.fairus.org

Excerpt from:

Illegal Immigration Costs North Carolina Taxpayers More Than $2 Billion a Year, Finds FAIR

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton compared the recent Russian troop deployment in Crimea to policies implemented by Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany regime.

Speaking at an event benefiting the Boys & Girls Clubs of Long Beach, Calif. Tuesday, Clinton drew parallelsbetween what she described as a campaign by Russian President Vladimir Putin to give Russian passports to any Crimea resident with Russian ties and the so-called "Heim ins Reich" resettlement policy practiced by the German dictatorship prior to World War II.

"[This is like] what Hitler did back in the 30s," Clinton said, according to the Long Beach Press-Telegram. "All the Germans that were ... the ethnic Germans, the Germans by ancestry who were in places like Czechoslovakia and Romania and other places, Hitler kept saying theyre not being treated right. I must go and protect my people and thats whats gotten everybody so nervous."

"Heim ins Reich," which literally means "Home into the Empire," was a policy pursued by Hitler beginning with the Anschluss of Austria and the annexation of Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland in 1938. The ultimate aim was to convince ethnic Germans living outside the Third Reich to agitate to be included in a so-called "Greater Germany." In practice, the policy required expelling non-Germans from their traditional homes as the Nazis pushed east and resettling ethnic Germans in their place, as well as transferring whole German communities from parts of eastern Europe for resettlement in Germany. The policy ended with the defeat of the Nazis on the Eastern Front by the Soviet Union in 1945.

At a press conference earlier Tuesday, Putin said that he would use force in Crimea only as a last resort, but he reserved the right to protect ethnic Russians in the region by any means necessary.

Later in her remarks, Clinton described Putin as a man "who believes his mission is to restore Russian greatness ... When he looks at Ukraine, he sees a place that he believes is by its very nature part of Mother Russia."

However, the former top American diplomat did strike a cautiously optimistic note as she claimed that the ongoing Crimea situation was "a real nail-biter, right now, but nobody wants to up the rhetoric. Everybody wants to cool it in order to find a diplomatic solution and thats what we should be trying to do."

Click for more from the Long Beach Press-Telegram

More:

Hillary Clinton compares Putin's Ukraine action to Nazi 'Heim ins Reich' policy

Jan. 27, 2014: Hillary Clinton speaks in New Orleans, Louisiana.AP

A deal between Univision and Hillary Clinton to promote childhood education is raising questions, again, about whether TV networks are effectively giving free airtime to the possible Democratic presidential candidate.

Univision, the countrys No. 1 rated Spanish-language network, officially announced the partnership last month in East Harlem, N.Y. The multi-year partnership between the network and the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation is part of a similar project titled Too Small to Fail.

The Republican National Committee, which last year raised concerns about separate TV projects involving the Clintons, is questioning the latest arrangement.

Unfortunately, Univisions decision has hurt its credibility among conservatives, Republican National Committee spokeswoman Izzy Santa told FoxNews.com. It looks like pay to play.

The Pequenos y Valiosos (Young and Valuable) project will provide research, commentary and information across multiple Univision platforms to encourage Latinos to help their young children build vocabulary and language skills, according to the cable network.

Though Clinton helped kick off the project, Univision has no plans for her to appear in any future elements of the campaign, a spokeswoman said Tuesday. But the arrangement has raises the argument that the powerful Democrat, who leads in just about every poll of possible 2016 Democratic presidential contenders, is getting free exposure before a key voting bloc.

President Obama won roughly 71 percent of the Hispanic vote in his 2012 reelection victory over Republican nominee Mitt Romney, a situation that prompted the GOP to try to better connect with Hispanic voters.

Though Univision is relatively small in the cable TV industry, it appears to have growing clout. The network co-hosted 2012 candidate forums with Obama and Romney.

And in July 2013, Univision for the first time had a larger audience than its English-language competitors in the coveted 18-to-49-year-old demographic, averaging 1.81 million viewers over the month, according to the Nielsen rating company.

Follow this link:

RNC rips 'partnership' between Univision, Hillary