Mediaboss Marketing

(The Center Squarer) Voters will head to the polls on Tuesday in a special election for Texas new 34th congressional district in the Rio Grande Valley, where illegal immigration is front and center.

Longtime Rio Grande Valley Democratic Rep. Filemon Vela Jr., resigned earlier this year, leaving the 34th district seat open.

The special election will decide who represents the district for the remainder of Vela's term, which ends in January. November's regular election will determine who serves the district beginning in January for the next two years.

Early voting, which began May 31, ends Friday.

In a race where two Republicans and two Democrats are running, Mayra Flores, the favored Republican candidate, is hoping to win outright, avoid a runoff election and be the incumbent to beat in November.

Flores, the current GOP nominee for the seat in the November general election, is the Hidalgo County GOP Hispanic Outreach Chair and wife of a U.S. Border Patrol agent. Juana "Janie" Cantu-Cabrera, a nurse whom Flores beat in the March primary, is also running in the special election.

Democrats Dan Sanchez, a Harlingen attorney, and Rene Coronado, a city civil service director from Harlingen, are running for the seat.

Flores has outraised Sanchez by 16 to 1.

Republicans have poured money into Flores race, including $1 million recently for television ads that describe what the candidate calls the chaos created by the Biden administrations open border policies. Sanchezs campaign and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spent $100,000 on digital ad buys starting this past Saturday, his campaign said.

Sanchez is hoping to win in the historically Democratic district. At a recent campaign rally in Harlingen, he said, Were gonna win this June 14 without a runoff. Were gonna show those Republicans that money doesnt buy elections in South Texas.

Sanchez has also attempted to distance himself from far-left Democrats whove ran in other races and lost, describing himself as a conservative Democrat and pro-life Catholic.

In District 28, far-left Democratic candidate Jessica Cisneros lost to incumbent Rep. Henry Cuellar of Laredo, the only pro-life Democrat in the Texas congressional delegation. Cisneros aggressively criticized Cuellar for being prolife, being committed to border security and supporting oil and gas jobs. She lost. While shes demanded a recount, it isnt expected to change the outcome.

District 34 consists of all or parts of Bee, Cameron, DeWitt, Goliad, Gonzales, Hidalgo, Jim Wells, Kenedy, Kleberg, San Patricio, and Willacy counties. Cameron County is the southernmost county located at the tip of Texas in the Rio Grande Valley, where illegal immigration has surged since President Joe Biden took office. Both sides of the border are controlled by the Gulf Cartel, which facilitates the transport of illegal immigrants and a steady flow of illicit drugs, border agents say.

All counties in the 34th district remain under one of Gov. Greg Abbotts disaster declarations, either related to the coronavirus, illegal immigration, or because they are in a potential disaster zone. Because of these circumstances, district residents need to have full and effective representation in Congress as soon as possible, the governor said in a proclamation setting the date for the special election.

Due to redistricting, the 34th District was previously the 15th District represented by incumbent Rep. Vicente Gonzalez. While he isnt running in the special election and endorsed Sanchez, Gonzalez is running for the seat and for reelection in November.

If no one wins 50% of the vote June 14, a runoff election would likely be held in August, the governors proclamation states.

Some of the most competitive races this November are at the southern border, Congressional Districts 15, 28 and 34, which Republicans are hoping to flip red.

See the original post:
Voters to head to polls June 14 in special election where illegal immigration is front and center - The Center Square

COPS were forced to release a suspect arrested for immigration offences after angry crowds clashed with officers.

An army of people surrounded the Immigration Enforcement van chanting "let him go" in Peckham, south east London on Saturday.

5

5

5

The stand off, which lasted for a number of hours, saw over 100 Londoners take to the streets in protest.

They congregated in Evans Cook Close in a bid to thwart the Home Office immigration raid, refusing to move unless the man was released.

The suspect had been detained inside a police van while a swarm of supporters obstructed its exit.

It is understood the man is Nigerian and was suspected of overstaying his visa.

Some demonstrators sat on the ground in front of the vehicle "eating ice lollies" in protest of his arrest.

Extraordinary footage captured the blockade, with crowds chanting "We won't be moving until the man is released," and "You say people, we say power, people power."

Despite Metropolitan Police officers being called to help out Home Office officials, they were unable to subdue the large group.

They eventually had to relent and announced the suspect would be released - much to the crowds' delight.

People were heard crying "Don't come back to Peckham," as they escorted the police van out of the estate.

The man, who had been arrested on suspected immigration offences, has now been released on bail.

A spokeswoman for the Home Office said: "Preventing immigration enforcement teams from doing their job is unacceptable.

"Blocking or obstructing them will not deter them from undertaking the duties that the public rightly expect them to carry out."

The Met Police confirmed they had been called shortly after 1:30pm "to a report of protesters obstructing immigration officers" and said officers remained at the scene shortly before 5pm.

A spokesman for the force said: "Officers attended and found a van was being prevented from leaving the location.

"One man has been arrested by immigration enforcement officers for immigration offences."

Eleanor Janega, 39, told PA: "We were alerted that there was an immigration raid in process so locals came down to block it.

"We had been sitting here blocking the van and having ice lollies.

"They brought more police in and tried to break through the crowd by pushing us. We all sat down."

Labour councillor Reginald Popoola said the crowd had "encircled the van peacefully", but some people were shoved.

Discussing the news the man had been released on bail, he proudly proclaimed: "He's being released, peaceful protest is powerful."

Another woman described how cops "gave up" trying to arrest demonstrators.

The activist explained: "Police tried to arrest a number of activists at the front, but they were held onto by others who were also sitting down and the police gave up.

"And finally, after a lot of protest, the police announced that they were going to release him.

"It took, I don't know, about half an hour for them to actually open the doors so we all stayed and called for this to happen quickly."

5

5

Visit link:
Cops forced to RELEASE illegal immigration suspect after angry crowds clash with officers and chant let h... - The Sun

Whether youre contemplating San Francisco voters recall of left-wing District Attorney Chesa Boudin or the plight of Democrats nationally as they face voters dismay at out-of-control inflation, immigration and crime, the question is liable to come to mind: What were they thinking?

Actually, there are some initially plausible answers. Weve just been informed this last week by Janet Yellen biographer Owen Ullmann that the treasury secretary argued in early 2021 for a smaller bill than the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan.

Yellen denied having opposed it outright. But she didnt deny sharing concerns that overspending would fuel inflation, as her Clinton administration predecessor Larry Summers argued in the Washington Post.

Whoever swept aside Yellens concerns perhaps bought leftists Modern Monetary Theory that the government can print as much money as it wants without risking inflation. Or that since the Obama administration ran deficits without spurring inflation after an economic shock, the Biden administration could do so after a quite different shock.

Which leaves you asking the question: What were they thinking?

Consider immigration. When Joe Biden became president, immigration was not out of control. Most immigrants were arriving legally, and the 2010-2019 decade saw a rising proportion of high-skill immigrants something those with multiple views of the issue favored.

The Biden administration promptly disrupted this equilibrium. It stopped construction of the border wall, presumably because Donald Trump promised to build it. It abrogated the Remain in Mexico policy Trump had pressured leftist Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador to agree to. It treated border-crossers with accompanying children as asylum-seekers and allowed them into the United States.

Attempts to deny that this was an open borders policy were unpersuasive, starting with assigning the border to an obviously reluctant Vice President Kamala Harris. Her do not come speech in Guatemala and her four-hour trip to El Paso, Texas, had zero effect on the inflow.

The result was predictable. Border crossings have risen to record highs. The pro-restrictionist Center for Immigration Studies estimates that 1,350,000 illegal immigrants have entered the United States during the first 17 months of the Biden administration, about double the number of legal immigrants. That means the proportion of high-skill immigrants is lower.

Did the Biden administration think voters wanted more illegal and a lower proportion of high-skill immigration? What were they thinking?

As for crime, the disconnect between liberal officeholders and ordinary voters is most glaring in San Francisco. The city that voted for Biden 85% to 13% in 2020 voted this week 60% to 40% to recall, or remove from office, leftist DA Boudin.

Boudin backers blamed conservative Republicans, and probably both of them voted against him. But obviously, the biggest change of mind came from San Franciscans who initially liked Boudins ideas eliminating cash bail, classifying under-$950 minor thefts as misdemeanors, sternly punishing alleged police misconduct but didnt like the increased murders, brazen public thefts and feces-laden streets that resulted.

Political scientist Vladimir Kogan, while sympathetic to Boudins policies, points out that academic studies suggesting theyd be harmless failed to take into account the effect theyd have in practice. When you let defendants pending trial out on the streets, you intimidate witnesses. When you defund and overdiscipline the police, you no longer have proactive policing. All this leaves violence-prone young men free to commit crimes.

The phenomenon is not local. The death of George Floyd in May 2020, followed by mostly peaceful Black Lives Matter demonstrations that included violent riots in some 570 cities, resulted in the Ferguson effect on steroids as coined by Foxs Jesse Watters not just in San Francisco but around the country, and especially in cities with George Soros-type reform prosecutors.

So what were they all thinking?

Common threads in the thinking behind policies incentivizing out-of-control inflation, immigration and crime are the inclination to sympathize with those seen as victims and the assumption theyll respond with virtuous restraint.

But when you give people free money, they spend with little restraint. When you grant illegal immigrants free entry, they enter in vast numbers. When you let criminals go free, they maraud en masse. Its nice to be nice, but its foolish to expect everyone to be nice in return.

Michael Barone is a senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and longtime co-author of The Almanac of American Politics.

Join thousands already receiving our daily newsletter.

Read the original post:
Barone: What was the left thinking? | News, Sports, Jobs - Daily Herald

This specific case revolved around an illegal immigrant who used someone elses social security number to get a job at a restaurant.

Kansas has a relatively tough stance towards illegal immigration, but those who come to the state legally are essentially welcomed with open arms. This is a similar stance to many other states in the nation. These states wish to encourage immigrants to come to the United States legally while respecting local and federal laws. While this philosophy is certainly understandable, there is a growing divide in the nation when it comes to immigration. Many believe that illegal immigrants should be given the same rights as legal immigrants, and that borders should be policed with a less draconian approach.

Regardless of where you stand on immigration law, its always a good idea to come to the United States legally. Fortunately, you can do this with relative ease by enlisting the help of a qualified, experienced immigration attorney in Kansas. These legal professionals can guide you towards a positive legal outcome and help you settle in the Sunflower State. By coming into the state legally, you can avoid a number of potential consequences, including deportation.

Kansas Has a History of Being Tough on Illegal Immigrants

In 2020, an illegal immigrant in Kansas was successfully convicted of identity theft after a Supreme Court decision went against him. The court also determined that the state itself could convict him of the crime without interfering with existing federal immigration laws. This ruling encouraged states across the nation to use identity laws to enforce immigration laws and sidestep federal regulations.

This specific case revolved around an illegal immigrant who used someone elses social security number to get a job at a restaurant. This led to a conviction under the states identity theft laws. Those who appealed this decision argued that this action basically allowed Kansas to create its own immigration laws, but the federal government sided with the Sunflower State when it went to the Supreme Court.

Kansas Senator Pushes Back Against Compensation for Illegal Immigrants

Kansas Senator Roger Marshall was one of many politicians who pushed back against Bidens plans to compensate illegal immigrants who had been separated from their families. In October, it was reported that the Biden administration was considering payments of up to $450,000 for families that had been separated. Marshall was one of 30 senators who signed an amendment to block these payments. He argued that this would incentivize more illegal crossings, stating:

As if President Biden leaving our southern border wide open for thousands of people to pour into our country isnt enough, now his administration plans to provide hundreds of illegal immigrants with $450,000 each as a reward for breaking the law.

Enlist the Help of a Qualified Attorney Today

If youve been searching for a qualified, experienced immigration attorney in the Wichita area, there are many legal professionals waiting to assist you. While Kansas general stance towards immigration can seem daunting, its important to remember that the state is generally only tough on illegal immigration. If you work with an attorney and follow all of the various rules and regulations, you should be able to settle in Kansas without much of an issue. Book your consultation today and go over your legal options.

Visit link:
What is Kansas' Stance on Immigration? - Legal Reader

Note: For more recent information on this topic, visit this post.

The number of unauthorized immigrants living in the United States has dropped to the level it was in 2004, and Mexicans are no longer a majority of this population. This decline is due mainly to a large drop in the number of new unauthorized immigrants, especially Mexicans, coming into the country. The origin countries of unauthorized immigrants also shifted during that time, with the number from Mexico declining and the number rising from Central America and Asia, according to the latest Pew Research Center estimates.

Here are five facts about the unauthorized immigrant population in the U.S.

There were 10.5 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. in 2017, representing 3.2% of the total U.S. population that year. The 2017 unauthorized immigrant total is a 14% drop from the peak of 12.2 million in 2007, when this group was 4% of the U.S. population.

The number of Mexican unauthorized immigrants declined since 2007, while the total from other nations ticked up. Mexicans made up less than half of all unauthorized U.S. immigrants (47%) in 2017 for the first time, according to the Centers estimate, compared with 57% in 2007. Their numbers (and share of the total) have been declining in recent years: There were 4.9 million Mexican unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. in 2017, down from 6.9 million in 2007.

Learn about U.S. immigration through five short lessons delivered to your inbox every other day.Sign up now!

Meanwhile, the total from other nations, 5.5 million in 2017, ticked up from 2007, when it was 5.3 million. The number of unauthorized immigrants has grown since 2007 from both Central America and Asia. There were 1.5 million Central American unauthorized immigrants in 2007 and 1.9 million in 2017. This growth was fueled mainly by immigrants from the Northern Triangle nations of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. The number from Asia, 1.3 million in 2007, rose to 1.5 million in 2017.

At the same time, the number of unauthorized immigrants from South America and Europe decreased between 2007 and 2017. Other large regions (the Caribbean, Middle East-North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa and the rest of the world) did not change significantly during that time.

The U.S. civilian workforce includes 7.6 million unauthorized immigrants, representing a decline since 2007. Between 2007 and 2017, the number of unauthorized immigrant workers fell by 625,000, as did their share of the total U.S. workforce over the same period. In 2017, this group accounted for 4.6% of those in the U.S. who were working or were unemployed and looking for work.

Six states account for 57% of unauthorized immigrants: California, Texas, Florida, New York, New Jersey and Illinois. From 2007 to 2017, individual states experienced different trends. The unauthorized immigrant population decreased in a dozen states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York and Oregon. In five states, the unauthorized immigrant population rose over the same period: Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Dakota and South Dakota.

A rising share of unauthorized immigrants have lived in the U.S. for more than a decade. About two-thirds (66%) of unauthorized immigrant adults in 2017 had been in the U.S. more than 10 years, compared with 41% in 2007. A declining share of unauthorized immigrants have lived in the U.S. for five years or less 20% of adults in 2017, compared with 30% in 2007. In 2017, unauthorized immigrant adults had lived in the U.S. for a median of 15.1 years, meaning that half had been in the country at least that long.

Note: This is an update to a post originally published on Nov. 18, 2014.

More here:
5 facts about illegal immigration in the U.S. | Pew Research Center