Mediaboss Marketing

Former Ohio GOP Chair Jane Timken is vowing to be Trump tough on illegal immigration and drug smugglers in a new ad for her U.S. Senate campaign.

Ms. Timken says in the 30-second Crackdown adthat on President Bidens watch illegal immigrants and drug cartels are flooding Ohio with heroin and fentanyl.

Now opioid deaths are surging again, she tells viewers. As the real Trump conservative I will fight to finish this wall, secure this board and crack down on the drug cartels.

The ad captures Ms. Timken standing at the U.S.-Mexico border wall and features a video clip of former President Donald Trump at a rally praising her as unbelievable.

I approve this message because Im Trump tough, she says.

Ms. Timken has the support of retiring Sen. Rob Portman and is hoping to land the endorsement of Mr. Trump, who has been a focal point of the GOP nomination race.

Ms. Timken is playing catch-up in the contest, according to a Fox News survey of likely GOP primary voters released this month. It showed businessman Mike Gibbons, with 22% support, and former Ohio Treasurer Josh Mandel, with 20%, leading the pack.

Author J.D. Vance is running third, with 11%, followed by Ms. Timken, with 9%, and state Sen. Matt Dolan, with 7%.

The Ohio primary election is May 3.

The winner of the GOP contest is expected to face off against Democratic Rep. Tim Ryan in Novembers general election.

Original post:
Timken pledges to be 'Trump tough' on illegal immigration - Washington Times

As we sink under the deluge of Pillen and Herbster ads, at least a couple of sizable questions are inescapable. One, why are these two who seek the GOP gubernatorial nomination so intent on scaring Republican primary voters about immigration? Two, will the demagoguery on this non-issue be rewarded by voters?

Even a cursory glance at a map confirms Nebraskas geographical position hundreds of miles removed from any national border. The most minimal familiarity with the Constitution of the United States and concepts of federalism confirms the federal governments sole authority to determine and enforce immigration laws. And candidates scaremongering on this issue can only be interpreted to mean that the Biden administrations purported failures related to immigration are not being adequately redressed by Nebraskas current governor, something Pete Ricketts would surely dispute vigorously.

What, pray tell, do these two seeking to be our next state chief executive think they are going to do: build a big, beautiful wall circling our states borders? How will the gates at the ends of Interstate 80 and I-76 work, and will there be a tunnel for the water flowing through the canal to be built to bring South Platte River water into Nebraska?

People are also reading

The absurdity of what these candidates assert is as laughable as the cartoonlike posturing dominating their ads, but the pervasiveness of the sloganeering suggests that there must be something legitimate about it. There isnt. State governments have zero authority to legislate or enforce national immigration law. Even the most authoritarian governor has no role based in law on issues of immigration. Any wisdom that could be gleaned from experiences of governors whose states are near a national border has no application to Nebraska, firmly ensconced midcountry.

Well, there is crime, right? Wrong. In a study of crimes committed in 2018 in Texas, the only state that maintains immigration status records of those who are arrested, the illegal immigrant conviction rate was 782 per 100,000 illegal immigrants, 535 per 100,000 legal immigrants, and 1,422 per 100,000 native-born Americans. Illegal immigrants had a conviction rate 45% less than native-born citizens, and legal immigrants conviction rate was about one-third of that of native-born citizens. Other studies on the topic widely confirm the conclusion: Native-born Americans commit crimes at much higher rates than either legal or illegal immigrants.

Here in Nebraska, we are experiencing historically low unemployment rates. Employers simply cannot find enough people to do the work that is here to be done now. The same conditions exist regionally and, to varying degrees, across our country. And our national birth rate is insufficient to replenish the labor supply.

In the three decades plus of my legal practice, I have had the pleasure of representing scores of immigrants. In my 56 years plus of life, I have been blessed to know hundreds of immigrants, including my paternal grandmother. Generally speaking, my experience is that immigrants are as hardworking, family loving, law abiding, taxpaying and American dreaming as we who had the good fortune to be born in this country.

So just who are these immigrants that we are supposed to be so afraid of? Where are the facts that support the assertion that this is a problem in Nebraska? Or is it just that many immigrants do not speak, look and worship the way we do? Herbsters and Pillens insistence that immigrants are some sort of boogeymen to be feared, persecuted and deported is as erroneous as it is offensive.

We need workers. Immigration must be part of the solution. But elected federal office holders have refused, for decades and across Republican and Democrat administrations alike, to seriously address immigration policy. In the meantime, candidates even for offices that have nothing to do with immigration, like governorships disingenuously raise immigration as some sinister proposition, a scare-tactic point of divisiveness, only driving deeper the wedge of deceit on this issue that cries out for thoughtful resolution.

What if voters quit rewarding candidates who defame immigrants and use the issue only to seek political advantage? What progress might be made if Republican primary voters reject Pillen and Herbster and instead select Brett Lindstrom? What will it say about Republican primary voters if they dont?

Get opinion pieces, letters and editorials sent directly to your inbox weekly!

Read this article:
Paloucek: What's behind focus on immigration in the governor's race? - North Platte Telegraph

Lawmakers are wrangling with legislation backed by Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt to prohibit municipal governments from adopting rules that block cooperation with federal authorities investigating illegal immigrants.

Schmidt initiated the push for a ban on sanctuary cities in response to action by the Unified Government of Kansas City/Wyandotte County to authorize the issuance of photo identification cards to undocumented people to improve access to public services. The Safe and Welcoming City Act was structured so the ID information wouldnt be shared with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Opponents of the legislation outnumbered supporters 64-7 during a hearing Tuesday in the House Federal and State Affairs Committee. Alejandro Rangel-Lopez, lead coordinator for the New Frontiers Project, a group in southwest Kansas working to empower people of color, described his family history with immigration and the importance of having communities where immigrants can feel safe.

Rangel-Lopez said that while proponents may claim the bill does not target legal immigrants, many with mixed-status families would suffer.

It should be clear to you now that this is not a game. The choices you make as a legislator have very real impacts on the lives of people like me and my family, Rangel-Lopez said. Listen to us when we tell you this will have insidious effects on crime reporting in immigrant communities. Listen to us when we tell you that your decisions dont exist in a vacuum.

Under House Bill 2717, local units of government would be unable to adopt any ordinance, resolution, rule or policy that would interfere with law enforcement cooperation in immigration enforcement actions. In Wyandotte County, law enforcement officials said they hadnt joined ICE agents on immigration raids for years.

As of 2021, 12 states have enacted state-level laws prohibiting or restricting sanctuary jurisdictions. The Kansas Legislature has considered legislation to prohibit sanctuary cities across the state on several occasions, but none has passed.

Schmidt, a Republican candidate for governor, said Kansas required such a law to ensure the entire state can be safe and welcoming to immigrants.

That worthy goal cannot be properly accomplished through a patchwork process of local jurisdictions deciding to prohibit their local law enforcement agencies from cooperating or even communicating with federal authorities, nor can that be accomplished by issuing to non-citizens new local-government identification cards that lack basic anti-fraud and anti-abuse safeguards built into state law, Schmidt said.

The measure also would forbid municipal governments from issuing ID cards to people not lawfully residing in the United States that were designed to satisfy identification requirements set in state law. Any of these cards would read Not valid for state ID.

Violating the proposed statute would be considered ID fraud under state criminal law.

While the Kansas Secretary of States Office supported the bill, a representative of the office urged legislators to address a potential conflict between state laws on the use of ID cards that could result in voter confusion and litigation.

It is the firm position of the Kansas Secretary of State that only United States citizens may vote in an election, said Clay Barker, deputy assistant secretary of state. Requiring voter identification to cast a ballot ensures the protection of voters rights and the integrity of the electoral process.

Opponents of the bill said it was late in session to be passing such significant legislation.

Aileen Berquist, a lobbyist for the American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas, said proponents were narrow sighted in their approach as the bill would not only instill fear but undermine local authority to make the best decisions for their communities. She said it would also force an unfunded mandate on municipal governments by forcing them to engage in potentially unconstitutional immigration enforcement activities.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainers are not arrest warrants, Berquist said, but instead are notifications to local law enforcement that ICE intends to assume custody of an individual.

Courts have repeatedly found that ICE detainers deny due process and do not comply with the fundamental protections required by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Berquist said. Multiple courts have held that the Fourth Amendment does not permit state or local officers who generally lack civil immigration enforcement authority to imprison people based on ICE detainers alone. But that is precisely what (the bill) demands that cities and counties do.

This story was originally published on the Kansas Reflector.

Read the original here:
Immigrants speak against Kansas bill banning sanctuary cities: 'This will have insidious effects' - KCUR

The manager of Chesters Chicken in Golden Hill Lane told the Lancashire Post that officers turned up unannounced and questioned two of his staff but took no further action.

Takeaway boss Edgars Karklins says he is not concerned about the raid or his staffs right to live and work in the UK as he believes Immigration Enforcement were just doing their job.

He said: I would like to know where the information came from. But we dont feel targeted. They [Immigration Enforcement] were just doing their job. They have to check these things.

"As far as I know, somebody reported us [to them] but were not really bothered because we dont have illegal immigrants here. A couple of shops in Leyland have also been investigated, as far as I know, so we dont feel targeted.

Edgars believes all his staffs paperwork to reside in Britain is correct, adding: They all are legally here as far as I know. They [Immigration Enforcement] came, they checked, and everything is alright. There shouldnt be a problem here.

A Home Office spokesperson said: The Government is tackling illegal immigration and the harm it causes by removing those with no right to be in the UK.

"We continue to work with law enforcement agencies to tackle illegal migration in all its forms. Our New Plan for Immigration will fix the broken system; making it fair to those in genuine need and firm on those who seek to abuse it.

See original here:
Manager of Leyland takeaway raided by Immigration Enforcement gives update on incident - Lancashire Evening Post

Austin, TX, 20 hours ago The U.S. Supreme Court scheduled oral argument for April 26 in the case that began when the states of Texas and Missouri sued the Biden administration to force the reimplementation of the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), also known as the remain in Mexico policy.

The remain in Mexico policy required many foreign individuals to stay on the Mexican side of the southern border while they waited for the outcomes of their claims for asylum.

Previously, the federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from ending the remain in Mexico policy after DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas authored a new memorandum in a second attempt to abolish the program. A ruling in August by federal Judge Matthew Kaczmaryk in Amarillo had stricken Mayorkas first memorandum ending the MPP.

The nations high court denied an appeal after Kaczmaryks decision. However, on February 18, the Supreme Court granted the administrations petition for a chance to make its case that it should be allowed to end the remain in Mexico policy, which was first instituted by former President Trump in early 2019.

The issues at hand are whether Title 8 of the U.S. Code requires the federal government to implement the MPP and whether the Fifth Circuit was correct in its decision to invalidate Mayorkas second memorandum, which he published on October 21 of last year after DHS dragged its feet for months on complying with Kaczmaryks order.

Attorneys General Ken Paxton of Texas and Eric Schmitt of Missouri alleged that Mayorkas termination of the MPP violated the Administrative Procedure Act and other federal laws.

Oral arguments will take place before the May 24 Republican runoff between Paxton and his opponent, Land Commissioner George P. Bush.

Paxton has touted his lawsuits against Biden challenging the presidents unsuccessful efforts to substantially reduce illegal immigration. Bush also sued Biden over his decision to end construction of the federal border wall project.

A copy of the Supreme Courts document detailing the questions presented in the appeal can be found below.

Continue reading here:
Lawsuit Over Trump's Remain in Mexico Policy Will Be Heard at the U.S. Supreme Court in April - The Texan