Mediaboss Marketing

Late last week, the Massachusetts Legislature passed a bill that would allow unauthorized immigrants to secure driver's licenses, the culmination of decades of advocacy by those who believe this enhances public safety. But the measure is not without opposition. Governor Baker formally opposes it and he vetoed the bill on Friday. Daniel Medwed, GBH News legal analyst and Northeastern University law professor, joined GBH Morning Edition hosts Paris Alston and Jeremy Siegel to discuss the measure and the controversy surrounding it. This transcipt has been edited for clarity and length.

Paris Alston: All right, Daniel. So you know how we do it here. Let's set the stage. What exactly would this bill do?

Daniel Medwed: So at present, non-citizens in Massachusetts who have permanent resident status or a green card are eligible for a driver's license, but not people who are here illegally. This bill would change that on July 1st, 2023, if enacted. It would allow people without legal immigration status, an estimated quarter of a million people here in the commonwealth, to apply for driver's licenses, showing two documents that verify their identity. It could be a consular ID card, a foreign birth certificate, a divorce decree, a marriage decree, things like that.

Now, proponents of this bill basically cite two major benefits, and you mentioned one of them at the top. First, public safety. It would ensure that unauthorized immigrants have licensure, that they go through driving tests, that they're licensed by the state. It would also ensure that they're eligible potentially to get insurance. For those reasons, a majority of state sheriffs, district attorneys and chiefs of major cities in Massachusetts support this bill. The second chief benefit is largely humanitarian. If someone who is undocumented gets pulled over on the side of the road for a driving infraction, it could ensnare them in the federal immigration process, lead to detention or maybe deportation. And that, of course, could lead to family separation, which is really problematic. So that's sort of an overview of this measure.

Jeremy Siegel: You mentioned some of the reasons that groups want this to become law here in Massachusetts. Do other states have any laws like this in place?

Medwed: Apparently, 16 states and the District of Columbia have similar laws. Now, the details vary considerably, I should note, but the gist is the same, that it's giving people who are not documented a chance to drive legally. So, for instance, in Utah, it's not a driver's license. You can apply for a one-year privilege [for] a driving authorization card. And the law in Utah basically specifies that that ID may not be used with government entities. In contrast, other states like New York basically treat this as the equivalent of a valid driver's license, similar to those that are available to citizens. And in New York, there's even a provision that says that the state may not share data about unauthorized immigrants with federal immigration authorities. So they run the gamut. But in 16 states and the District of Columbia, there are similar measures.

Alston: So why are folks opposed to this?

Medwed: Generally speaking, within the Republican Party, both nationally and locally, the major concern boils down to the fear of illegal voting. So, for instance, in Massachusetts, our law mandates that the Registry of Motor Vehicles automatically registers voting eligible drivers to vote. And some Republicans have expressed concern here that the RMV might inadvertently register undocumented immigrants or that undocumented immigrants might use these driver's licenses to apply to vote at the polls. For those reasons, some Republicans in our state legislature tried to include language in this bill that would require bold text on each of these driver's licenses that would say something like not eligible to vote. But those amendments, those proposals didn't pass.

Siegel: You were mentioning concerns about illegal voting here. Immediately [that] brings my mind to the unfounded claims of voter fraud that we all heard from Donald Trump and his supporters after the 2020 election. Do these concerns about voting that Republicans have raised here strike you as legitimate?

Medwed: They don't strike me as legitimate. I think they do resemble some of those claims we heard all too recently from Donald Trump and his allies. Here's why I don't think they're very legitimate. First and foremost, lawmakers in Massachusetts anticipated this concern, however remote. And there is language in this law that requires the registry of motor vehicles to, quote, ensure that unauthorized immigrants are not automatically registered to vote. What's more, our Secretary of State, William Galvin, who is basically the person who oversees election integrity in the Commonwealth, has called these claims a, quote, red herring and expressed confidence that his office is well positioned to make sure that people don't illegally register. So it seems like these are, to put it mildly, overblown concerns.

"So it seems like it's pretty much a fait accompli, this will become the law in Massachusetts."

Alston: We've mentioned that the bill passed by an overwhelming margin in both the House and the Senate. But Governor Baker nevertheless vetoed it on Friday. So what does that mean for the future of the bill, Daniel?

Medwed: Well, because of that overwhelming margin, Paris, that basically means that the law is veto-proof. In Massachusetts, if a bill passes by two-thirds in both branches of the Legislature, then the legislature may override a gubernatorial veto. The numbers here were significant. They were above the two-thirds margin. And spokespeople for the leadership in both the House and the Senate have already indicated that they intend to override Governor Baker's veto. So it seems like it's pretty much a fait accompli, this will become the law in Massachusetts.

Siegel: So why did Baker veto this, given the fact that it passed with a veto-proof majority?

Medwed: That's such a good question. And I'm not a political scientist, so I'm really not sure. But on the one hand, it could just be that he has consistently opposed this bill. It may be a matter of principle. He genuinely believes that it could lead to illegal voting. On the other hand, maybe there's a longer-term political calculation. I'm not exactly sure. It's a way to keep him, to some extent, aligned with Republican messaging on this and concerns about immigration and voter voting integrity. It was puzzling to me, too.

See the article here:
Opponents of undocumented driver's license bill point to potential for illegal voting. How legitimate are those concerns? - GBH News

The individual is suspected of facilitating illegal immigration and forgery.

The Finnish Border Guard has completed a preliminary investigation into a criminal organisation that allegedly sold accommodation, transport and false documents to illegally smuggle people via Turkey across Europe.

The investigation has led the Turku unit of the Finnish Border Guard to suspect an Iranian national of the facilitation of illegal immigration, as well as forgery.

He is believed to have played a key role in facilitating the accommodation of people arriving illegally in Athens and arranging their onward transportation, tickets, and false documents.

According to the results of the preliminary probe, the suspect lived in Greece and used several different identities between 2019 and 2021.

The investigation also found that the organisation the suspect is linked with charged approximately 10,000 euros for a trip from Turkey via Greece to other European countries.

Thousands of photos of fake and stolen documents were discovered on the suspect's mobile phone, including fake documents used to bring people to Finland.

Authorities in several different countries have collaborated with the investigation.

As the preliminary investigation has been completed, the case will transfer next to the National Prosecution Authority for prosecution.

Continue reading here:
Border Guard detains one in suspected illegal immigration ring - YLE News

WASHINGTON, D.C.- U.S. Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC), John Thune (R-SD), Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA), Jerry Moran (R-KS), and James Lankford (R-OK) introduced theReverse Entry for Migrant Offenders and Violence Expulsion(REMOVE)Act, legislation that would close a loophole that currently allowsdangerous illegal immigrants and non-citizens convicted of kidnapping or sexual assault to remain in the United States.

Those who come across our border illegally and commit violent crimes like kidnapping and sexual assault should be deported,said Senator Tillis.Current law does not clearly establish that human smuggling and kidnapping are grounds for deportation, and its time that Congress corrects this problem. I am proud to introduce this commonsense legislation with my colleagues because human smuggling, kidnapping, and assault by dangerous illegal immigrants happen every day, and this legislation is way overdue.

Over the years, portions of the federal criminal code have been ruled to be unconstitutionally vague by the Supreme Court. Criminal defendants have successfully sought relief from long sentences on the grounds that the statutory definitions of their crimes gave insufficient notice of their actions consequences. In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled in Sessions v. Dimaya that a residual or catchall provision of the criminal code (18 USC 16(b)) incorporated into the Immigration and Nationality Act was unconstitutionally vague. The result in Sessions v. Dimaya was that a noncitizen criminal defendant convicted under 16(b) could not be deported, which the REMOVE Act seeks to correct.

Read the full bill texthere.

###

Excerpt from:
Tillis Introduces Legislation to Close Loophole That Allows Criminal Illegal Immigrants to Remain in the United States - Thom Tillis

Uvalde says goodbye to teacher and her husband

Mourners gathered at a Catholic church in Uvalde, Texas, to say goodbye to slain teacher Irma Garcia and her husband, Joe, who died two days later from an apparent heart attack after visiting his wife's memorial. (June 1) (AP Video: Cody Jackson, Allen Breed)

AP

An array of sometimes conflicting information has emerged sincea mass shooting left19 elementary school students and two teachers deadand injured17 others,at aUvalde, Texas, elementary school. Officials' statements about the day of the shooting have shifted, policymakers and voters have debated gun controland high levels of emotion about the shootinghave all combined to create an environment ripe for the spread of misinfomation.

USA TODAY's fact check team has analyzed an array of false and misleading claims related to the Uvalde tragedy, including assertions about the gunman, the nature of theshootings and gun policy in the U.S.

Follow us:Like our Facebook page to get updates throughout the day on our latest debunks

Here's a rundown of our Uvalde fact checks.

Claim:An off-duty Border Patrol agent killed the Texas school shooting suspect

Our rating: False

Tens of thousands of users online shared a post claiming that off-duty CBP officer Jacob Albaradotook down the suspected gunman atRobb Elementary School. However, Albarado was not part of the tactical team that shot Salvador Ramos. Hehelped children evacuate from the building, but he never went inside the school.Read more.

Claim:ICE is conducting immigration enforcement at the scene of the Texas shooting

Our rating: False

Immigration and Customs Enforcement was at the scene to provide assistance to victims and families and did not conduct immigration enforcement-related activities on site, officials said.Read more.

Claim:Image shows Sen.Ted Cruzuses a Twitter templateformass shootings

Our rating: Altered

USA TODAY found no evidence that Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, has a Twitter template he uses in response to mass shootings.The tweets in theimage are manipulated versions of a May 24 tweet Cruz shared in response to the Uvalde shooting. The collage presentedin the claim showssupposed identical tweets, but thoseare not found on any of Cruz's Twitter accounts. Read more.

Claim:Texas shootingsuspect Salvador Ramos was transgender

Our rating: False

The viral postat the heart of this claim misidentifies an image ofa transgender woman as Salvador Ramos, the Uvalde, Texas, shooting suspect.A mugshot includedin the post does show Ramos, however. We also found no evidence Ramos was transgender.Read more.

Claim:Texas elementary school shooting suspect, Salvador Ramos, was an 'illegal alien'

Our rating: False

The Texas governor and a state senator confirmed the shooting suspect was a U.S. citizen, born in North Dakota. Read more.

Claim:The US has had 288 school shootings while other countries had two or less

Our rating: Missing context

The United States has a significantly higher number of school shootings than other countries, but a claim uses outdated statistics to make the point.The data cited in the post tallies only shootings from 2009 to 2018. One database of shootings before and after thattime framepushes the tally past 2,000 school shootings in the U.S.Read more.

Claim:The NRA bannedguns at its annual conference

Our rating: Partly false

Tens of thousands of peoplesharedclaims that the National Rifle Associationhad banned guns at a conference held the weekend after the Uvalde shooting, but this wasn't the case. The NRA authorizes visitors to the conference to legally carry firearms and did not order any bans or limitations on itspolicy. Rather, the Secret Service enforced its own ban on guns at an event where former President Donald Trump spoke. Read more.

Thank you for supporting our journalism.You cansubscribe to our print edition, ad-free app or electronic newspaper replica here.

Our fact-check work is supported in part by a grant from Facebook.

Continue reading here:
Fact check roundup: What's true and what's false about the mass school shooting in Uvalde, Texas - USA TODAY

The scandal over the negative treatment of the Windrush Generation, Commonwealth citizens who arrived in the U.K. decades ago, first erupted in 2018, forcing then Foreign Secretary Amber Rudd to resign

The scandal over the negative treatment of the Windrush Generation, Commonwealth citizens who arrived in the U.K. decades ago, first erupted in 2018, forcing then Foreign Secretary Amber Rudd to resign

The story so far: A recently-leaked report of the United Kingdom Home Office revealed that the almost three decades of legislation partly aimed at reducing the non-white population in the country eventually caused the Windrush immigration scandal that broke out in 2018, T he Guardian reported on Monday, May 30.

The publication of the report commissioned by the Home Office was reportedly suppressed last year. According to the British daily, the 52-page analysis stated that the deep-rooted racism of the Windrush scandal could be attributed to immigration legislation from 1950 to 1981 designed in part to lessen the number of people with black or brown skin who were permitted to live and work in the UK.

The Windrush generation is a generation of people who were invited to Britain from Caribbean nations between 1948 and 1971 to help plug the labour shortage and rebuild the country after the destruction of World War Two. They were allowed to lawfully live and work in Britain as part of the extended Colonial empire.

The name Windrush comes from a ship called the Windrush Empire on which the first group of nearly 500 Commonwealth citizens arrived in the UK in June 1948, from countries such as Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, and Barbados.

Some of them arrived without passports or as eight or nine-year-old children on the strength of their parents passports, as they had been invited by the British Empire, which had colonised their countries.

The University of Oxford estimates that over 5,00,000 British residents born in a Commonwealth nation arrived in the UK before 1971.

Immigration from the Caribbean to the U.K. largely stopped in 1971, when the Immigration Act was passed. It granted Commonwealth citizens already in the country indefinite leave to remain, but any foreign-born British passport holder post the passage of the Act would have to possess a work permit or proof that a previous generation was born in the country to continue to stay in the U.K.

The Windrush scandal surfaced in early 2018 when The Guardian began covering the stories of individuals belonging to the Windrush generation, who were wrongly being labelled illegal immigrants.

The issue snowballed, revealing that hundreds of naturalised British citizens who had come from Commonwealth countries years ago were now stuck in tangles with British immigration authorities. Despite spending over five to six decades in the U.K., they were being asked to provide proof of settlement and evidence of their lives in Britain, which they had never before been required to keep.

In some cases, several such citizens were detained by immigration officials, faced the risk of deportation, or were denied their rights to employment, residence, and healthcare by the National Health Service (NHS).

A prominent case that emerged in late 2017 was that of Paulette Wilson, a woman in her sixties who had come to Britain as a child in the 1960s. As per the law, she had indefinite leave to remain in the U.K., and she had also worked as a cook in the House of Commons for years. Despite this, the Home Office served her a letter when she was in her 50s, declaring her an illegal immigrant.

After spending years caught in bureaucratic tangles, she spent a week in a detention centre before being taken to the Heathrow airport, the usual point of departure for detainees sent back to their countries of origin. Her deportation was halted after the courts stepped in.

However, many who struggled like Ms. Wilson were eventually wrongly deported; the Home Office revealed in 2018 that nearly 63 immigrants from the Caribbean might have been wrongly deported.

The Windrush generation scandal broke right when leaders of Commonwealth countries were set to arrive in the U.K. for a summit with the then-Prime Minister Theresa May. Leaders of Caribbean nations took strong exception to the Windrush revelations. Prime Minister of Jamaica Andrew Holness pointed out that the Windrush generation, who had enriched Britain and British society for years, were now unable to claim their place as citizens.

Following this, Prime Minister May apologised to the Commonwealth leaders for any anxiety that had been caused to those belonging to the Windrush generation.

As Home Secretary in 2012, Theresa May outlined a strategy to weed out illegal immigrants. The aim is to create, here in Britain, a really hostile environment for illegal migration, she said to the press. This was believed to have led to the crackdown on Commonwealth citizens by U.K immigration authorities.

Immigration legislation in the U.K. post-2012 was largely built around what came to be known as the hostile environment policy. The 2014 and 2016 Immigration Acts essentially empowered officials and even private banks, employers, landlords, and service providers to determine whether their client or employee was an illegal immigrant and consequently deny them services. It gave immigration officials the power to identify illegal immigrants living in the country, simplify their removal process, and limit their right to appeal.

As a partial result of the policy, authorities also began to ask many Windrush generation citizens to provide evidentiary documentation of their life in Britain.

In 2018, it was also revealed that thousands of landing slips recording the dates of arrival of Windrush immigrants were destroyed when a department of the Home Office moved to another building in 2010, despite warnings from employees.

After the scandal broke out, the government in April 2018 announced an inquiry into the Windrush controversy and a scheme to give British citizenship and compensation to those belonging to the generation.

However, amid growing criticism from the Opposition, civil society, and Windrush campaigners, the then-Home Secretary Amber Rudd resigned in late April. She admitted that many Windrush citizens has been mistreated by the Home office and said that their treatment appalled her. She was replaced by former Home Secretary Sajid Javed.

In 2020, a government inquiry report revealed that the Home Office showed institutional ignorance and thoughtlessness towards the issue of race, and that the departments outlook toward the Windrush generation had been consistent with some elements of the definition of institutional racism.

Following the report, Home Secretary Preeti Patel vowed that the Home Office would transform its culture and become a more compassionate department.

In 2021, it was revealed by the Home Office that 21 people had died since the launch of the compensation scheme, still waiting for their compensations to be remitted. The Home Affairs Committee found the same year that only 5 per cent of those targeted in the Windrush scandal had received their compensation.

In March this year, a report by an independent inspector stated that the Home Office had failed to make tangible progress in transforming its culture and implementing the recommendations of the 2020 report.

Last month, Britains immigration policy had come under the scanner for a new plan to send asylum seekers unofficially arriving in the U.K. to Rwanda. The plan was heavily criticized by refugee organisations and the Opposition.

Read more here:
Explained | The U.K.s Windrush immigration scandal and the new revelations about it - The Hindu