Mediaboss Marketing

* * *

On Wednesday, August 5, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an opinion in Casa de Maryland v. Trump, reversing a nationwide preliminary injunction, issued on November 14 by a Maryland district court judge blocking the so-called "public charge rule", which was promulgated by DHS last August. The Fourth Circuit's well-reasoned opinion is a roadmap out of the legal gridlock created by opponents of the president's immigration initiatives. In the long run, many may not like the route, but (if the Supreme Court follows suit) it is best for the Republic, and the principle of separation of powers.

As I noted in a May 2018 post, "public charge" is one of the oldest grounds of inadmissibility in federal law (dating from 1882), reflecting the fact that: "The United States has always been a country both of opportunity and of immigrants, but there is an expectation that foreign nationals who come to this country 'pull their own weight.'" While Congress has amended that ground on numerous occasions, it has largely left it to the executive branch to define "public charge", the key point in the Fourth Circuit's opinion.

Currently, subparagraph 212(a)(4)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) renders inadmissible "[a]ny alien who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa, or in the opinion of the Attorney General ["AG" or the Secretary of DHS] at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge."

In subparagraph (B) of that section, Congress provided consular officers, the AG, and DHS with a non-exhaustive list of factors for determining whether an alien is likely to become a public charge: the alien's age; health; family status; assets, resources, and financial status; and education and skills. Aside from that, again, Congress left it up to the executive branch to flesh out the parameters of who is a "public charge".

Those subparagraphs were included in an amendment of section 212(a)(4) of the INA by Congress in section 531 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). Section 531 did not make many substantive changes to subparagraph (A), but the list of factors in subpargraph (B) was new. As the conference report for that bill explained with respect to this amendment: "Self-reliance is one of the most fundamental principles of immigration law."

In 1999, the Clinton administration's INS issued new field guidance interpreting IIRIRA's public charge amendments, as well as section 212(a)(4)'s deportation counterpart, section 237(a)(5) of the INA (which is even more terse and was not amended by IIRIRA). Contrary to Congress's clear direction to apply the public-charge ground of inadmissibility more broadly, that field guidance instead applied it extremely narrowly.

Pursuant to that guidance, an alien would only be considered a "public charge" if the alien "is likely to become ... 'primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either (i) the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or (ii) institutionalization for long-term care at government expense.'" Keep that "primarily dependent" language in mind.

I describe this as a narrow interpretation because there are plenty of other programs that an alien could access other than "cash assistance" such as food stamps, Medicaid, or housing vouchers and not be considered a "public charge" under the 1999 INS field guidance. It is difficult to understand how an alien seeking a green card could be on Medicaid and food stamps and still be considered "self-reliant", but that was the Clinton administration's policy choice.

To address this inconsistency, on October 10, 2018, DHS issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in which it proposed to amend the regulations governing inadmissibility on public-charge grounds "to better ensure that aliens subject to the public charge inadmissibility ground are self-sufficient, i.e., do not depend on public resources to meet their needs, but rather rely on their own capabilities, as well as the resources of family members, sponsors, and private organizations."

Specifically, the NPRM proposed amending the regulations to define the term "public charge", "and to identify the types, amount, and duration of receipt of public benefits that would be considered in public charge inadmissibility determinations." The proposed amendments were exceptionally specific, and included within the definition of "public charge" aliens who received certain non-cash benefits a departure from the 1999 INS field guidance.

DHS sought comments on the amendments in the NPRM, and it got them: 266,077 in the 60-day comment period according to the final rule. That rule was published on August 14, 2019, and addressed those thousands of comments in excruciating detail. And, notably, certain changes to the proposed regulations were made in response.

Under the regulations as amended by the final rule, a "public charge" is an alien who receives one or more defined public benefits for more than 12 months in the aggregate in a 36-month period (receipt of two benefits in the same month would be counted as two months). That list includes both cash benefits and non-cash benefits, including food stamps, housing vouchers, and (with limitations) Medicaid. It also includes exceptions for aliens in the armed forces andtheir spouses and children.

The promulgation of those regulations resulted in a flood of subsequent litigation to block enforcement of the new public-charge rule. The Ninth Circuit stayed two of those injunctions issued by district courts in its jurisdiction in December, finding that DHS had "shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits, that it will suffer irreparable harm, and that the balance of the equities and public interest favor a stay."

Two other circuits in which injunctions of the public charge rule had been issued the Second and Seventh Circuits declined to follow suit, allowing preliminary injunctions of the rule to stand. In January, the Supreme Court stayed the preliminary injunction issued within the Second Circuit and on February 21, it stayed a preliminary injunction issued within the Seventh Circuit, in separate orders.

Which brings me back to the Fourth Circuit. Its well-written, researched, and reasoned opinion is 71 pages long (with a 42-page dissent), so even an overbroad summary would run pages, but here goes.

CASA (a non-profit offering "a wide variety of social, health, job training, employment, and legal services to the immigrant communities in Maryland" and neighboring jurisdictions), and two members of the organization who are DACA members planning to seek adjustment of status in the future, filed suit against the new public charge rule in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, and requested an injunction of that rule pending a decision.

Those plaintiffs claimed that the public-charge rule violated the Administrative ProcedureAct (APA) , and the Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection clauses. The APA claim alleged that the rule was arbitrary and capricious and "not in accordance with the law", as (they claimed) the "unambiguous" meaning of "public charge" in this context "means primarily dependent on the government for subsistence". For that reason, they asserted, DHS lacked authority under the INA to reinterpret the public charge ground "in a way that is contrary to that definition".

The district court held that the plaintiffs had standing to bring this case, and that the public-charge rule violated the APA as alleged because it was "not in accordance with law". It did not rule on the plaintiffs' constitutional challenges.

DOJ appealed that decision, and, as noted, the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's injunction. It found that the lower court had erred in finding CASA had standing, in concluding that the final rule failed to comply with the APA, and in granting nationwide injunctive relief. That decision makes important points about the role of the judiciary in reviewing immigration policy, and called into question the propriety and the very legality of nationwide injunctions in our judicial system.

Most importantly, however, it stated some plain facts that reflect concerns many (not on the bench) have expressed concerning how judicial activism has stymied the Trump administration's immigration initiatives.

The Fourth Circuit first concluded that CASA lacked standing under both Fourth Circuit and Supreme Court precedent.

The district court had held that the organization had standing because the rule forced it to reallocate resources and shift from its "affirmative advocacy posture" to a "defensive one", in which it advised its members on the impact of the rule.

The circuit court disagreed, finding that the rule "forced CASA to do absolutely nothing as a matter of law". It also concluded the group lacked standing as an organization because "[o]rganizational injury, properly understood, is measured against a group's ability to operate as an organization, not its theoretical ability to effectuate its objectives in its ideal world." Put simply, CASA's disagreements with DHS's policy and the group's expenditure of resources to combat it failed to give it such standing.

The circuit concluded that the two DACA recipients did have standing (they were "forgoing specific financial resources (such as applying for student loans) ... out of concern that doing so would render them 'public charges'" in the future), but nonetheless concluded that preliminary injunctive relief was improper.

Turning to the two remaining plaintiffs' APA challenges, the circuit crucially held that the term "public charge" was not fixed and static as the district court had held (the "primarily dependent on the government for subsistence" definition above), but rather was "broad and elusive enough to accommodate multiple views and meanings" including that set forth in the latest public-charge rule "as indeed it has since it first appeared in immigration law" (both statutory and adjudicatory, which the circuit examined in detail).

Specifically, it found that Congress in IIRIRA had "made a conscious choice" to keep the phrase "'public charge' undefined", thereby giving the executive branch broad discretion in implementing the term, consistent with the ever-changing "national interest".

All of this would simply be interesting analysis of administrative law principles (if that is possible). What makes it exceptional is the following holding, recognizing courts' limitations in immigration cases:

All told, the text, purpose, and structure of the INA make clear that the DHS Rule is premised on a permissible construction of the term "public charge." To hold otherwise is a serious error in statutory interpretation. More fundamentally, though, it is also a broadside against separation of powers and the role of Article III courts.

The circuit court provided strong support for this holding, citing precedent establishing that when it comes to interpreting the provisions of the INA, the executive branch is operating at the height of its authority, and that the role of reviewing courts is accordingly limited.

In that vein, showing a modesty that has been sorely lacking in many (many) recent court decisions reviewing the current administration's immigration initiatives, and admitting the limitations of reviewing courts, the Fourth Circuit stated:

Immigration policy concerns not only the physical security of the country, but also the character and identity of the nation. Federal judges, drawn from one profession and lacking even a patina of democratic sanction, are ill-suited to supervise these issues and the difficult balances that inhere in them. Accordingly, we should be reluctant to disturb the authority expressly delegated to executive officials by Congress in this field.

Similarly, the court concluded:

At bottom, [the Seventh C]ircuit's and dissenting colleague's claim of statutory unreasonableness is really a claim of policy unreasonableness, designed to position the courts as singular arbiters in a field for which their expertise is limited and their democratic imprimatur is non-existent.

In combination, these drawbacks confirm every fear that the judiciary is on its way to projecting a major voice in a field of law that has long been reserved to the politically accountable branches the Founders established in Articles I and II. [Emphasis added.]

Ask yourself, how many times have you heard those in favor of immigration enforcement let alone reduction make the argument that courts are out of their league and pushing their own agendas in enjoining Trump-administration immigration programs? Then ask yourself how many courts have the temerity to recognize that judicial overreach in such blunt terms? I cannot think of any, at all. Until now.

Further, in the course of assailing the "speculation" inherent in the dissent and in the Seventh Circuit's decision (which, as noted, the Supreme Court has stayed), the Fourth Circuit rejected out of hand its sister circuit's "suggest[ion] without a shred of evidence that the executive will apply the" enumerated statutory factors in subparagraph 212(a)(4)(B) of the INA "on the basis of racial or ethnic stereotypes." (Emphasis added.)

If there were such discrimination in immigration enforcement, I have no doubt that the Fourth Circuit would respond, in the harshest terms (as it suggests it will). Preemptively doing so on the basis of rank speculation is, however, improper, as the court recognizes.

And then, the opinion gets even more interesting. The circuit found that the district court erred in issuing a nationwide injunction "a drastic remedy", which it described in an understated manner as "overbroad".

Recognizing that federal courts "exercise 'the judicial power of the United States'", and that this power is circumscribed by both the Constitution and Congress (particularly the INA, which limits judicial review of removal decisions), the circuit court found that such injunctions pursuant to which "a single district court judge completely blocks the enforcement of a federal policy against everyone" contravenes the bounds on that authority in three ways.

First (and noting their novelty) nationwide injunctions "seriously contravene[] traditional notions of the judicial role", and in particular the role of federal courts to resolve cases and controversies involving specific parties. As the court (again, bluntly) explains: "Indeed, by issuing such an injunction, a single district court, whose decisions are non-precedential in its own circuit, does not simply resolve a given lawsuit, but rather decides a general question for the entire nation." (Emphasis added.)

Second, injunctions are equitable (as opposed to legal) relief, and nationwide injunctions "run afoul of the prescribed scope of" federal courts' equitable power. In essence, the court explains, federal courts' equitable power is understood to exist as it did in the English Court of Chancery at the time of our nation's independence.

As a primary point (and needless to say, but the circuit says it anyway): "In eighteenth-century English equity 'there were no injunctions against the Crown,' or anything like a nationwide injunction." Rather, the chancellor (the adjudicator in a court of chancery) would grant injunctions to protect the parties in a case, or "a 'small and cohesive' group of persons who shared a common interest"; injunctive relief that protected "scores of non-parties" not only was "not contemplated", but instead was "resolutely avoided".

Given the fact that these limitations on equitable power have been incorporated by the Constitution and in federal statute, "[i]t is unsurprising" nationwide injunctions were not issued until recently by federal courts. The Fourth Circuit concludes:

The recent proliferation of nationwide injunctions plainly cannot be squared with these longstanding precepts, which are meant to cabin our discretion and limit application of the judicial power to actual legal disputes rather than overarching policy questions. And their widespread use also cannot be squared with the constitutional and statutory limitations on our equitable authority.

Third, the court finds, nationwide injunctions rub up against other doctrines related to "judicial power", including standing (which is "not a clown car into which all interested parties may pile, provided the driver-cum-plaintiff has met its requirements"), "the well-recognized bar against litigants raising the rights of others", and the conjoined but mirror-opposite concepts of "ripeness" and "mootness" ("Once again, nationwide injunctions allow non-parties to slip the bonds of these requirements, as a single plaintiff who obtains nationwide relief has done so on behalf of innumerable non-parties whose claims may very well have been premature or long stale.").

Plus, the court noted, there is already a legislatively created remedy for a class of individuals to seek relief: class actions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, which "have a clear analogue in traditional equity practice." The Fourth Circuit finds (with its characteristic bluntness):

Only those who can satisfy the rigorous requirements Congress imposed for class certification are eligible to avail themselves of Rule 23 injunctions. But nationwide injunctions allow plaintiffs to obtain the benefits of class-wide relief without ever satisfying these criteria. ... This makes no sense.

All of that said, the court held, even assuming courts can issue nationwide injunctions, they should only be issued in "the most exceptional of circumstances" as they are "beginning to take a toll on the federal court system"; prevent the crucial percolation of legal issues in the lower court system; "promote sprints to the courthouse and rushed judicial decisionmaking" on tight deadlines and with the weakest of records; and "wreak havoc on the executive's agenda" by "blocking the implementation of a federal policy", thereby "incentiviz[ing] immediate, emergency stay requests" often ultimately to the Supreme Court.

Turning to more practical considerations, and with stunning frankness, the circuit court, again, admits:

Perhaps most importantly, the growth of the nationwide injunction ... risks the perception of the federal courts as an apolitical branch. The availability of this sweeping remedy has enabled litigants to challenge nearly every major executive branch policy in federal court. In effect, nationwide injunctions have 'turn[ed] every individual plaintiff into a roving private attorney general,' ... which has, in turn, left the executive beholden to the whim of any single district judge, freed even from the constraints of collegial deliberation.

Unsurprisingly, given the enormous stakes associated with such lawsuits, plaintiffs seeking to block executive action via nationwide injunction are incentivized to forum shop with abandon. ... This patently political manipulation of the judiciary undermines the public's confidence in the federal courts and casts judges as advocates for their favored policy outcomes. [Emphasis added.]

Again, how many times have you heard people complain about "results-oriented" decisions out of the courts, in which "Republican" judges or "Democratic" judges issue decisions that suit their own whims and advance their own (unexpressed) agendas? Respectfully, there is a reason so many immigration litigants seek relief in the District of Maryland and the Northern District of California.

And, without saying so expressly, the Fourth Circuit admits as much, attempting to soften its criticisms by describing the District of Maryland as "a court that on its own terms and in its own right has earned the greatest respect".

The majority also notes that this system has created a scheme in which the government has to win every case brought against its policies, whereas "prospective plaintiffs need only find a single sympathetic audience of one in order to secure complete victory."

This result is akin (in concept, not effect) to the sentiments of the Irish Republican Army when it failed to kill then-British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in October 1984: "Today we were unlucky. ... But remember, we have only to be lucky once you will always have to be lucky." The same is true of the Trump administration in district courts, and the Fourth Circuit recognizes that.

The circuit court, describing this as "nothing more than 'government by injunction'", predicts (aptly): "Among the greatest victims of this unfortunate practice will be the courts themselves." They already are only this court has the self-awareness to admit it.

The Fourth Circuit saves the best for last, noting that CASA de Maryland ultimately "is not about the propriety of any policy, but rather about the power of the federal courts." It explains:

Immigration is a complex and controversial topic that arouses intense emotions on the part of many. On the one hand, immigration is indispensable to cultural diversity and national renewal, an economic engine that can serve to rejuvenate an aging workforce and to fulfill critical societal needs. On the other hand, it can in unrestricted numbers overwhelm the nation's capacity for assimilation and, if unlawful, undermine an indispensable sense of national sovereignty and a commitment to the rule of law. Where to strike the balance between these two valid and competing perspectives is no easy task but a task that the Constitution principally assigns to the political branches.

This decision likely reflects some significant changes in the Fourth Circuit itself.

Keep in mind, this is the same court that issued International Refugee Assistance Project [IRAP] v. Trump (which I analyzed in a May 2017 post), likely one of the most self-serving, results-oriented decisions I have ever read and a preliminary injunction case, itself.

That said, IRAP was an en banc decision (by the whole court), rather than a three-judge panel decision like Casa de Maryland. But, since IRAP, President Trump has subsequently appointed three judges to that 15-judge court.

While none of those new judges were on the opinion in Casa de Maryland (a Reagan and a George H.W. Bush appointee on the decision, with a Clinton appointee in the dissent), the court now has eight Republican-appointed judges, and seven Democratic-appointed judges (six by President Obama, alone).

Actually, to be fair, the judicial makeup of the Fourth Circuit is more balanced: seven, seven, and one split Chief Judge Roger L. Gregory, given a recess appointment by President Clinton, was subsequently nominated by President George W. Bush (harkening back to a bygone era). Any circuit panel's decision risks en banc review, but the addition of new judges with new perspectives likely embolden the more senior members to simply state the truth which the court did and expect it to be upheld.

I earnestly hope that by restoring balance to the Fourth Circuit, the president has restored a sense of logic and modesty to it as well. We could soon find out, as the plaintiffs may well request en banc review. In the interim, however, the majority on the panel has provided a roadmap and a legal framework for the Supreme Court to follow in limiting the abuse of nationwide injunctions.

All that said, however, those who are cheering for such limitations may come to miss the status quo. Imagine that a future president issues immigration policies you don't like (the current one may likely have already done so). Forum-shopping for a pliable district-court judge to block that president's more extreme actions may not be an option for long not if this court has its way.

For the good of the Republic, and the doctrine of separation of powers, let's hope so. Come what may.

Original post:
Fourth Circuit Shows the Way Forward on Nationwide Injunctions in 'Public Charge' Case - Immigration Blog

To be Latino during an election season can feel like landing on a movie set of a suspenseful, high-stakes drama. Its a story of contradictions. You are a star of the show Latinos are projected to become the largest, nonwhite racial or ethnic electorate in 2020 but it is usually set to a predictable, one-note soundtrack: immigration, immigration, immigration. An audience of pundits dissects the Latino vote, while advocates recite well-rehearsed lines: Latinos are not a monolith. Ignoring the Latino vote will cost candidates at the polls.

And perhaps the only reason the Latino vote narrative captivates political writers, pundits and especially candidates isbecause they want to know: How does the story end?

Related:Getting out the vote for the 2020 election: Lessons from Bernie Sanders' Latino outreach

Sure, action sequences turn on whether Democrats can rally Latinos or whether an incumbent president, whose political emblem is a border wall, has alienated Latinos who vote for Republicans. But its a story that comes down to the question: Will they show up on Election Day?

The answer depends, in part, on whether our stars feel like heroines on camera or specimens under a microscope, and whether they feel they are part of the US electorate or outsiders: them, the other.

It matters a great deal, especially for those who are not politicized who have not developed an interest to engage or desire to engage with politics.

It matters a great deal, especially for those who are not politicized who have not developed an interest to engage or desire to engage with politics, said Angela X. Ocampo, author of the forthcoming book, Politics of Inclusion: A Sense of Belonging and Latino Political Participation.

Before our stars became Latino voters, say researchers and voting rights advocates, daily experiences informed their enthusiasm for casting a ballot. To reach the ballot box, Latinos often must first traverse a battlefield of messages from the political left and right that casts Latinos as the perennial outsider. They will have shielded themselves from media coverage often portrays Latinos as rootless newcomers and asks that all-too-familiar question: Where are you from? Which presumes that the answer is: Not here. They will have faced a barrage of rejecting encounters, with nearly 38% of Latinos reported to the Pew Research Center in 2018 that they had been told to go back, chastised for speaking Spanish, or been on the receiving end of offensive slurs in the previous year. They will have pushed through the psychological impact of violent events, such as the 2019 mass shooting in El Paso, which was provoked by racist backlash against Latinos as a growing political force in Texas.

Related:The pandemic upended this Latino teen's senior year. Now it's upended his politics.

After that terrible event, we were left at the mercy of a fear created for us, writes Ilia Caldern, a national news anchor for Univision, in her new memoir, My Time to Speak: Reclaiming Ancestry and Confronting Race. The fear extended far beyond El Paso or Texas, beyond Mexicans and Mexican Americans, reaching Caldern, an Afro Latina thousands of miles away in Miami and but to Latinos across the country.

We already had to deal with how the color of our skin makes some look at us a certain way when we walk into a store, what it means to be a woman walking around certain areas at certain times, but now we have to add our papers, last names, or nationality to the mix, Caldern said.

From these experiences, many Latinos in the U.S. learn that their standing in the U.S. social fabric is limited and below that of others, writes researcher Ocampo, adding that it holds true for people whose roots run generations deep, or who arrived decades ago and raised their children.

A sense of belonging meaning, how society perceives you along with feeling respected and valued can be powerful forces to mobilize or discourage voting. In his eulogy for the late civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis on July 30, former President Barack Obama said a central strategy to voter suppression is to convince people to stop believing in your own power.

Though Latinos possess a strong American identity, researchers have found Latinos register a lower sense of belonging than whites but slightly higher than Blacks. And given the nations racist hierarchy, Latinos, who can be of any race, with darker skin have a more tenuous sense of belonging than lighter-skinned Latinos. In 2018, the Pew Research Center found that following the election of Donald Trump, 49% of Latinos had serious concerns about the security of their place in the US. The implications can be significant. Ocampo found that a strong belief in belonging to US society can change the probability of voting by up to 10%, translating into tens of thousands of votes.

Demographics, though, seem to have little effect. Even in a state like Texas, where Latinos will soon become the largest demographic, they are underrepresented in nearly all areas of leadership. A forthcoming, statewide study by the Texas Organizing Project about Latinos relationship with the electoral system turned up a solid strain of unbelonging, particularly among working-class Latinos in urban areas.

We are an other. We still feel it, said Crystal Zermeno, director of electoral strategy for the Texas Organizing Project.

That perception becomes a challenge when trying to convince eligible voters that the ballot box belongs to them.

A lot of times working-class Latinos, they feel like voting is for other people. Its not where they belong.

A lot of times working-class Latinos, they feel like voting is for other people. Its not where they belong.

Political campaigns may run on promises of better access to health care, tighter border security and help with college tuition. But to get the message across, candidates and parties need to make an authentic connection.

I needed to make an emotional connection with an old, angry, white, Jewish man from Vermont [Sanders] with a demographic with an average age of 27, to say, I understand your plight, said Chuck Rocha, a senior adviser during Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign effort to turn out Latino voters and recently released the book, To Bernie: The Inside Story of How Bernie Sanders Brought Latinos into the Political Revolution.

Sanders immigrant roots may have opened a door. But the connection comes from communicating, You are part of our community and were part of your community, Rocha said.

Related:Trump, Biden boost efforts to reach Texas Latino voters

Belonging, or at least the semblance of it, is a tool that Republicans use including President Trump. With Trumps build that wall chant; fixation on border security, and derogatory references to asylum-seekers and other migrants, Trump has drawn clear and powerful boundaries on belonging. Contained within his rhetoric, rallies and campaign videos is a choreography for performing American identity, patriotism and citizenship.

Who do you like more, the country or the Hispanics? Trump asked Steve Cortes, a supporter and Hispanic Advisory Council member, during a 2019 rally in Rio Rancho, New Mexico. During his 2020 State of the Union Address, Trump momentarily paused his typical vilification of asylum-seekers and other migrants to recognize one Latino: Raul Ortiz, the newly appointed deputy chief of the US Border Patrol a servant of surveillance.

Hes putting forth a clear version of what it means to belong and not to belong and who is a threat and not a threat, said Geraldo Cadava, author of The Hispanic Republicans: The shaping of An American Political Identity from Nixon to Trump.

In the long term, Cadava says, Trumps strategy is untenable because of the demographic direction of the nation. But in the immediate term, it is meant to rally his base and solidify support among voters in key states. Inviting Robert Unanue, CEO of Goya Foods, a major food brand favored by Latinos, to the White House in July, provoked backlash when the CEO praised the president. Still, for Latino Republican voters, it suggested that the White House is open to them.

This, combined with a weeklong, Hispanic outreach campaign that centered on promises to play up Latino business opportunities, in the eyes of Trumps supporters, Cadava said, he looks like a perfectly electable candidate. Its an image tailored for an existing base, which stands in contrast to the scene of Trump tossing rolls of paper towels to survivors of Hurricane Maria.

Overtures of belonging can also be seen in a move by Sen. John Cornyn, a Republican of Texas, who is up for reelection, to co-sponsor legislation to fund a National Museum of the American Latino. But advocates warn such messages ring hollow when matched with policies. Cornyn, a Trump supporter and lieutenant to Sen. Mitch McConnell, has aggressively backed repealing the Affordable Care Act even though his state has the highest uninsured rate in the nation 60% of the uninsured are Latino. With news coverage of Latinos generally centered on border and immigration issues, and 30% of Latinos reported being contacted by a candidate or party, according to a poll by Latino Decisions, the lasting image is likely a photograph of a museum. This may explain why Cornyn is 10 points behind his Democratic challenger. To this, some say Democrats have failed to summon a vision of the nation that includes Latinos.

We [Latinos] are part of the America, the problem is we havent made them part of the public policy and politics of our country because we dont spend the time to reach out and make the connection to that community.

We [Latinos] are part of the America, the problem is we havent made them part of the public policy and politics of our country because we dont spend the time to reach out and make the connection to that community, said Rocha, who led a campaign by Sanders that scored record turnout among Latinos.

Related:This young Afro Latino teacher and voter wants to be a model for his students

Missing in American politicsfor Latinos is a showman, somebody who stands up and who isnt afraid of consequences to stand for our community the way [Trump]stands for racist rednecks. We havent seen that.

Left is a roadmap of patriotism, of citizenship that positions Latinos in a neverending border checkpoint, not located in South Texas or Arizona, but built around the notion of an American.

There are these tests being administered to see where these people are going to fit in the greater scheme of things if we have to deal with them, said Antonio Arellano, acting executive director of Jolt Institute, a voter mobilization organization in Texas. Patriotism can be displayed in many different ways, this administration has tainted nationalism by dipping it into the red cold racist filled paint that has been emblematic of Americas darkest moment in history.

In a scathing opinion piece for The New York Times, Alejandra Gomez and Toms Robles Jr., co-founders of Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA) accused political leaders of deserting Latino Arizonans, leaving them as scapegoats to a right-wing political agenda that was built on excluding and attacking immigrants and Latinos.

The thing is, people want community. They want to belong to something that helps them make sense of the political world, they wrote. But they dont trust politics or Democrats because both have failed them.

While unbelonging may drive some people from the polls, it can also be a mobilizing force.

Following the 1990s anti-Latino and anti-immigrant campaign in California, that resulted in policies, such as denying education and housing to undocumented imigrants political groups harnessed the outrage and pain among Latinos in that state. In the 2000s, facing deportation, the young Latinos known as the Dreamers transformed their noncitizen status into a political asset and became a reckoning force across the nation. Millennials, in particular, reported to Ocampotheir outsider status was a catalyzing force for political participation.

LUCHA and other advocacy groups have provided something candidates and parties have not: belonging. We are reminding them and they are true leaders in our community, creating spaces to be themselves authentically in the world, Gomez told me.

These advocacy groups have become a political force in Arizona, backing progressive candidates and galvanizing Latinos, not by stoking party loyalty but as independent power organizations, Gomez told me. In a state where Latinos are nearly a quarter of eligible voters, LUCHA and other groups helped roll back anti-immigrant laws and elected community leaders and Democrat Kyrsten Sinema to the US Senate by promoting a platform created not by a party, but by their community.

In late summer, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Joe Biden, made belonging a central feature in The Biden Agenda for the Latino Community.

President Trumps assault on Latino dignity started on the very first day of his campaign. Trumps strategy is to sow division to cast out Latinos as being less than fully American.

President Trumps assault on Latino dignity started on the very first day of his campaign. Trumps strategy is to sow division to cast out Latinos as being less than fully American, it says.

Bidens agenda includes a host of policy offerings including a public option for health care, immigration reform and addressing climate change. It remains to be seen if thats enough, if the strategy will amount to policies wrapped up in an anti-Trump message. And this brings to mind a critical point that Rocha made about appealing to Latino voters: Latinos changed Sanders himself, by courting them he gained a more complete portrait of the nation. Belonging, after all, is reciprocal.

Come Election Day, whether someone coming off a double shift or mourning family members who died in a pandemic, or a student facing down a deadline for a paper will take a few hours Latinos stand in lines that are twice as long as whites a ballot cast will be the end result of a long journey, an epic drama that began long before a campaign season.

Continued here:
As Election Day nears, it's not just about winning the 'Latino vote.' It's about making a real connection. - The World

In my lifetime, I dont recall vice presidential picks being such a big deal since the Nixon administration. Thats reaching back a bit.

For those of you too young to remember, Spiro Agnew was Nixons vice president and resigned, just as Nixon was looking down the barrel of the Watergate scandal.

Nixon then tapped Gerald Ford who went on to be an unelected President and arguably the most bitter, resentful man in United States history. He was not re-elected, but had logged enough assassination attempts during his short term to retain substantial Secret Service protection for the rest of his life at taxpayer expense.

Flash forward to current events. Lets face it. On one side we have a loose cannon who keeps putting his foot in his mouth. I am not a fan of Donald Trump personally. I like most of his policies, but his divisiveness has kept him from getting things done. We have no immigration reform. We have no healthcare reform. Im not tired of winning.

The alternative is a guy who has been in government for half a century, yet he wants to tell us whats wrong and that hes the guy to fix it. His own team is having conversations about when to take Dads car keys away. The choices arent great.

By the time you see this in print, circumstances may well have changed, but as of this writing, Mr. Biden has not named a running mate. My bet has always been on Kamala Harris, because she is mathematically the best political choice. Hes old, white, male and from the east coast. Shes young, black, female and from the west coast.

Thats a winning combination. It doesnt hurt that she took a chunk out of his rear at one of the primary debates either. That was a good strategic decision on her part.

Susan Rice has also been named as a contender. Shes all about the pedigree. Stanford, Oxford, Rhoades Scholar, PhD. in philosophy, National Security Advisor and Assistant Secretary of State, shes got the resume to beat the rest. The Albatross around her neck is the role she played in the Benghazi attack that killed US Ambassador Christopher Stevens. As qualified as she is, if she runs, expect to hear about it.

Elizabeth Warren, AKA Pocahontas, I actually like. I dont agree with her on much of any current policy at all, but there was a time that she went after the banks for unconscionable credit card policies and she was quite articulate about that. I also harbor a bit of sympathy over the Pocahontas thing.

I had an uncle who convinced me that my great grandfather had charged up San Juan Hill with Teddy Roosevelt. My great grandfather had indeed taken part in the Philipine police action, but he was not one of the Rough Riders.

He wasnt even on the same island, but I went around repeating that notion for several years before my dad straightened me out and told me that Uncle Ted was joking. I can forgive Pocahontas for having a relative tell her that she was Native American, but I also think she mishandled the situation.

For now, my money is on Mike Pence, who is by any measure, a class act. Hes measured, he speaks well, he is reserved and he is photogenic. Yes, he is to the right of me. He has held some unfortunate positions on same-sex marriage with which I do not agree. For the record, I dont care who marries whom. Well, I should probably clarify that. I dont think dog people should marry cat people, but beyond that I dont care. Its not my business. Its not yours either.

Putting that aside, Pence is the best Veep we have had in a while. I would not be unhappy to see him in the drivers seat. In political science 101, they teach us that in the British system of government, the ceremonial head of state and the functional head of state are two different humans.

In our form of government, both are invested in one individual. Thats where the current president disappoints me, but we can always look to our vice presidential pick as a fall-back.

Read more from the original source:
Column: : Surveying the field of vice presidential possibilities (8/7/20) - McCook Daily Gazette

An estimated 18,000 ballots remain to be counted in the Aug. 4 primary, the Skagit County Auditor Elections Department reported Thursday.

Voter turnout thus far is 31.55%, the elections department reported. That could change as overseas ballots and ballots mailed out on Election Day trickle in. Some 80,709 ballots were mailed out; 25,465 ballots had been counted as of Thursday, according to the elections department.

An updated vote count will be posted at 5 p.m. Friday by the elections department. Final election results will be certified on Aug. 18 with the two top finishers, regardless of political party, advancing to the Nov. 3 general election.

Heres how the results stand as of Thursdays update.

U.S. House of Representatives, District 2

Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Everett, one of two Democrats in a field of eight candidates, had received 88,058 votes, or 50.27%, district-wide in updated results posted Thursday. Updated ballot counts will determine whether Republican Tim Hazelo, 25,733 votes (14.69%), or Democrat Jason Call, 23,756 votes (13.56%), also advance to the general election.

Larsen is a member of the House Armed Services Committee and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. He co-chairs or co-founded congressional working groups dealing with issues related to U.S.-China relations and U.S. policy related to the Arctic. He is seeking a 10th term.

Call is a former math teacher and a member of the state Democratic Central Committee. He supports Medicare for All, the Green New Deal and criminal justice reform. Hazelo, a retired Navy flight engineer, supports reduction in regulations, immigration reform, and opening health insurance across state lines.

Skagit County Board of County Commissioners

Burlington Chamber of Commerce CEO Peter Browning and Mount Vernon City Council member Mary Hudson were leading Thursday in their bids for County Commission, District 2.

In updated results posted Thursday, Browning, who stated no political party preference, was leading with 2,983 votes (41.04%). Hudson, a Democrat, had 2,250 votes (30.95%). Incumbent Kenneth A. Dahlstedt, Democrat, had 1,980 votes (27.24%).

For County Commission, District 1, incumbent Ron Wesen and county Planning Commissioner Mark Lundsten advanced to the general election. Lundsten, a Democrat, was leading Thursday with 5,430 votes (51.44%); Wesen, a Republican, had 4,538 votes (42.99%); and former Anacortes City Council member Johnny Archibald had 566 votes (5.36%).

Skagit County Superior Court, Position 3

Former county prosecuting attorney Tom Seguine likely advanced to the general election; he had 10,243 votes, or 45.65%, in updated results posted Thursday. Later vote counts will determine the other candidate that will advance: senior deputy public defender Elizabeth Yost Neidzwski, who received 6,330 votes (28.21%), as of Thursday; or court commissioner Heather D. Shand-Perkins, who received 5,776 votes (25.74%).

Skagit County Public Utility District Commissioner

Kenneth Goodwin, a Port of Anacortes commissioner who once served as a water district commissioner in Woodinville, was leading in his bid to become Skagit County PUD commissioner from District 1. Goodwin had 2,261 votes, or 26.88%, in updated results posted Thursday. Entrepreneur Andrew Miller had 2,089 votes (24.84%); Wim Houppermans, a mechanical engineer, had 1,948 votes (23.16%); attorney Rick Pitt had 1,459 votes (17.35%); and postgraduate student Bryce Nickel had 598 votes (7.11%).

See the original post here:
Here's who's leading in updated election results | 2020 Primary - goskagit.com

The announcement, which comes more than a month after the Supreme Court blocked President Donald Trump's attempt to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, seems intended to buy time while the administration decides its next steps.

Trump has repeatedly railed against DACA as part of his anti-immigration agenda but three years into his administration has been unable to end the program as promised following a series of lawsuits. The latest attempt to place limits on the program in the run-up to the 2020 election is likely to fuel uncertainty in the lives of thousands of immigrants who are beneficiaries of the program or planned to apply for it.

Trump claimed at a news briefing that he's going to "going to work with a lot of people on DACA," when asked about Tuesday's announcement.

"We are going to make DACA happy and the DACA people and representatives happy and we're also going to end up with a fantastic merit-based immigration system," Trump said.

But the decision outlined by the administration Tuesday would place limits on people already in the program and exclude those who may be eligible but have not yet applied.

"The administration is now undertaking a comprehensive review of the DACA program and the justifications that have been offered for winding DACA down, including its illegality and the negative effects the program has on what I call 'immigration behavior,' including smuggling and illegal crossings," a senior administration official told reporters.

The White House arranged a phone briefing with reporters under the condition the official be granted anonymity.

"When the administration next acts on DACA, it will be the basis of the comprehensive review of the substantive legal and legal policy justifications offered for winding down the program," the official added.

In the meantime, the administration will reject all initial requests and application fees for new filings "without prejudice" to future applications.

The administration will adjudicate all applications for renewal on a "case-by-case basis" consistent with immigration law, but will provide renewals for one year, rather than the current two years. And all applications for advanced parole "will be rejected absent extraordinary circumstances"

The delay has since left thousands of immigrants who are eligible for the program in limbo and has sparked outrage among lawyers who allege the government is defying court orders.

"I have concluded that the DACA policy, at a minimum, presents serious policy concerns that may warrant its full rescission," Wolf wrote, adding that the onus remains on Congress to act.

Wolf justified the decision to reject new applicants by arguing that any reasons to keep the program are "significantly lessened, if not entirely lacking" with regard to people not already enrolled.

Legal and legislative challenges

Pezzi said at the time that new applications are being held -- not rejected -- while the policy is being considered and that the Justice Department is unable to "get ahead" of the Department of Homeland Security.

DACA-eligible immigrants have been waiting in the wings for the go-ahead to apply after the Supreme Court ruling and related ruling from Maryland.

Arlette Morales sent in her DACA application weeks ago. "I have a lot of hope that they'll accept it ... but I also have to be careful, because they might not," she told CNN. "It's really hard. It's really unpredictable."

Congress is the only body that can provide a permanent solution for DACA recipients through legislation. Last year, the House of Representatives introduced and passed the "Dream and Promise Act" that would, in part, provide a pathway to citizenship for beneficiaries of the DACA program. The Senate has not taken it up.

For years, Democratic and Republican lawmakers have tried -- and failed -- to pass legislation addressing this slice of the undocumented population.

In 2001, Sens. Orrin Hatch, a Republican from Utah, and Dick Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois, introduced the "Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act," also known as the DREAM Act. It sought to provide young undocumented immigrants a pathway to legal status and earned the group of undocumented immigrants brought to the US as children the moniker "Dreamers."

Since then, there have been several iterations of the measure that -- while different to some degree -- seek to put the group on a path toward legal status. But the give-and-take between Democrats and Republicans over "Dreamers" has made it difficult to achieve a bipartisan compromise.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has already indicated she's unwilling to negotiate on certain points.

"Our advocates for comprehensive immigration reform do not want us yielding on any of those points. We should have comprehensive immigration reform. We will move in that direction," Pelosi told reporters in early June. "But we are not going to endanger families or have increased surveillance in our country."

This story has been updated with comments from President Donald Trump.

CNN's Ariane de Vogue contributed to this report.

Original post:
Trump administration to review DACA and reject new applications - CNN