Mediaboss Marketing

Recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, instituted in 2012 under President Obama, have come under fire recently both at the state and national level.

In late June, attorneys general from 10 states except Arizona threatened to sue the Trump administration over a program that grants deportation relief and access to work permits to nearly 800,000 U.S. Dreamers, undocumented immigrants brought to the country at a young age who have passed a comprehensive background check and met multiple criteria.

Steven Zylstra

Removal of Arizonas more than 27,000 DACA recipients would lead to an annual gross domestic product loss of $1.3 billion. Many Dreamers who were brought here in their youth are now students, doctors, teachers, entrepreneurs, agricultural and construction workers. In other words, they are our neighbors.

They are hard-working individuals like 21-year-old Phoenix resident Maria Gonzalez, who spoke earlier this summer at a launch event for the FWD.us Arizona Coalition comprised of Arizona business leaders, community leaders and immigration reform advocates. She was brought to the U.S. as a toddler and knows no other country. Despite both her parents being detained by immigration officials during her senior year of high school her father was actually deported she was able to graduate and go on to attend South Mountain Community College while working to support herself. She hopes to transfer to Arizona State University and earn a bachelors degree in social work.

Like hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients across the country, Gonzalez faces significant insecurity about her legal status today in the face of aggressive immigration policies being pursued at federal and state levels. The FWD.us Arizona Coalition is working to bring attention to immigration reform efforts affecting Gonzalez and others like her. It is part of FWD.us, a bipartisan group working to mobilize the tech community and other national leaders in business and civic engagement who are interested in promoting immigration and economic policies that keep the U.S. competitive in an increasingly globalized world.

The Arizona Technology Council is proud and excited to have been part of the recent Arizona coalition launch. Since we are on the front lines of the immigration debate, we also are well positioned to have a significant and positive impact on the vital issue of immigration reform.

The FWD.us Arizona Coalition will fight for DACA recipients in our state, advocating for the government to find a legislative solution like the Republican-led Recognizing Americas Children (RAC) Act or the recently introduced bipartisan DREAM Act, which Sen. Jeff Flake is co-sponsoring, for these individuals who came to the U.S. as children and desperately want to continue contributing to our economy.

There is simply no morally defensible reason to deport these young people. The vast majority of the 750,000 participants in the DACA program are gainfully employed or students. They are major contributors to the U.S. economy, both as workers and consumers. Forcibly removing hundreds of thousands of these Dreamers would have a significantly negative impact on our national economy, with the potential to push GDP down by as much as $400 billion over the next 10 years.

Our broken immigration system is creating uncertainty for millions of people beyond hardworking DACA recipients. Another group that faces such insecurity is high-skilled immigrants hoping to come to the U.S. via the H-1B visa. The H-1B visa allows a limited number of immigrants with specialized skills in predominantly the STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) fields to emigrate to the U.S. for work, helping to raise wages for native-born workers and ultimately create jobs for Americans. Unfortunately, the annual number of slots allowed is relatively small and makes it difficult for American companies to innovate faster. Limited high-skilled immigration would be terrible for the U.S. economy and disastrous for Arizona technology businesses. We should be expanding this vital program, not considering cutting it.

Ultimately, we believe the best way forward is comprehensive immigration reform that provides permanent legal status and a path to citizenship for the millions of undocumented immigrants living in the shadows today. At the same time, we must modernize our entire immigration system to better fit the realities of the 21st century and to help make the U.S. as competitive as possible in the global marketplace. This can be done without sacrificing border security or the safety of our nation by requiring those seeking citizenship to undergo a comprehensive background check, demonstrate they can speak English and pay any taxes they owe.

Steven G. Zylstra is president and CEO of the Arizona Technology Council, which is a founding member of the FWD.us Arizona Coalition. For more information about FWD.us, visit http://www.FWD.us.

See original here:
Coalition fighting for 'dreamers,' immigration reform - Arizona Capitol Times

In late June, President Trump met with a dozen or so family members of Americans killed by undocumented immigrants as part of a push for two new laws targeting illegal immigration. Were calling on all members of Congress to honor grieving American families by passing these lifesaving measures in the House, in the Senate, and then sending them to my desk for a very rapid signature, he said at the White House meeting, a day before the lower chamber approved both bills. I promise youit will be done quickly.

Immigration restrictionist groups arent so sure about that promise, though they share the presidents desire to curb entries into the United States and force undocumented immigrants out. In their view, and in actuality, the legislation faces difficulty in the Senate, where lawmakers have been mired in a debate over health care and have plans to take up tax reform next. These advocates see the legislation, at best, as a path toward a broader, more stringent immigration measure. But at worst, the bills could be just another letdown.

Trumps Immigration Allies Are Growing Frustrated With Him

Ahead of the June meeting, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte had introduced the pair of bills. One was Kates Law, which imposes tougher sentences on offenders who were previously deported and returned to the United States illegally. (It was named for a young woman, Kate Steinle, who was shot and killed by a man whod been deported five times before reentering the country.) The other was the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, which hits on Trumps campaign promise to punish jurisdictions that limit their cooperation with federal immigration authorities. The bill cuts off some federal grants for these self-described sanctuary cities, like San Francisco where Steinle was shot. The bills crack down on dangerous sanctuary policies that needlessly put innocent lives at risk, Goodlatte said in a statement at the time.

The president touted their passage through the House as a victory. But like-minded organizations dont seem to be keeping their hopes up. Theres some sign of legislative life in the House and thats very encouraging to us, but in the end, the Senate is where bills seem to go to die, said Dan Stein, the president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which advocates for more immigration restrictions. Considering the record of legislative achievement in the Senate, getting those passed would provide some assurance that something can get done.

Steins group and others are growing frustrated with Trump, who made cracking down on illegal immigration the cornerstone of his presidential campaign. The president has so far come up short on multiple pledgesamong others, his plan to immediately repeal the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and another to seal off the entire U.S.-Mexico border. Trumps assurances about the bills future seem to fit a larger pattern of overpromising on his agenda. And not just on immigration: When we win on November 8th and elect a Republican Congress, we will be able to immediately repeal and replace Obamacare, he said just before the election. We will do it very, very quickly. Months later, that still hasnt happened, and Trumps influence in Congress has often looked questionable.

So if any Trump supporters are looking to the Senate for a win on the two new bills, theyre unlikely to get it anytime soon. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has not said whether hell put Kates Law or the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act on legislators schedule, but the bills already look destined for Democratic pushback. Similar legislation has failed to advance in the Senate before. Another, slightly different bill known as Kates Law went down in a 55-42 vote last year. So did another sanctuary-cities measure. Theres little sign the new bills would have more luck securing Senate Democrats votesespecially when Trumps anti-immigrant rhetoric seems to grow only more graphic.

Just three Democrats in the House supported the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act. While Kates Law received support from 24 of them in the lower chamber, their Senate counterparts dont seem likely to follow suit. Instead of criminalizing and scapegoating immigrants, Congress should be offering workable comprehensive reforms that actually strengthen our economy and national security, said Democratic Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey in a statement. Until then, we will continue to be a firm wall of resistanceusing all tools at our disposalto prevent Republicans from blindly trying to sanction this administrations mass deportation agenda.

House Democrats who voted for Kates Law have already come under fire by Latino Victory Project, a group that supports Latino political candidates. I think its shameful that these members, this handful of Democrats, decided to stand with Donald Trump instead of with Latinos and immigrantsinstead of their own constituents, Cristbal Alex, the groups president, said earlier this month.

Still, its not impossible that some Democrats could defect. As The Hill reported earlier this month, a renewed push could force the 10 senators running for reelection in purple and red states won by Trump to take a tough, politically controversial vote. In particular, Senate Republicans, who as a group have largely supported immigration-enforcement bills in the past, may look to Democrats like Joe Manchin of West Virginia for support. Manchin and two other Democrats up in 2018, Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, joined Republicans in voting for the 2016 Kates Law in the Senate. But its not clear what position theyll take on the latest iteration.

Jonathan Kott, Manchins communications director, said the senator has been focused on health care and hasnt had a chance to review the bills yet. A spokeswoman for Heitkamp expressed doubt about the legislation even coming to the floor: The bills and amendments on this issue that have been voted on in the past in the Senate have all been different. Additionally, its still to be determined what bill, if any, will get a vote in the Senate. (Donnelly could not be reached for comment.) Republicans would need at least eight Democrats to advance legislation.

Chris Chmielenski, the director of content and activism at NumbersUSA, is more optimistic than others about the bills potential. For one, he predicts theres a decent chance McConnell will bring the sanctuary-cities bill to the floor. Its prospects really depend on how much pressure [the] administration puts on those Democrats that are up for reelection in 2018, said Chmielenski, whose organization supports reduced immigration. He has even greater confidence in Kates Law because of the publicity it received during the campaign and with Trump frequently invoking Steinles name and story.

We dont think [Kates Law is] necessarily an impactful piece of legislation, but because you did have 24 Democrats cross over party lines and vote with the Republicans on itand because it does have some branding, it has some national name recognitionI think theres a good chance that its going to come to the Senate floor, he said. If it does, he thinks it has a chance at passing through the Senate.

Others have their doubts about Kates Law. If only Kates Law passes, it changes almost nothing, said Jessica Vaughan, the director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for limiting immigration. Just passing Kates Law is a tiny drop in the bucket of what needs to change. If they dont pass the sanctuary bill, were going to continue to have a huge public-safety problem with sanctuary policies.

For that same reason, Stein is concerned Democrats will vote for Kates Law, but not the sanctuary-cities bill, to stave off criticism from constituents. Were concerned that Kates Law might be viewed as political cover by some of the Senate Democrats who feel that the violent crimes committed by aliens who shouldve been deported or removed creates enough political liability that they need to take that vote, Stein said.

Perhaps even more dire for the groups agenda is Congress losing its appetite for immigration legislation. Of course our biggest concern is that ... they do pass the sanctuary cities bill, they do pass Kates Law through the Senate, and Trump signs them into law and then thats it, no further action is taken, Chmielenski said.

Immigrant advocates and civil-rights groups, meanwhile, have raised alarm over both bills. The immigration enforcement approach championed by the Trump administration and embodied by Bob Goodlattes bills would harm, rather than help, public safety, said Lynn Tramonte, the deputy director of Americas Voice Education Fund in a statement. Despite the costs and consequences already on display throughout the country, House Republicans are poised to put the Trump administrations existing cruel approach into overdrive.

I think generally were concerned that this represents the congressional implementation of Trumps executive orders on immigration, said Jose Magaa-Salgado, the managing policy attorney at the Immigrant Legal Resource Center.

For now, Trumps immigration allies are waiting on McConnell. If they miss this opportunity, [its] not a good sign for future legislationthen it looks like were condemned to bicker over issues endlessly without really changing anything, Vaughan said.

Read more:
Could Trump's Immigration Agenda Ever Get Through Congress? - The Atlantic

While the Trump administration this year has demanded stricter enforcement of immigration laws by local law enforcement, some county sheriffs across the U.S. had already been establishing closer relationships with anti-immigration groups in recent years. Some of the national groups have been offering sheriffs advice, inviting them to border schools to hear anti-immigration speakers, producing television advertisements featuring sheriffs and sending at least one sheriff a model ordinance intended to spur local law enforcement of federal immigration laws.

Depending on your politics, that could be seen as disturbing collusion between heavy-handed law enforcers and nativist organizations intent on maintaining a white majority, or an informal flow of information between two groups with a mutual interest in strict enforcement of federal immigration laws. Either way, a new report released Tuesday on the deepening relationship between sheriffs and anti-immigration groups comes at a time of increased focus on immigration issues.

Nativist groups have recruited county sheriffs to help implement dangerous anti-immigrant policies that split up families, intimidate survivors of violence, and deport people to their deaths, reads a report writtenby the pro-immigrationCenter for New Community (CNC). These are exactly the results that the contemporary anti-immigrant movement has long been seeking, [including] a drastic increase in deportations and attrition through enforcement.

Daily Emails and Alerts - Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox

Cultivating relationships with law enforcement officials like county sheriffs has been a goal of anti-immigration groups like the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) for more than a decade.A December 2005 FAIR newsletter stated, Creating coalitions with police and sheriff s [sic] departments all across the country to confront the issues posed by mass immigration has been a key FAIR goal for many years, according to the CNC report. After identifying sheriffs who were concerned about illegal immigration, FAIR staff met with them, sent them a steady stream of information, set up regular conference calls and invited them to D.C. to meet with FAIRs senior staff, according to the organizations 2011 annual report.

In following years there was increased cooperation between sheriffs and FAIR, with the creation of an umbrella group called the National Sheriffs Immigration Council and the organization of border schools, where sheriffs, sometimes traveling at the taxpayers expense, hear presentations by extremist anti-government speakers, according to the report, Crossing the Line: U.S. Sheriffs Colluding With the Anti-Immigrant Movement. The sheriffs evenvisited the headquarters of a border vigilante group in Texas.

Bob Dane, the executive director of FAIR, dismissed the report as sour grapes from a far-left group that is frustrated the Trump administration is enforcing immigration laws. [Sheriffs] have sought the expertise of FAIR,and we have sought their perspective, Dane tells Newsweek, characterizing the relationship as symbiotic and transparent. The common denominator is the rule of law. Local and federal law enforcement officials cooperate when investigating drug-relatedor violent crimes, and that cooperation should also exist when enforcing federal immigration laws, Dane said.Theres a new sheriff in town, and hes in the White House. On its website, FAIR says its goal is to reduce legal immigration to about 300,000 annually from current levels of over one million people.

The Center for Immigration Studiesdirector of policy studies Jessica Vaughan said she wouldnt waste her time reading the report, as she believes a main goal of the Center for New Community is smearing her organization. Obviously they are upset that many law enforcement leaders come to us for information and advice, Vaughan says in an email to Newsweek. They come to us because of our expertise and years of experience on the public safety issues connected to immigration policy.

FAIR is a good resource for local law enforcement leaders who have questions about immigration laws, says the sheriff of a rural Texas county, who said he doesnt know about any actual partnerships between sheriffs in his region and the organization. Ive talked to [FAIR] over the years, Jackson County Sheriff A.J. Andy Louderback tells Newsweek. Theyre simply, as I see it, theyre just advocates for the rule of law. (Earlier this year, Louderback won approval to have his jail officers cross-designated as federal immigration officers, and he said so far hes pleased with the increased information and power that comes with the designation.)

Texass Jackson County Sheriffs Office Deputy Stephen Lang and Sergeant B.J. Novak stand near a department vehicle. The relationship between sheriffs and anti-immigration groups has deepened in recent years, a time of increased focus on immigration issues. Photo courtesy Jackson County Sheriff's Office

Less than a week after he won the 2016 presidential election, President Trump vowed to immediately deport 2 million to 3 million undocumented immigrants who had committed crimes, and after he took office he quickly inked executive orders that expanded immigration powers for local law enforcement and authorized the construction of a wall along the border between U.S. and Mexico. And while arrests of undocumented immigrants by federal agents are higher under Trump than they were under President Obama, a backlog in the court system has meant fewer actual deportations.

FAIR has also teamed with sheriffs on media and legislative efforts. The organization produced a TV ad campaign featuring local sheriffs and warning of the dangers posed by uncontrolled immigration, and it paid about $130,000 for it to be aired in Wisconsin and North Carolina in 2016. The organization produced another ad shortly after Trump was inaugurated, featuring a Louisiana sheriffwho is also the president of the National Sheriffs Associationwho thanks Trump for agreeing to stop illegal immigration and restore the rule of law, according to the report.

The anti-immigration groups have also helped sheriffs increase their role shaping national immigration policy, with FAIR placing sheriffs on Capitol Hill witness panels and hearings at least eight times since 2011, the CNC report says. In their testimony, FAIR-affiliated sheriffs frequently express support for draconian immigration enforcement measures, advancing the dangerous notion that local police should enforce federal immigration laws, the report states.

Hiroshi Motomura, a UCLA law professorwho studies immigration, saidpartnerships between sheriffs and anti-immigration groups and increased enforcement of federal immigration laws by local law enforcement could lead to racial profiling. Weve had cases of jurisdictions where the arrest patterns are skewed by race and ethnicity, Motomura tells Newsweek, citing asan example Maricopa County in Arizona. My concern is its going to happen some of the time, enough to be concerning, and its going to be hard to figure out when its happening.

Sheriffs who hold negative views of immigrants are more likely to head departments where their deputies frequently check the immigration status of the people they encounter, said Mirya Holman, a professor of political science at Tulane Universitywho has studied sheriffs, including a nationwide survey of 500 sheriffs in 2012. Theres no legal reason to check someones legal immigration status when they are reporting a crime, but sheriffs who have negative attitudes toward immigrants were more likely to check the status of victims of crime, Holman tells Newsweek. Given the more aggressive actions by [Immigration and Customs Enforcement under Trump], were going to see sheriffs playing a very important and growing role in immigration enforcement.

Follow this link:
How Local Law Enforcement Leaders and Anti-Immigration Groups Have Joined Forces to Deport More ... - Newsweek

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

You'd have to be pretty heartless to oppose legal status for DREAMers people who were brought to the United States illegally when they were children.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) is apparently of requisite heartlessness.

Rubio declared last week that he can't support the bipartisan Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act that some of his Senate colleagues are desperately trying to enact to make DREAMers off-limits to the Trump administration's harsh deportation regime. Regrettably, instead of embracing compassion, he's throwing in his lot with Trump's gang of cruel restrictionists.

Now, President Trump has repeatedly assured us that he has a "big heart" and would concentrate on deporting "bad hombres" while "taking care" of DREAMers. The reality, however, is quite different.

A bit of background: President Obama created the Deferred Action Against Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program that, as its name suggests, deferred deportation proceedings against DREAMers and handed them temporary work permits. But DACA does not offer any guarantee against detention or deportation, just a postponement. Its protection can be rescinded for the slightest of infractions even traffic violations which is what Trump has effectively been doing.

In other words, Trump has left DACA in place but rendered it essentially toothless. Even so, 10 hardline attorneys general from red states are not satisfied. They have given Trump an ultimatum and told him he has to totally scrap the program or they'll sue, just as they did with President Obama's DAPA initiative that gave a temporary reprieve even to parents of DREAMers. If the administration obliges them or declines to fight them in court all 1.8 million DREAMers could eventually be deported, including the 750,000 who have DACA status.

Please remember: These are people who had no say in how they were brought to America, and who have lived in this country practically their whole lives with little to no contact with their birth land. They deserve compassion, not icy cruelty, especially since deporting just 750,000 would cost Uncle Sam $60 billion and lead to $280 billion in economic losses over the next decade.

To that end, Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) have dusted off the DREAM Act, which would hand green cards to illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children so long as they (i) graduate from high school or serve in the military; (ii) pass a background check; (iii) speak English; (iv) demonstrate knowledge of U.S. history; and (v) pay a fee. About 1.5 million DREAMers are expected to qualify because they tend to be hardworking, law-abiding people who desperately want to come out of the shadows and participate fully in American life.

Even many vocal immigration hawks don't have a problem with giving these DREAMers legal status so long as it's done via legislative rather than executive action. Rush Limbaugh, who has single-handedly killed many an immigration reform bill, has conceded that "no one's gonna win by deporting a bunch of kids that we let in." Likewise, Pat Robertson, who has derided undocumented immigrants as "moochers," admits that DREAMers are not criminals. "They're teaching kindergarten, for heaven's sake," he says. "They ought to stay. They enrich our society. They bless our society, and what have we got to loose." Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, another immigration opponent and Trump ally, counsels: "Why pick a fight over this group of people who have a lot of emotional stories to tell?" Even more to the point, polls show that 75 percent of Trump supporters Trump supporters don't want DREAMers booted out for the sins of their parents, and actually want them legalized.

So who on Earth are the opponents of the DREAM Act?

Breitbart, the rabid online mouthpiece of immigration hawks, of course. The right-wing nationalist website is trying to kill the bill by calling it amnesty, a curse word in ultra-restrictionist circles. And then there are all the outfits that are part of the quasi-racist FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform) network, including the Center for Immigration Studies and NumbersUSA. Both of their leaders are vehemently opposed to any relief for DREAMers without tough border restrictions first.

And now Marco Rubio has jumped on their side.

The Florida senator has declared that he can't support the Graham-Durbin effort because it does not take into account the "reality of the situation" and guard against "unintended consequences." What reality? What unintended consequences? Apparently, Rubio fears that this law will be misinterpreted in Central America and encourage kids to show up on U.S. shores in the hopes of getting amnesty, fueling a repeat of the 2014 unaccompanied minor crisis. But the notion that amnesty not the labor needs of the American economy or the dangerous conditions in their own countries drives desperate foreigners to risk their lives to come to the United States is a right-wing trope with little basis in reality.

The fact is that the "unintended consequences" Rubio is concerned about are for his own political career. He was one of the Gang of Eight senators whose support for a comprehensive immigration reform bill in 2013 made him the favorite whipping boy of ultra-restrictionists in the last presidential election and no doubt (in his mind) cost him the Republican nomination. His opposition to the DREAM Act is now surely calculated to avoid giving them any reason to target him in 2020, should he decide to run again.

But going full Breitbart is unlikely to prove a winning strategy. President Trump derided Rubio as "Little Marco" during the campaign. Rubio could use the DREAM Act to stand up to Trump and ask him to produce that "big heart" he claims to have and sign the bill. Stooping to the level of the restrictionist fringe, unfortunately, would only prove Trump right about just how small Little Marco really is.

Visit link:
Marco Rubio's shameful immigration skid - The Week - The Week Magazine

President Trump has endorsed a sweeping new Senate immigration plan that puts a preference on job skills and not family ties in granting immigrants entry into the United States.

In a speech in Ohio Tuesday night, the president also bragged that his administration is being "rough" on illegals, especially criminals, and "liberating towns and cities" from MS-13 and other illegal gangs..

"We are dismantling and destroying the bloodthirsty criminal gangs. And, well, I will just tell you this -- we're not doing it in a politically correct fashion. We're doing it rough," said the president of his Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. "Our guys are rougher than their guys. We have tough people. Our people are tougher than their people. Our people are tougher and stronger and meaner and smarter than the gangs. One by one we're finding the illegal gang members, drug dealers, thieves, robbers, criminals and killers, and we're sending them the hell back home where they came from," he added.

Trump gave a strong shoutout to the Republican authors of the new legislation, Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton and Georgia Sen. David Perdue.

"As we speak, we are working with two wonderful senators, Tom Cotton and David Perdue, to create a new immigration system for America," said Trump.

The duo are currently updating the legislation they introduced earlier this year. Basically, it will focus more on immigrant merits, such as job skills, over family ties to those already in the U.S. The goal is a system that doesn't reward illegal crossings or let immigrants take jobs from Americans.

Said Trump, "Instead of today's low-skilled system -- just a terrible system where anybody comes in -- people that have never worked, people that are criminals; anybody comes in -- we want a merit-based system -- one that protects our workers, our taxpayers, and one that protects our economy. We want it merit-based. We want people that work really hard in their country and that are going to come into our country and work really, really hard. We don't want people that come into our country and immediately go on welfare and stay there for the rest of their lives."

The legislative effort comes as the administration is collecting success after success in its war on illegal immigration. ICE officials said that illegal immigration is down 70 percent and the arrests and deportation of criminal illegals is up.

What's more, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has made good on threats to some 300 sanctuary cities and regions, prompting some to change course and cooperate with ICE.

"American cities should be sanctuaries for law-abiding Americans -- the people that look up to the law, the people that respect the law -- not for criminals and gang members that we want the hell out of our country," Trump said during his address in Youngstown.

And, he added, people are cheering his actions.

"We are actually liberating towns and cities. We are liberating. People are screaming from their windows, Thank you, thank you,' to the Border Patrol and to General Kelly's great people that come in and grab these thugs and throw them the hell out. We're liberating our towns and we're liberating our cities," said the president.

Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner's "Washington Secrets" columnist, can be contacted at pbedard@washingtonexaminer.com

See the article here:
Trump endorses immigration reform, says he's 'liberating cities' with ... - Washington Examiner