Mediaboss Marketing

Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly recently defended his Border Patrol and Immigration officers against congressional complaints that they were being too aggressive.

If lawmakers do not like the laws theyve passed and we are charged to enforce, then they should have the courage and skill to change the laws. Secretary Kelly was absolutely right.

Anecdotes abound about immigration officials treating visitors rudely and arbitrarily at borders. At least 5,000 undocumented persons with no criminal record, including mothers, students and veterans, have been deported this year. Attorney General Jeff Sessions preferred adjective to describe all undocumented immigrants has hardened from illegal to criminal.

None of this is the fault of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Patrol. Yes, individual agents and their supervisors should be held accountable for how they execute their job responsibilities, but their agencies do not control the policies they must carry out.

Immigration is a complicated issue. Tens of millions live in the U.S. without proper documentation. Children who only know themselves as American live under the threat of exile to a foreign country. Entire industries, including the food supply chain, depend on immigrant workers. The best universities in the world develop skills that are drained away to benefit other nations.

Ultra-nationalists have used the nations failure to comprehensively address immigration as an excuse for dehumanizing non-white non-Europeans. Xenophobic language and impossible campaign promises are morphing into federal policy.

House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md., responded to Secretary Kelly by pointing out that Democrats are frustrated by the current administrations immigration policies, but are unable to change laws because they dont currently control Congress. Democratic whining moves the nation no closer to fixing a broken system.

Almost four years ago, the U.S. Senate passed a bi-partisan reform proposal that would have addressed immigration laws, undocumented residents and border security. Republicans in the House have refused to debate it.

The truth is that we American voters are responsible for our immigration mess. We allow employers to treat undocumented workers as little more than slaves. We turn our backs on desperate refugees. We fail to realize that those being demonized are actually our neighbors and friends.

Voters can fix the mess by turning out any lawmaker who does not demonstrate the courage and skill that can make comprehensive immigration reform happen.

Read the rest here:
Immigration reform is the job of lawmakers, not enforcers | Editorials ... - Idaho Mountain Express and Guide

One of President Trump's closest evangelical advisors has a bold new plan for immigration reform that he says will meet the approval of one of the biggest power players in Congress the House Freedom Caucus.

In an exclusive interview on Facebook Live with CBN News, Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Leadership Conference (NHCLC), said he's working with the White House to advance an initiative that would stop short of full citizenship.

It also acknowledges that border security is imperative and that it's logistically impossible to deport some 11 million illegal immigrants currently residing in the U.S.

"So what do we do? We legalize them," said Rodriguez, "by giving them permanent residency as long as they're not dependent on welfare and government welfare. As long as they're already working, we legalize them." Rodriguez believes the plan will ultimately win approval from the House Freedom Caucus.

"At the end of the day, it's the Freedom Caucus," he said, "you can't deny the fact that the political reality is that the president's agenda is basically in the hands of the Freedom Caucus and they have the ability to kill it."

Rodriguez says early indications show support in the NHCLC's 40,000 churches.

He says the plan would allow people to apply for full citizenship but only if they go back to their country of origin and "start from scratch."

Rodriguez said the NHCLC is working with key players in the White House to move the plan forward. Just last week, he joined other members of the Trump campaign's faith advisory board for a private dinner at the White House and tour of the residence.

Rodriguez also joined with the leaders for a Rose Garden ceremony announcing the president's executive order on religious liberty.

While many analysts and faith leaders believe the order did not go far enough, Rodriguez calls it "politically brilliant." He says the strategy of taking a small first step will help to lay a foundation for more substantive initiatives down the road to fight what he calls an "unprecedented assault on religious liberty."

Rodriguez also praised the Trump administration for allowing the NHCLC to help shape initiatives as they're being hashed out.

"Be it a policy issue that we want to help contextualize, address, advance, we have issues with--we have access to the White House," he said. "And I don't mean a junior staffer."

One of those issues, said Rodriguez, is deportation. "We've made some significant inroads," he said. As deportations increased earlier this year, Rodriguez says the NHCLC pleaded with the White House to "make sure that families stay intact."

Rodriguez said a collaborative effort involving the White House, Department of Justice and Homeland Security has made that happen.

See the article here:
Trump Latino Advisor Says New Immigration Reform Plan Could Seal the Deal - CBN News

It was said countless times during the 2016 US election cycle, but it bears mentioning again that the peoples votes represented a referendum on the status quo. Voters from all walks of life expressed deep frustration with the political elite on both sides of the aisle. However, Donald Trump was by far the biggest beneficiary of this sentiment.

As I reflect on last years election, it is clear to me that Trump saw something that no one else noticed. At least, not until it was too late for the other candidates to do anything about it. He knew that anger had built up to a boiling point in average ordinary adults across the nation. He also understood that this frustration cut across party lines but more importantly he understood why people were angry illegal immigration.

Some felt that by looking the other way as migrants crossed the U.S. border that our nations leaders were putting the priorities of others above its own citizens. Still, others are concerned for their families safety, while many blame illegal immigration for the soft labor market. But whatever the case, during the campaign Mr. Trump zeroed in on these sentiments and put illegal immigration at the center of his campaign.

It isnt the migrants fault that Mexico and several other Central American countries are collapsing under the weight of a brutal drug-induced crime spree. Left to choose between staying in a country where either you work for the cartels or you die, is it any wonder that so many flee for safety across the U.S.-Mexico border?

Just on this basis alone, theres a case to be made that at least those affected by the violence be allowed asylum in the U.S. However, there are other issues at play, as well. Such as the fact that many of these undocumented workers have lived here most or all of their lives. As such, asking them to go back is inhumane.

One of the reasons its been so hard to pull off a comprehensive immigration reform package in the past is that given the countrys lax enforcement, the will to get it done has been weak.

The so-called Gang of Eight was made of four Republicans and four Democrats and, including Mr. Rubio represents the most recent attempt. They teamed up in 2013, to draft an immigration bill. Although the bill made it out of the Senate, conservative opposition in the House prevented it from making its way to then President Obama.

The core framework of the immigration bill (S-744) proposed by Schumer and Rubio in 2013 was based on the failed KennedyMcCain legislation of 2005. On amnesty, for example, SchumerRubio granted illegal immigrants immediate provisional status.

One of the reasons opponents of the Schumer-Rubio voted against it is that while it included no immediate border security timetable, illegal immigrants were granted immediate amnesty, albeit through probationary status.

Indeed, the bill was so unpopular that former Tea Party darling, Marco Rubio, fell out of favor with conservatives and was unable to regain his stature within the Rights grassroots community. Its no wonder that many credit the failed initiative with rousing up the same anti-immigrant sentiment that got Trump elected.

Most of the DACA employment authorization documents (EADs) that former President Obama granted to undocumented minors expire within the next year. Their expiration represents a perfect opportunity for the Trump administration.

Although some within his party dont want President Trump to renew the status of the undocumented who came as minors, it may be in their best interest. If the publics lukewarm reception to the American Healthcare Act is anything to go by, the Republicans could use a solid win. And who wouldnt want to be seen as the side that solved this long-standing issue?

Thats what makes Trump the right person for the job. He can convince his party that hes serious about enforcing the law and that the right deal could gain the support of all sides, while make enforcing the law more cost-effective.

Wishful thinking? Consider this since Bannons influence in the administration began to wane, Ivanka Trump has emerged as one of Trumps most influential advisors. The result has been a steady move to the center on Trumps part.

A move towards comprehensive amnesty is certainly within Ivankas wheelhouse, not just because Ivankas a Democrat, but its consistent with many of her other positions. So, the only question is whether she could convince her father that its in his best interest to act.

Anyone who doubts her ability to do so need only recall the Syrian strike for proof that its indeed possible.

See the article here:
Why Comprehensive Immigration Reform May Be Next On Trump's ... - Huffington post (press release) (blog)

posted at 11:01 am on May 7, 2017 by Jazz Shaw

I had thought that the current agenda for any sort of immigration reform was pretty clear following the last election cycle. There would be no discussions of amnesty or any other priorities of liberals and open borders advocates until the border was secure and progress was being made on getting at least the worst offending criminal illegal aliens out of the country. Apparently I was mistaken. Ilya Somin, writing at the Volokh Conspiracy, is pitching a very different vision of reform this week in support of an immigration legislation package being put forward by Republicans Ken Buck and Ron Johnson.

In it, Somin describes a proposal which would revamp and potentially expand portions of the visa program by essentially turning control of issuing them over to the states. And he chooses to frame this argument by saying that its really what the authors of the Constitution had in mind.

For the last century or more, immigration policy has been dominated by the federal government. Thats an inversion of what most of the Founding Fathers expected. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, among many others, objected to the Alien Acts of 1798 in large part because the original meaning of the Constitution did not give Congress any general power to restrict immigration, but rather largely left the issue to the states.

We are unlikely to fully restore the original meaning of the Constitution. But earlier this week, Republican Senator Ron Johnson (Wisconsin), and Representative Ken Buck (Republican, Colorado), put forward a proposal under which states would exercise considerably greater power over migration. The proposal would allow each state to admit guest-workers from abroad for a period of up to three years, that could then be renewed by the state. The visas in question would still be issued by the federal government, but largely at the discretion of the states.

There are two major problems with this approach, one constitutional and the other practical. Lets start with the former. Somin claims that, the original meaning of the Constitution did not give Congress any general power to restrict immigration, but rather largely left the issue to the states.

To back up his claim that Congress has no power to restrict immigration Ilya Somin cites, well Ilya Somin, in a separate article he wrote for an outlet somewhat tellingly named Open Borders. Im afraid Im going to have to take issue with that somewhat daring interpretation which you can click through and read for yourself.

Its true that the Founders didnt seem to spend a great deal of time thinking about the question of immigration. Or if they did, the topic didnt get a lot of play in the final cut of the document they produced. But its not entirely silent on the subject either. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution actually says that Congress, not the states, shall have the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. Somin attempts to argue that naturalization is merely the process of becoming a citizen and not the physical act of entering the country, but thats fairly thin gruel for this debate. In order to become a citizen, the process most certainly involves coming to the country unless you were born here (thus nullifying any questions of becoming a citizen). This is a distinction which the Founders clearly understood when they mentioned similar criteria in Article II Section 1.

But we dont need to simply rely on those breadcrumbs to find out that the authors of the Constitution had already thought this through. The Founders had given the subject even more consideration, because they followed that up in Article I Section 9 by saying, The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person. Clearly they were giving the states the right to make decisions on immigration in the short term, but it was very short indeed. Those powers were designed to expire in a handful of years and they did so. Why on Earth would the Founders specifically reference the power of the states to regulate migration or importation (which obviously and absolutely describes immigration beyond any doubt) and put an expiration date on it unless they were talking about such power shifting to the federal government? Or, if we must dance on the same head of a semantic pin that Somin is relying on, even if the states had the power to regulate the migration or importation of aliens at the beginning, they were only assured that Congress would not prohibit it until 1808. After that, Congress could and did take charge. The premise being argued by Somin seems absurd in light of those facts.

Somins final argument seems to be that absent a clear mandate for the federal government to have this power it should go to the states. Thats an obvious reference to the Tenth Amendment and would clearly hold true were it not for the inconvenient fact that the Constitution does recognize the need for such authority and removes it from states following the year 1808. Enough about that.

On to the practical side of the discussion, which Ill keep short. Allowing the states to take charge of the number of H-1B style visas which are issued in the fashion described would be a disaster on several counts. First of all, we would need to also turn over the responsibility for tracking the visa recipients to ensure they didnt overstay their welcome. We cant even manage that at the federal level today, and thats with several massive law enforcement agencies already in place who are supposed to be taking care of it. Who at the state level will be put in charge of this task and what resources and manpower do they all have to tackle the job, to say nothing of experience in doing so? The answer is that none of them are prepared for the task.

Also, this proposed system wouldnt tie the H-1B visa to any single employer. Currently thats one of the only ways to find out if someone is no longer complying with the rules or is in an overstay situation. By allowing them to switch jobs (or go to having no job) youve lost the one thread you could pull in terms of keeping track of them. Its pretty much a red carpet invitation to abuse the visa system and disappear into the crowd.

Theres simply nothing about this plan which sounds either wise or practical and it opens up the system to even further abuse. We should stick with the program set forth in the conservative agenda. Secure the border. Track down and deport illegal aliens as much as is possible. And maybe then we can talk about various other reforms when the situation is more under control.

See the rest here:
A federalist approach to immigration reform would be a disaster - Hot Air

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

President Trump is a man who prefers blunt instruments: He thinks he can solve America's complex immigration issues with a "big, beautiful wall." Meanwhile, two members of his party Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Rep. Ken Buck of Colorado have come up with a vastly more elegant solution to help the country meet its future labor needs. (Sen. John McCain has signed on as a cosponsor, too.) There are no walls involved just a plan to let states set up their own guest worker programs.

Besides being inherently sound, the great upside of this approach is that it would sidestep the messy politics in Washington that have long made sensible immigration reform well nigh impossible. And we know that it works: It already does in Canada.

You wouldn't know this from all the restrictinionist screaming about mass immigration, but the American labor market is very tight, and growing tighter, as the latest jobs numbers show. On the high end, companies need at least twice as many foreign tech workers as Uncle Sam will let them hire. As usual, this year's annual H-1B visa cap for 85,000 high-skilled workers filled up within days of opening. Companies that don't land a visa this year will have to wait a year before they can re-enter the H-1B lottery by which time the foreign techie they were planning to hire will be working for an Australian or Singaporean company.

But high-tech companies are the lucky ones. Matters are far worse on the low-skilled front. Farmers need H-1A visas to hire farmhands. But the requirements for these visas are so onerous and the outcome so uncertain that they are practically unusable. Meanwhile, the demand for seasonal laborers in industries such as construction, landscaping, and hospitality is about four times the annual allotment of visas. The worst part, though, is that by the time federal bureaucrats are done processing the applications, the season is done.

Johnson and Kirk want employers to have options beyond the rotten choices Uncle Sam makes available. Their bill, called the State-Sponsored Visa Pilot Program Act of 2017, would give each state a modest 5,000 annual allotment to hire whoever it wants from abroad regardless of skill level, confining the federal government's role to conducting security and health checks. This allotment would be adjusted each year based on economic growth.

The foreign workers brought in on these visas would be confined to working in the sponsoring state or states that form a compact to honor each others' visas which is a whole lot better for workers than being tethered to the sponsoring employer. States that feel strongly about keeping out foreign workers don't have to participate. And to ensure that these workers don't skip town and illegally take up employment elsewhere, the participating states would require these workers to post a $4,000 bond that would be returned at the end of their term if they stayed put.

States that have more than a 3 percent non-compliance rate would lose 50 percent of their visa allotment the following year (and would be required to up their bond amount by $1,000 per visa). Conversely, those that meet the stipulated compliance rate which won't be hard to do given that only 2 percent of illegal overstays involve guest workers would be rewarded with a 10 percent increase in their visa quota in subsequent years.

These elaborate provisions were included to placate restrictionist states that don't want to be flooded with foreigners. But it's actually overkill, at least if the experience of our neighbor to the north is any indication.

Canada implemented a similar Provincial Nominee Program 20 years ago. And even without bonding and other requirements, provinces on average are able to retain 80 percent of the sponsored workers. This is particularly remarkable given that the PNP program hands foreigners' permanent residency the equivalent of America's green card and not temporary work visas as the Johnson bill is proposing. This means they are free to work anywhere in the country from the day they land in Canada.

Why have provinces been so successful in hanging on to foreign workers when they are free to work anywhere? Essentially because they do such a granular matching of foreign workers and local labor needs that these workers don't need to go looking for work in better climes.

One great upside of the Johnson-Buck approach is that it could offer a workable fix to the amnesty war by allowing states to sponsor undocumented workers as part of their allotments and potentially take them off the hands of states that don't want them. Utah's conservative legislature, appalled by its neighbor Arizona's harsh treatment of undocumented Latinos, has been asking the federal government for permission to do just that, in fact.

Immigration is a federal function under the U.S. Constitution, but that doesn't mean that Uncle Sam can't hand over some of its authority to states to craft their own immigration policies. Indeed, the Johnson-Buck proposal is in the best traditions of American federalism that allows states to become the laboratories of democracy on immigration, exactly as the Founders intended.

States that fear the fiscal burden or native job losses from more foreign workers can bow out. And those that believe the reverse can opt in without Washington imposing a one-size-fits-all solution on everyone.

Trump can keep pounding his fist and demanding his border wall. But this bill offers an amicable and costless way forward on an issue that has polarized Americans for far too long. It is no skin off anyone's back not even the most ardent restrictionists' and therefore deserves widespread support on Capitol Hill.

Read this article:
The GOP's brilliant new plan to copy Canada's immigration system - The Week Magazine