Mediaboss Marketing

Earlier this week President Trump hosted a roundtable of farmers at the White House to discuss issues facing agriculture.

The panel of 14 people included farmers, one national FFA officer and the newly confirmed Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue.

We had a very diverse group not only in regard to production agriculture but also diversity in regard to gender, ethnicity and age, says Hank Choate, a seventh-generation dairy and row crop farmer near Cement City, Mich.

The group discussed many of the issues farmers are currently up against including immigration, labor, trade, regulation and infrastructure.

Choate says the discussion on immigration was encouraging and that it seems the President began to have a clearer picture of the need for reform.

The farmers in the group made it abundantly clear that many of the immigrant workers on farms have been working for those farms for a long time and are law abiding citizens.

According to Choate, Mr. Trump said the administration will develop a program that not only gives security and piece of mind to those workers but will also provide farmers the skilled labor they need.

The H2A Visa program was also a hot topic during the discussion. A nursery grower from Ohio shared how it had been harder for him to hire employees through the program as the number of visas accessible had been reduced under the Obama administration.

Choate says the President turned to Sonny Perdue and asked that problem be addressed as soon as possible.

Maybe theres hope for immigration reform that benefits farmers after all.

Original post:
Trump Promises Immigration Reform That Will Work for Agriculture - AgWeb

Kristopher Hooks, KXTV 1:53 PM. PDT April 28, 2017

WASHINGTON, DC - President Donald Trump holds a news conference with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg in the East Room of the White House April 12, 2017 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images) (Photo: Chip Somodevilla, 2017 Getty Images)

During his campaign, then-candidate Donald Trump vowed to terminate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program immediately. But Trump's tone has apparently shifted since taking over the White House.

Now, like his predecessor Barack Obama, President Donald Trump is saying his administration is focusing on deporting criminals and not families or people who dont pose a threat to public safety. In an interview with the Associated Press, Trump said that dreamers can rest easy.

What that means exactly is yet to be seen. But for the over 1.6 million DACA recipients, approved by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, resting easy isnt something that just happens.

ABC10s Michael Anthony Adams spoke with some local DACA recipients who told stories of both struggle and success. But, in order for us to understand how the country got here, we must know where we came from in terms of DACA and immigration.

Here is a recent timeline of immigration reform in America.

Obama on the Illinois version of the DREAM Act (legislation he sponsored as senator) at the Democratic Primary Debate in Jan. 2008:

Children who are brought here through no fault of their own are able to go to college because we actually want well educated kids in our country who are able to succeed and become part of this economy and part of the American dream.

Obama in 2008 on immigration reform policy in his first term, if elected:

The American people need us to put an end to the petty partisanship that passes for politics in Washington. And they need us to enact comprehensive immigration reform once and for all. We cant wait 20 years from now to do it, we cant wait 10 years now to do it, we need to do it before the end of my first president of the United States of America. And I will make it a top priority in my first year as president, not only because we have an obligation to get control who comes in and out of our country, not only because we need to crack down on employers who are abusing undocumented immigrants instead of hiring citizens, but because we have to finally bring undocumented immigrants out of the shadows. It is time we did that.

Obama on Sept. 20, 2012 at the University of Miami Town Hall with Univision journalist Jorge Ramos on not fulfilling his immigration reform campaign promise:

Jorge Ramos:I want to emphasize "the first year." At the beginning of your governing, you had control of both chambers of Congress, and yet you did not introduce immigration reform. And before I continue, I want for you to acknowledge that you did not keep your promise.Obama: Well, let me first of all, Jorge, make a point that when we talked about immigration reform in the first year, thats before the economy was on the verge of collapse -- Lehman Brothers had collapsed, the stock market was collapsing. And so my first priority was making sure that we prevented us from going into a Great Depression.

He continued, And what I confess I did not expect -- and so Im happy to take responsibility for being naive here -- is that Republicans who had previously supported comprehensive immigration reform -- my opponent in 2008, who had been a champion of it and who attended these meetings -- suddenly would walk away. Thats what I did not anticipate.

Ramos pushed back on the issue: It was a promise, Mr. President. And I don't want to -- because this is very important, I dont want to get you off the explanation. You promised that. And a promise is a promise. And with all due respect, you didnt keep that promise.

Obama: We have to have cooperation from all these sources in order to get something done. And so I am happy to take responsibility for the fact that we didnt get it done, but I did not make a promise that I would get everything done, 100 percent, when I was elected as President.

What I promised was that I would work every single day as hard as I can to make sure that everybody in this country, regardless of who they are, what they look like, where they come from, that they would have a fair shot at the American Dream. And I have -- that promise Ive kept.

On June 15, 2012 the Obama administration introduced DACA program:

Through Department of Homeland Security, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program suspends deportation for two years for people who came to the country illegally before they turned 16 years old, were under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012, or lived in the country continuously for 5 years.

Obama on Nov. 20, 2014 during his Immigration reform speech:

Obama introduced DAPA, or Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, a deferred-deportation and work-authorization policy for immigrants whose children are citizens, lawful permanent residents, or had been living in the country since Jan. 1, 2010.

During his speech introducing the unilateral executive action, Obama said:

Today, our immigration system is broken, and everybody knows it. Families who enter our country the right way and play by the rules watch others flout the rules. all of us take offense take offense of anyone who reaps the rewards of living in America without taking on the responsibilities of living in America. When I took office, I committed to fixing this broken immigration system, and i began by doing what I could to secure our borders.

Lets be honest, tracking down, rounding up and deporting millions of people isnt realistic. Anyone who suggests otherwise isnt being straight with you.

On Dec. 3, 2014, 26 states, led by Texas, filed a suit to block the DAPA action

Texas and other states brought forth the suit in the U.S. District Court in Texas, saying that the DAPA Executive Order, which bypassed the GOP-led Congress, violated the Administrative Procedure Act notice-and-comment requirements for new federal agency rules.

On Feb. 16, 2015, a Texas judge blocked the enforcement of the Obama order

U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen of Brownsville, Texas issues an injunction to block enforcement of the DAPA program nationwide. Hanen said the Obama administration failed to offer notice and seek comment under the APA. The Obama Administration appealed the ruling, countering that the program came from Homeland Security discretion on deportation priorities.

On Nov. 9, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld the ruling by Judge Hanen.

On Jan. 19, 2016, the Supreme Court agreed to the case.

On Feb. 13, 2016, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died.

Before Justice Antonin Scalias death, the Supreme Court sat 5 conservative judges and 4 liberal judges. After Scalias death, the bench was split 4-4, leaving a possibility for deadlock decision.

On June 23, 2016, the Supreme Court split its vote, signaling defeat for the Obama Administration

Two months after hearing oral arguments from both sides in the United States v. Texas case, the Supreme Court is split 4-4, leaving in place the 5th Circuits ruling to block Obamas executive action.

2017 KXTV-TV

Go here to see the original:
Dreaming in America: A recent timeline of immigration reform - ABC10

WASHINGTON Lorella Praeli, formerly an undocumented activist, has experience in putting political pressure on the White House.

She fought former President Barack Obama over high deportations during his first term and lobbied Congress on immigration reform. If 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had won, she may have worked on the inside, after serving as the candidates the national director of Latino outreach.

Instead, President Donald Trump is in the White House and shes going back to activism now with a new job as director of immigration policy and campaigns at the American Civil Liberties Union, starting Monday.

I refuse to look at the next four years and say the only thing we will do is defend, she told HuffPost, ahead of her job announcement. It also has to be how do we defend and expand and advance the rights of the community.

The ACLU is ramping up its on-the-ground advocacy in response to Trump, along with its litigation efforts over some of his highest-profile executive orders on immigration those to block refugees and nationals of certain Muslim-majority countriesfrom the U.S.

Praeli will work on policy and advocacy, both nationally and in states and localities, where parallel fights are playing out over immigration, such as an anti-sanctuary city bill that passed in the Texas House of Representatives on Thursday.

She vowed tolook for ways that advocates can not just defend against deportation efforts but also enact pro-immigrant policies where they can, such as laws that allow undocumented immigrants to get drivers licenses and in-state tuition. On the defense, she said the ACLU would do a lot of work on immigration enforcement, including agents going into courthouses and schools.

Praeli offers an important perspective as a former undocumented immigrant herself. She moved to the U.S. with her family without authorization when she was 10 years old, making her one of the so-called Dreamers that came to the country as a child. She was undocumented up until 2012, when she married and received a green card. Praeli became a citizen in 2015 and voted in her first presidential election in 2016.

Being able to bring that experience into the room is incomparable, she said. You can talk about what undocumented people are going through or you can say I know this is whats happening because I myself was undocumented.

Praeli worked for United We Dream, a nationwide network of undocumented youth-led organization, as an advocacy and policy director until 2015, when she left to join the Clinton campaign.

Her history with immigration advocacy groups around the country and reputation in the advocacy community as a Dreamer was important in making the hire, said ACLU National Political Director Faiz Shakir.

What were building toward is being able to tell Trump not just See you in court but also see you in the streets, he said.

Praeli, who spoke at the Democratic National Convention that nominated Clinton, said her November loss was devastating and unexpected. But she did expect what happened next: A Trump crackdown on undocumented immigrants that he promised during the campaign but some people thought he wouldnt follow through on.

Still, its caused many people to engage in advocacy for the first time, which Praeli said she hopes to tap into in her new role.

I was devastated by the outcome of the election, she said. But Ive also known that our country would rise to the moment.

See more here:
Dreamer Lorella Praeli To Be A Leader Of Trump Resistance On Immigration - Huffington Post

The Texas Major Cities Chiefs and the Texas Police Chiefs Association would like to take this opportunity to respectfully oppose Senate Bill 4 as amended by the Texas House of Representatives.

SB 4 requires law enforcement agencies to become more involved in the enforcement of federal immigration laws.

No one believes in the rule of law more than the agencies represented by these two organizations. We work tirelessly to make our communities safer within the confines of the Constitution by arresting those who commit crimes that threaten our communities. We specifically target individuals committing violent crimes and arrest anyone who threatens the safety of our communities regardless of their immigration status.

Members of these organizations work extremely hard to build and maintain trust, communication and stronger relationships with minority communities through community-based policing and outreach programs. Broad mandates like those imposed by SB 4, require local law enforcement to take a more active role in immigration enforcement and will further strain the relationship between local law enforcement and the diverse communities we serve. Officers will start inquiring about the immigration status of every person they come in contact with or worse, only inquire about the immigration status of individuals based on their appearance. This will lead to distrust of police, less cooperation from members of the community and will foster the belief that they cannot seek assistance from police for fear of being subjected to an immigration status investigation.

Distrust and fear of contacting or assisting the police has already become evident among legal immigrants as well. Legal immigrants are beginning to avoid contact with the police for fear that they themselves or undocumented family members or friends may become subject to immigration enforcement. Such a divide between the local police and immigrant groups will result in increased crime against immigrants and in the broader community; create a class of silent victims; and eliminate the potential for assistance from immigrants in solving crimes or preventing crime.

It should not be forgotten that by not arresting criminals who victimize our immigrant communities, we are also allowing them to remain free to victimize every one of us. When it comes to criminals, we are in this together regardless of race, sex, religion or nation of origin. SB 4 will have the unintended consequence of making our communities more dangerous not safer, as we presume the Texas Legislature had intended.

Law enforcement in Texas works cooperatively with federal law enforcement agencies including Immigration and Customs Enforcement to disrupt violent street gangs and others who threaten our communities. If federal agencies file criminal charges or obtain judicially reviewed warrants on any person, local law enforcement officers arrest the person regardless of immigration status.

SB 4 reinforces the call by some for local police to become more involved in enforcing federal immigration laws; however, to comply with these constitutionally questionable requirements means stretching already-limited resources. At a time of strained law enforcement budgets and critically low jail space, narrowing the focus to violent criminals, human traffickers, gun traffickers and members of organized crime syndicates is critical. Requiring local law enforcement to prioritize immigration efforts without adequate funding or increased support from involved governmental agencies will hinder an agencys ability to focus its limited resources on the unique needs of the community it serves.

Immigration enforcement is first and foremost a federal obligation. Any immigration reform must begin with the federal government. While the federal government has not been able or willing to address this issue, any effort by the state of Texas to address immigration reform will be ineffective.

SB 4 is not the answer to comprehensive immigration reform; it is political pandering that will make our communities more dangerous. If the Texas Legislature is intent on passing legislation to address immigration reform, passing laws like SB 4 that require local law enforcement to become immigration agents is not the answer.

If the Legislature were serious about removing undocumented people, there are better ways to address this issue than forcing law enforcement to become immigration agents. The Texas Legislature could easily start by addressing the businesses that hire undocumented workers, which is why the majority of the honest, hard-working people emigrate to this country with or without documentation. By addressing the primary reason undocumented persons enter this state, it would free law enforcement to address those persons who are committing crimes.

Our organizations respectfully request that the members of the Texas Legislature withdraw the amendments to SB 4 that was passed by the Texas House of Representatives. This legislation is bad for Texas and will make our communities more dangerous for all.

By Austin interim Police Chief Brian Manley; Chief Will Johnson of Arlington; interim Chief David Pughes of Dallas; Chief Joel Fitzgerald of Fort Worth; Chief Art Acevedo of Houston; Chief William McManus of San Antonio; and James McLaughlin, executive director of Texas Police Chiefs Association.

See the article here:
Texas police chiefs: SB 4 is not comprehensive immigration reform - MyStatesman.com

This past week, an ABC News/Washington Post survey revealed that, if the election took place again today, Donald Trump would still win, and possibly by a wider margin. Many in the mainstream media, including ABC News George Stephanopoulos, expressed disbelief by these results. But it shouldnt take them by surprise. If members of the media are truly surprised, its because they are deceived by the biased language of many polls.

Polling on immigration exemplifies an inherent bias that produces skewed results. Over the past few weeks, media outlets have touted the idea that Trumps immigration policies counter the will of the people because support for immigration is at an all-time high. The Wall Street Journal went so far as to conclude that their latest poll on immigration suggests backlash to Trump administration policies. A number of other news agencies are also quick to note that their polls apparently signal opposition to Trumps policies.

However, if you take time to investigate the wording of these polls, a different picture becomes obvious. The same Wall Street Journal poll, which reports that 60 percent of likely voters support immigration, is tailor-made for a pro-immigration response. The wording specifically required that respondents decide if immigration as a whole generally helps or generally hurts the nation. As could be predicted, the survey harvested a generally positive view on immigration. Similarly, when Gallup asked voters on the whole, do you think immigration is a good or bad thing for this country? during this past election cycle, a whopping 72 percent cited immigration as a good thing.

Wording poll questions like this leaves likely voters without the ability to expound on their opinions of the American immigration system. If they want to voice displeasure with the current system, they are required to condemn immigration as a whole, which is unfair and illogical.

Surveys mainly non-mainstream media polls that are willing to ask specific questions related to immigration, paint a different picture. While many news organizations reported on the Gallup poll question signaling support for immigration as an overall practice, most ignored a more specific question in the same poll that revealed a vast majority of voters (76 percent) want to reduce immigration levels or leave them the same. In addition, a recent Rasmussen poll that shows only 15 percent of voters oppose Trumps recent Executive Order that includes reforming the H-1B worker program.

Very few Americans believe that immigration, as a practice, is evil and/or entirely without benefit. Neither does President Trump. What Americans do oppose, however, is a broken and out of control immigration system that favors those who violate or abuse the law. Honest surveys show this. However, even if the mainstream media avoids reporting on them, the American people still back President Trumps efforts to enact meaningful immigration reform that serves the best interests of American citizens.

See original here:
Don't Fall For the Mainstream Media's Polling on Immigration - ImmigrationReform.com (blog)