Mediaboss Marketing

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) will discuss the Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment (RAISE Act),an America First immigration reform plan he co-sponsored with Senator David Perdue (R-GA).

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy will discuss the increasing threats from Iran and the tensions its causing the international community. Hell also offer his thoughtson Trumps recent comments about Putin.

Breitbart Legal Editor Ken Klukowski will discuss the arguments made before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the lawsuit over Trumps executive order temporarily barring immigration from seven countries while a review of the vetting process is completed.

Breitbarts Dr. Susan Berry will discuss the confirmation of Trumps Education Secretary Betsy DeVos.

Breitbart Financial Editor John Carney will rundown the latest business headlines.

Live from London, Rome, and Jerusalem, Breitbart correspondents will provide updates on the latest international news.

Breitbart News Daily is the first live, conservative radio enterprise to air seven days a week. SiriusXM Vice President for news and talk Dave Gorab called the show the conservative news show of record.

Follow Breitbart News on Twitter for live updates during the show. Listeners may call into the show at: 866-957-2874.

View post:
Breitbart News Daily: America First Immigration Reform - Breitbart News

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

The White Houses Jan. 27 immigration reform threatens companies ability to attract talent, business, and investment to the United States, says the legal brief by the companies, who include many Silicon Valley firms. The signers include Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, Reddit, Paypal, Netflix, Lyft, and TaskRabbit, which helps wealthier people hire other people to do household chores.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

The 53-page, green-eyeshade demand for economic benefits was submitted Feb. 5 to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, as part of the legal battle to block the popular reform.

The new reform follows the presidents campaign promises by curbing the annual inflow of taxpayer-supported refugees, and setting rules to exclude migrants with hostile attitudes, such as an ideological willingness to use violence.

The companies legal brief is focused on their claim that they will lose their ability to hire foreign workers for some of white-collar jobs sought by American graduates.

Each year, roughly 800,000 young Americans graduate from college with skilled degrees in business, science, medicine and technology. But many of the graduates are not working in jobs that match their technical skills. For example, from 2009 to 2013, about one-fifth of underemployed recent college graduatesroughly 9 percent of all recent graduatesdid work in a low-skilled service job, says a 2016 report by two federal economic researchers.

The federal government annually imports 1 million legal immigrants, and allows companies to hire roughly 1 million foreigncontract-workers.The inflow of white-collar contract workers is so large that roughly 1 million are now legally employed in white-collar jobs in the United States, including 100,000 H-1B contract-workers holding prestigious jobs at universities.

Many companies want to preserve the inflow of cheaper white-collar workers. For example, executives at Comcast organized a demonstration against the immigration and refugee reform.

According to the courtroom brief by the technology companies:

The [reform]effects a sudden shift in the rules governing entry into the UnitedStates, and is inflicting substantial harm on U.S. companies. It hinders the abilityof American companies to attract great talent; increases costs imposed on business;makes it more difficult for American firms to compete in the international marketplace;and gives global enterprises a new, significant incentive to build operationsandhire new employeesoutside the United States

This instability and uncertainty will make it far more difficult and expensivefor U.S. companies to hire some of the worlds best talentand impede them fromcompeting in the global marketplace. Businesses and employees have little incentiveto go through the laborious process of sponsoring or obtaining a visa, and relocatingto the United States, if an employee may be unexpectedly halted at the border.

Skilled individuals will not wish to immigrate to the country if they may becut off without warning from their spouses, grandparents, relatives, and friendsthey will not pull up roots, incur significant economic risk, and subject their family to considerable uncertainty to immigrate to the United States in the face of this instability.

The companies legal brief largely ignores the effort by Americans to win higher salaries, more secure employment and it also ignores the gains to civic cohesion from reduced social confusion and uncertainty. Instead, the brief claims there is bedrock guarantee of benefits for immigrants and employers:

Immigrants, family members, andbusinesses deserve much betterand Congress and the Constitution entitle them toan immigration system that is administered reasonably, non-arbitrarily, and in accordwith statutory requirements. The Order contravenes that bedrock guarantee.

Roughly 86 percent of people living in the United States are native-born Americans.But the legal brief also excluded ordinary Americans from their own nation, saying that the country is a nation of immigrants, not of native-born Americans.

America proudly describes itself as a nation of immigrants We are: in 1910, 14.7% of the population wasforeign born; in 2010, 12.9%.2 A quarter of us have at least one parent who wasborn outside the country. Close to half of us have a grandparent born somewhereelse. Nearly all of us trace our lineage to another country.

Each year, 4 million American youths enter the workforce to seek jobs that pay enough to afford a house and a family.

The federal governments policy of importing a huge number of legal immigrants and contract workers lowers Americans salaries by roughly $500 billion a year, according to a Harvard professor, Nearly all of $500 billion is scooped up in greater profits for companies and investors. If the worker inflow is reduced, Americans wages will rise and investors stock prices will temporarily fall, according to a June 2016 report by a stock-market firm.

ManyAmericans are unemployed or have given up looking for work. Roughly 10 percent of American prime age men, or 7 million men aged 25 to 54, have dropped out of the nations workforce, at enormous cost to themselves, their communities and to the nations economic health. Many other Americans are stuck in low-wage work in the heartland of the nation, while investors create jobs for immigrants along the two coasts.

Read the legal brief here.

The rest is here:
Silicon Valley Wants More Foreign Workers, Asks Court to Ban President's Immigration Reform - Breitbart News

President Donald Trump says those against his travel ban are putting the country in danger. About 100 technology giants, including Microsoft , Google , Facebook and Apple , have signed onto a legal action against the ban. Newslook

People protest against President Trump at the entrance to the Mar-a-Lago Resort where he is staying for the weekend on Feb. 4, 2017, in Palm Beach, Fla.(Photo: Joe Raedle, Getty Images)

SAN FRANCISCONearly three dozen more tech companies late Monday joined a court brief against President Trump's executive order on immigration, swelling the ranks of those seeking a hold on the refugee ban to 127.

Newcomers included Tesla and SpaceX, joining tech heavyweights Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft, and a list of both start-ups and more established Silicon Valley stalwarts.

The amicus brief, filed Sunday evening in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, began with 96 companies, though initial reports were 97, as one company was listed twice.

Monday afternoon those 96 mostly tech companies were joined by 31 more when an addendum was filed.

The brief lauded the drive and creativity of the USA's immigrantsand said that while protecting the nation through increased background checks was important, maintaining America's fundamental commitment to welcoming immigrants was also critical.

USA TODAY

Airbnb aims #WeAccept Super Bowl ad at refugees, immigrants

USA TODAY

Travel ban: How we got here and what is next

"The beneficiaries are not just the new immigrants who chose to come to our shores, but American businesses, workers, and consumers, who gain immense advantages from immigrants infusion of talents, energy, and opportunity," the case states.

The brief is in support of a lawsuit filed in federal court last Monday by Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson thatasked that key provisions of the executive order be declared unconstitutional.

Trump's order, signed a week after he took office, halted entry of all refugees for 120 days, banned admission of refugees from Syria indefinitely, and barred entry for three months of citizens from seven predominantly Muslim nations.

In response to that suit, Senior Judge James Robart of U.S. District Court in Seattle on Friday issued a nationwide restraining order on the immigration order.On Sunday,the 9th Circuit appeals court, considered the nation's most liberal,declined to reinstatethe restrictions.

Trump has sharply criticized the court decisions, and his Administration says the ban is necessary to weed out immigrants with intentions of terrorism. Late Monday, Justice Department officials urged the appeals court judge to reinstate the ban on grounds that not doing so endangered national security

Eventually, the Supreme Court may decide. Courts do take note of who files friends-of-the-court briefs.

Tech firms have complained that Trump's order has created havoc in an industry that is global and has a large number of foreign-born engineers in others working in the U.S. and abroad. Google has said nearly 200 of its staff would be impacted by the ban, while Microsoft said it would affect more than 75.

USA TODAY

The 127 companies on the immigration amicus brief

The list of companies that signed the amicus brief include mostly West Coast tech companies, including Adobe, Airbnb, Box, Dropbox, Etsy, Github, Glassdoor, HP Inc., Kickstarter, LinkedIn, Medium, Mozilla, Netflix, Pandora, Pinterest, Reddit, Salesforce, Slack, Square, Twilo, Yelp and Zynga.

USA TODAY

127 companies now support brief opposing Trump ban

A few non-tech companies also signed, including yogurt company Chobani, snack maker KIND and Levi Strauss & Co.

USA TODAY

Immigrants started 3 retail cos. on the court brief against the Trump order

Uber, whose CEO Travis Kalanick resigned from a Trump advisory council late last week after the ride-hailing company came under pressure from both customers and drivers, signed the brief.

SpaceX and Teslacompanies run by Elon Musk, were among the second-day additions to the list. Musk stayed on the advisory council, despite some backlash from others in the tech industry, saying it was the best chance to influence the administration to make changes to an order he has conceded treats some immigrants unfairly.

USA TODAY

Is Trump's immigration ban headed for the Supreme Court?

The brief marks one of a few recent moments in which the industry has come together around specific issues.

In 2013, more than 20 tech leaders helped create FWD.us, an organization pushing for immigration reform. In 2014, nearly 150 Internet companies sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission supporting net neutrality. And in 2016, many technology companies issued statements supporting Apple in its struggle with the FBI over breaking the encryption on an iPhone used by a terrorist in San Bernardino.

President Donald Trump used his preferred platform to criticize the judge who blocked his administration's travel ban on immigrants. Video provided by Newsy Newslook

"The Order effects a sudden shift in the rules governing entry into the United States, and is inflicting substantial harm on U.S. companies," the brief states. "It hinders the ability of American companies to attract great talent; increases costs imposed on business; makes it more difficult for American firms to compete in the international marketplace; and gives global enterprises a new, significant incentive to build operationsand hire new employeesoutside the United States."

In the filing, the companies note that immigrants or their children founded more than 200 of the Fortune 500 companies that include Apple, Kraft, Ford, General Electric, AT&T, Google, McDonalds, Boeing, and Disney. Immigrants also make up 28% of Main Street business owners and 18% of business owners nationwide as well as 16% of the U.S. labor force, they say. "Immigrants do not take jobs away from U.S. citizens they create them," the filing states.

USA TODAY

Meet James Robart, the judge who halted Trumps immigration ban

A large group of lawyers from tech companies met last Tuesday to discuss possible actions they might collectively take to fight the executive order. The amicus brief appears to be the fruit of that meeting.

There was no immediate response from the administration. On Saturday, President Trump tweeted, "I have instructed Homeland Security to check people coming into our country VERY CAREFULLY. The courts are making the job very difficult!"

Friend of the court briefs often influential

Amicus briefsallow interested parties to give the court their own take on the issues involved, without actually being a part of the case. There are few limits on who can submit them and especially contentious or important cases can have dozens arguing of briefs submitted on each side, said Martin Flaherty, a professor of constitutional law at Fordham Law School in New York City.

Its not uncommon for parties with an interest (called amici, or friends in Latin) to come together to either divvy up what their briefs will cover or work together to craft a single brief as happened in the tech groups case, Flaherty said.

While all such briefs are equal before the law, courts often take note of who is filing them.

An example Flaherty gave was a Michigan affirmative action case that went to the Supreme Court in 2003. An influential amicus filingcame from a group of retired military leaders who argued that affirmative action was crucial for the nations military academies as it would be bad for the schools and the military as a whole were the officer corps not to reflect the diversity of themilitary as a whole.

I would think that perhaps for certain justices, the fact that all these tech companies are saying this would be terrible for the country is important, Flaherty said.

Contributing: Mike Snider in Tysons Corner, Va.

Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/2kE0gqP

Continue reading here:
127 companies now support brief opposing Trump ban - USA TODAY

Editors note: This article was originally published April 8, 2014

That, in essence, is what some political leaders have for any chance of comprehensive immigration plan to pass soon in this country.

Among those leaders with hope is San Antonio mayor Julin Castro and former Mississippi governor Haley Barbour. Both spoke on the panel Pathway to the American Dream: Immigration Policy in the 21st Century during the first day of the Civil Rights Summit at the LBJ Presidential Library. The two agreed on pretty much every point covered and often complemented one other. It left many of us to wonder why more politicians from opposing parties cant work together so gracefully on this particular topic.

Both Castro, a Democrat, and Barbour, a Republican, say comprehensive immigration reform is needed. The right reform, they agree, would find a solution for the more than 11 million undocumented immigrants deportation, not being a part of the solution.

The panel set out to talk about two types of immigration: legal vs. illegal. Castro agreed that there are distinction, but clarified that a potential large percentage anywhere from 15 percent to 45 percent of the 11 million immigrants cited have entered with a valid visa and just stayed, also known as over-stayers.

When we talk about border security, I hope people also talk about those people with visas who overstayed, said Barbour.

This segment of the undocumented immigrants is not talked about much because, Castro said, over-stayers arent as scary a thought as those who illegally cross the border.

That makes sense. For many, working immigrants have been unjustly stereotyped as criminals and violent people.

Barbour said, Americans want a safe border and theyre willing to pay for it.

However, throwing more money into border security and more boots on the ground wont make it more secure. And the panelists agreed.

It accounts for something that weve paid so much on border security and weve yet to figure out what that really means.

One of the first steps to securing the border is to set a standard by which to measure security, Castro said. Border crossings will never be at zero.

A heckler, who identified herself as a DREAMER, pointed out that the panel hadnt mentioned anything on deportation. And though they didnt immediately address the topic, the panelists agreed that deportation was not a viable solution to the immigration problem.

Anyone who thinks we are going to send back 11 million people, if they tell you that, theyll lie to you about other things, said Barbour. Thats just not going to happen.

So what can be done to solve the problem?

Both panelists agreed that crafting a law that takes into account the contributions made by millions of undocumented individuals and find a way to assure they earn citizenship is essential. Its just not practical to send them back.

After the summit Castro talked to me about the issue of deportation.

I asked him, while Americans wait for reform to pass, what should be done about the thousands of deportations that happen on a monthly basis across the nation.

My hope is that regardless of whether or not a reform happens in this calendar year, that the administration will find ways to alleviate deportations for people with families and for those who dont have serious criminal record, he said.

That is exactly what many local activists have been pushing for.

But that definition for a secured border nor a comprehensive reform can not come if republicans dont set politics aside and focus instead on a policy that works for the United States, said Barbour.

Both Castro and Barbour believe it will happen, if not this year, most certainly by election year 2016.

Lets hope it comes sooner than later.

More:
LBJ Civil Rights Summit: Long road ahead for immigration reform - Austin American-Statesman

NorthJersey Published 12:09 a.m. ET Feb. 5, 2017 | Updated 7 hours ago

Chris Christie(Photo: Julio Cortez/AP)

What a difference nine years make. In 2008, U.S. Attorney Chris Christie said immigrants living in the United Sates without valid documentation were not in violation of the U.S. criminal code.

In 2013, when running for a second term as governor, Christie supported a bill allowing undocumented college-age immigrants who were brought into the United States as children so-called Dreamers to attend state colleges and universities at in-state tuition rates. He signed the bill into law.

But in 2017, Governor Christie is really willing to partner with President Donald Trump in punishing municipalities that proclaim a willingness to aid undocumented people.

The governor said that on Fox News Channels OReilly Factor Thursday night. Christie has been making the rounds of talk shows of late, perhaps a sign that he is looking to once again raise his national profile as the Trump administration stumbles in its first weeks.

Back in 2008, Christie was a gubernatorial hopeful and was pitching himself as a pragmatic Republican, someone who would govern a blue state with an even hand. Christie made a nuanced distinction between a violation of criminal law and a civil law. There are differences, from a legal perspective, between crossing the border illegally and entering legally but then overstaying a visa.

But to many Americans in 2017, this is a moot point. Trump campaigned heavily on building a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border, instituting some form or Muslim immigration ban and cracking down on so-called sanctuary cities.

What makes a municipality a sanctuary city is not well defined. Some city councils pass ordinances declaring an intention to not enforce federal immigration policy. Other cities just do not want to be forced into dealing with federal immigration policy. Many police departments rightly believe if they are forced to act as federal immigration agents, they compromise their relationships in the very communities federal officials need willing partners.

There was a time Christie understood this completely. Federal officials in New Jersey in the months following 9/11 built bridges. Now the Trump administration and a willing Christie want walls.

Writing today in the Sunday Opinion section about Trumps refugee ban, Newark Cardinal Joseph Tobin says, Scripture impels my brother bishops and I to call on the federal government to alter its executive actions, and instead craft a well-conceived and comprehensive approach to immigration and refugee resettlement reform that both protects our people and national security and treats newcomers and refugees with respect, mercy, love and kindness.

That approach has to also apply to how the federal government deals with the 11 million undocumented people living in the United States. Rather than punish cities, the Trump administration should be focused on how to reform U.S. immigration policies and forge a legislative compromise in Congress that separates individuals who should be deported from the millions of people who are contributing to U.S. society and need to be taken out of the shadows.

It is not an easy task. And it is one where Christie could play an important part on the national stage as a former U.S. attorney and a governor of a diverse state. It just depends on which Christie shows up the one from 2008 or 2017.

Read or Share this story: http://northjersy.news/2k8ZKhc

Go here to see the original:
Editorial: There are two Christies on immigration reform - NorthJersey.com