Mediaboss Marketing

In January, President Trump signed an Executive Order blocking sanctuary jurisdictions from receiving certain federal funding. Some 300 jurisdictions across the nation maintain policies that protect illegal aliens and/or impede the ability of the federal government to enforce immigration laws. These policies are expressly prohibited under federal statutes.

The Center for American Progress (CAP), which had a revolving door with the Obama administration and was a key player in formulating the former presidents immigration policies, has very helpfully quantified how much sanctuary jurisdictions stand to lose if they persist in these policies. It has also identified which programs and federal grants will be affected. By CAPs estimation, $870 million a year is at stake for state and local politicians as they decide whether keep the cash or preserve their ideological chastity.

Some jurisdictions, like Miami-Dade County, Florida, and Dayton, Ohio, immediately opted to keep the flow of federal dollars coming their way and dropped their sanctuary policies. Others, where coddling illegal aliens is not just an ideology, but their seeming raison dtre, have decided to play a very expensive game of chicken with a president who is not known for backing down.

Unsurprisingly, California, which is one big 163,696 square mile sanctuary jurisdiction and a fiscal mess, stands to lose the most federal money overall, $239.5 million. On a per capita basis, New Yorkers would be the biggest losers as their state would forfeit $191 million in federal program and grant money.

In the most hardcore sanctuary jurisdictions, local politicians are going to face some very difficult choices: abandon their cherished sanctuary policies and alienate their political base, or abandon hundreds of millions of desperately needed federal dollars and alienate voters who would rather their elected officials focused on keeping the lights on. The first such showdown is likely to come in President Trumps home town, New York City, where Mayor Bill de Blasio is up for reelection in November. Due in part to the citys unconditional welcome mat for illegal aliens, the Big Apple is staring at a $3.8 billion budget gap by FY 2019 (the second year of the mayors second term, if the voters decide to give him one).

Of course, its hard to feel too sorry for the political leaders who are going to be forced to make these hard choices. They knew that the policies they were adopting were a violation of federal law, but they did so anyway, believing that their political gestures would come without consequence. Now, it seems, there will be a price to pay $870 million a year, according to CAP and whatever they decide will make a lot of people very unhappy.

See the original post here:
The $870 Million Question | Immigration Reform Blog - ImmigrationReform.com (blog)

Sounding a bit annoyed, U.S. immigration and Justice Department attorneys deny that federal officers erased or changed a statement written by a Seattle Dreamer who is fighting to avoid deportation.

Nor did Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers make up claims about street-gang connections attributed to Mexico-born Daniel Ramirez Medina when he was arrested with his immigrant father in a Seattle suburb, Des Moines, on Feb. 5, the government says in newly filed responses to Ramirezs civil lawsuit in federal court here.

Ramirezs case has garnered attention nationwide because he was enrolled in an Obama-era program that shields from deportation certain immigrants brought to the country as children. His detention also came after the Trump administration promised to crack down more forcefully on illegal immigration.

Now 23, Ramirez was brought to the U.S. illegally at age 7 by his parents, and later obtained protective status under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

Known as Dreamers, those who qualify can remain in the U.S. for renewable 2-year periods without worry of being deported unless they commit a crime. Then-President Obama approved the program as a goodwill gesture to offspring who would otherwise lack a homeland.

Ramirez says hed broken no law and his attorneys say the deportation case against him is untrue and unfair.

Similar claims have been raised by a Dreamer in Mississippi who is also facing deportation. Daniela Vargas, 22, says she was targeted by ICE after recently speaking at a news conference about her hopes for immigration reform. Danielas case is representative of the mean-spirited and misguided immigration policy of this administration, said her attorney, Michelle Lapointe of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

But the government, in its responses to Ramirezs legal actions taking place in federal district and immigration courts in Seattle, says other Dreamers have been arrested and deported in recent years and the action taken against Ramirez is not necessarily a change in policy.

Ramirez had claimed that a line of his post-arrest statement was altered.

A photograph appears to also show smudge marks left by an eraser. The full sentence, which refers to orange outfits given to gang members in custody, reads: I came in and the officers said I have gang affiliation with gangs so I wear a orange uniform.

Ramirezs attorneys allege the first seven words were erased, turning the remaining line I have gang affiliation with gangs so I wear a orange uniform into a confession of gang activity.

Jeffrey Robins, a Justice Department assistant director, said in the court filing that the appearance of the statement can be blamed on the use of two pens.

Ramirez wrote his entire statement in ink, the initial pen that Petitioner used did not write well, and there are no indications that anyone sought to tamper with the document, Robins wrote. Moreover, the claim that an ICE contractor erased the first seven words does not make any sense both because these seven words are legible. Even without the words, it is clear that Petitioner is denying, rather than admitting, to gang affiliation."

In any event, the government maintains that Ramirez has gang ties and that such affiliation ends his DACA status. The government alleges he has a gang tattoo, which Ramirez says is the name of his hometown, La Paz, in the state of Baja California Sur.

Robins said Ramirez also missed his chance at freedom, which is the goal of his district court action. He failed to request an initial bond hearing, but when the immigration court scheduled such a hearing, his attorneys requested it be cancelled.

Had his attorneys not taken this step, it is possible the immigration court would have ordered Petitioner released, mooting out this part of the case, states Robins. The issue may come up again in two weeks at the next scheduled immigration court session.

Last week, Ramirezs father, Antonio Ramirez Polendo, the original target of the ICE agents at the family apartment, was charged with illegal reentry into the United States. Since 2000, he has been arrested for similar violations seven times, and deported seven times. He also has a 2004 conviction for drug trafficking.

Anderson is a special correspondent.

ALSO

Obamacare overhaul faces resistance in Congress from right and left

'A Day Without a Woman' for many means a day without school

Trump's travel ban contains a tool that could change how the U.S. conducts foreign policy

Originally posted here:
Federal officials deny doctoring document central to case of 'Dreamer' facing deportation - Los Angeles Times

Attorneys for a young Dreamer facing deportation claim in a federal petition that immigration officers violated her right to freedom of speech, arguing she was targeted by authorities because she spoke out at a news conference about her hopes for immigration reform and the effect of enforcement raids on her family.

The allegation of retaliation is contained in a petition filed in federal court by a coalition of immigration and civil rights attorneys trying to stop the deportation of Daniela Vargas, who was detained by immigration agents in Mississippi minutes after she spoke at the news conference.

The Southern Poverty Law Center and the National Immigration Law Center joined Vargas immigration attorneys to file a habeas petition late Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. Claiming U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement violated Vargas 5th Amendment due process rights to a hearing before an immigration judge and her 1st Amendment right to be free from unconstitutional retaliation for protected speech, the petition seeks her immediate release, as well as a court hearing to challenge the decision to deport her.

She was targeted for speaking out against the ICE enforcement actions in the Jackson area and for going public with her story, said Michelle Lapointe, a senior staff attorney with the Southern Poverty Law Center. We want to send a message to ICE that they cannot behave in this manner that targets people for exercising their 1st Amendment rights.

Vargas, 22, who was brought to the U.S. from Argentina when she was 7 years old, is one of a handful of young immigrants who now finds their legal status in question years after being accepted under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, the Obama-era measure that allows immigrants brought into the country as children to work legally and protects them from deportation.

Danielas case is representative of the mean-spirited and misguided immigration policy of this administration that seeks to deport law-abiding young people who have contributed to their communities and who, for all intents and purposes, are Americans, Lapointe said. They grew up here. The only issue is they were brought to this country by their parents many, many years ago.

Growing up in Morton, a small city 35 miles east of Jackson, Miss., Vargas graduated high school in 2013 with honors, ranking ninth in her class with a 3.77 grade point average. After attending the University of Southern Mississippi, she recently took on a full-time job as a manager of a small store because she could not afford tuition.

Vargas first came under the media spotlight on Feb. 15, after ICE agents detained her father and brother outside their Jackson home as they left for work. Vargas barricaded herself in her home, yet federal agents returned with a search warrant and broke in. After handcuffing her, the petition claims, federal agents later released her, saying they knew her DACA status had lapsed, but that they were giving her a hall pass.

Shaken, Vargas emerged from the house to speak to local media reporters who had gathered outside. Two weeks later, on March 1, ICE agents detained her shortly after she spoke at a news conference outside Jackson City Hall about the need for a path to citizenship for immigrants living in the country without authorization.

Videotape of the news conference shows Vargas saying, "Today my father and brother await deportation while I continue to fight this battle as a Dreamer to help contribute to this country which I feel is very much my country."

According to the petition, ICE agents in two vehicles later pulled over her friends car, and one ICE agent who had previously raided her home said to Vargas: Remember me? You know who we are; you know why were here, and youre under arrest for being an illegal immigrant. She is now being held at a detention center in Louisiana.

In the petition filed Monday, Vargas attorneys argue the actions taken against her could have a chilling effect on others who wish to speak out about immigration. The arrest, detention, and imminent deportation that Ms. Vargas currently faces have injured her and continue to injure her, and would chill any person of ordinary firmness from continuing to speak out on issues related to immigration enforcement and policy, the petition states.

According to her attorneys, Vargas has two pending legal avenues to remain in the country lawfully. In 2012 and 2014, she was approved for the DACA program. While her DACA status expired in November as she tried to save up the $495 fee to renew it, her attorneys filed a renewal application in February.

In addition, Vargas also has a pending 2014 petition for a U non-immigrant visa based on her status as the child of a victim of a serious crime who has suffered mental or physical abuse and is cooperating with government officials in the investigation or prosecution of criminal activity.

Last week, ICE issued a public statement indicating that Vargas case would be heard before an immigration judge. However, federal officials have served Vargas paperwork noting they plan to deport her to Argentina without a court hearing, because she allegedly entered the U.S. under a Visa Waiver Program and waived her right to contest removal.

Jarvie is a special correspondent.

ALSO

Republicans unveil plan to repeal and replace Obamacare amid conflicting pressures

What is the future of recreational marijuana in Trumps America?

Judge wont stop construction of Dakota Access oil pipeline

Continue reading here:
'Dreamer' targeted for deportation for speaking out on immigration, attorneys say - Los Angeles Times

President Donald Trump's Rust Belt-fueled victory in 2016 sprang from his staunch commitment to protecting American jobs, in part by curbing and controlling immigration. Trump has swiftly begun to follow through on one of his key promises -- to construct a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. He also issued two executive directives for the Homeland Security Department detailing a new administrative launch and expansion of deportation policies for undocumented residents.

The consequence of Trump governing almost exactly as he campaigned is that his job approval rating is hovering not too far below his 46% level of support in the popular vote. To maintain even this modest approval rating, however, he will need, at a minimum, to hold his currently broad Republican base. That will involve satisfying the interests of two different educational camps within the party that don't always agree. There is an upper-educated group of Republicans that consists of those with a four-year college degree or at least some postgraduate education -- about 30% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, according to 2016 Gallup data. The remaining 70% are what we might call the "average educated" -- those with, at most, a high school degree or some college experience but no college degree.

The Democratic Party has a similar divide: 35% are upper educated and 65% average educated. The average educated dominate both parties in numbers, if not always in policy influence. Journalists working the 2016 presidential campaign generally referred to the average educated as "working-class voters" and deemed them pivotal to Trump's success, although Gallup research shows that less than a third of Americans overall label themselves working class.

The two Republican educational camps largely agree with Trump's premise that the nation cannot support the current level of new immigrants -- whether legal or undocumented. More than six in 10 upper-educated Republicans and seven in 10 average-educated Republicans told Gallup in January 2016 that they were dissatisfied with the overall level of immigration into the U.S. This contrasts with 75% of upper-educated Democrats and 62% of average-educated Democrats feeling either satisfied with the current level of immigration or wanting it expanded.

Satisfaction With Level of Immigration Into the U.S.

Republicans are similarly unified on the grand priority for immigration -- whether the main focus should be on securing the border or addressing the status of immigrants already here illegally. Gallup polling finds Republicans in both educational groups agreeing strongly with Trump's emphasis on first halting illegal immigration at the border before dealing with immigrants already living in the country illegally: 63% of upper-educated Republicans and 61% of average-educated Republicans say this should be the priority.

Democrats are united around a completely different view on this matter, as both upper- and average-educated Democrats prioritize dealing with the illegal immigrants already residing in the U.S. -- presumably by offering some type of amnesty and citizenship (69% and 61%, respectively, both favor dealing with illegal immigrants already here).

Main Focus in Dealing With Illegal Immigration

Trump must now turn to the difficult and complex task of formulating an actual policy for immigration reform that carries campaign politics and cultural history as "nervous passengers."

In terms of building a wall along the entire U.S.-Mexico border (California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas), both upper- and average-educated Republicans favor its construction (51% and 66%, respectively). Average-educated Republicans, however, are nearly twice as likely as upper-educated Republicans to "strongly favor" a border wall: 41% vs. 23%. Meanwhile, the vast majority of upper- and average-educated Democrats oppose such a wall (95% and 83%, respectively).

The second part of immigration reform has to do with handling illegal immigrants currently living in the U.S. The Trump administration has already initiated new deportation orders, with priority being given to deporting illegal immigrants who have criminal records or who have been accused of crimes but not yet convicted. However, if Trump moves beyond this and tries to deport all undocumented immigrants as he promised during his campaign, he could face internal backlash. Only a slight majority of average-educated Republicans (55%) support deporting all illegal immigrants, while a slight majority of upper-educated Republicans (56%) oppose it. Majorities of both educational groups of Democrats (79% of upper educated and 60% of average educated) also oppose.

Achieving comprehensive immigration reform will depend on how Trump navigates this issue. While upper-educated Republicans are generally aligned with Democrats against mass deportation, a slight majority among Trump's all-important average-educated base view the matter differently. Keeping this campaign promise could present a real political challenge for Trump, to say nothing of the cultural chaos that would result if large numbers of illegal immigrants were removed from their jobs, communities and, in some cases, their families. It could affect Republicans' chances of holding both chambers of Congress in 2018 as well as their occupancy of the White House in 2020.

Trump's way forward may be to play to Republicans' support for the American value of cultural pluralism. Although a slight majority of average-educated Republicans side with deporting all illegal immigrants, they still believe that immigration in general is good for the U.S. and indicate a willingness to provide a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants currently living here.

Contrary to the deep partisan divides that surfaced in the campaign on the general direction for immigration reform, both Republicans and Democrats seem to honor the country's long-standing positive view of the value of immigration, saying that immigration is mostly good for the country rather than bad. This includes 54% of average-educated Republicans and 72% of upper-educated Republicans -- along with most Democrats, regardless of education.

Views on Immigration Being Good or Bad for U.S.

When asked if illegal immigrants should be given the chance to become U.S. citizens, large majorities of all four party/education groups agree they should. While that may seem to contradict average-educated Republicans' support for mass deportation, it indicates a degree of ambivalence that gives Trump room to maneuver.

Allowing Illegal Immigrants a Chance to Become U.S. Citizens

Bottom Line

Donald Trump won the presidency on a strong anti-illegal immigrant platform. His success in office -- both on this issue and others -- may depend on how well he satisfies the policy desires of the two educational segments within his own party: the large group of average-educated Republicans who tend to mirror his ideological leanings, and the smaller group of upper-educated Republicans whom he may sometimes have to tow along. Trump has the unified backing of both Republican groups for focusing first on halting illegal immigration (over dealing with immigrants currently here). Both Republican groups are also broadly dissatisfied with the current level of immigration into the country, meaning they may welcome Trump's attempts to limit it. At the same time, upper-educated Republicans are not as supportive as average-educated Republicans in terms of building a border wall and deporting illegal immigrants.

Given unified Democratic opposition to both policies, Trump risks trouble (both in passing legislation, and politically in 2018 and 2020) if he only sticks with his comparatively less-educated base on these policies. On the other hand, straying too far from those positions could risk "going back on his campaign promises" and thus anger his core supporters.

Trump can likely hold his Republican base together as he refashions U.S. immigration policy so long as he doesn't follow through with mass deportation. He could possibly go even further and bring the two parties together by bending to many Americans' celebration of immigration and their willingness to extend the opportunity of citizenship. Reaching consensus on immigration policy could be the first of many compromises by this deal-making president.

V. Lance Tarrance is a Gallup contributor.

Read the rest here:
Can a 'Nation of Immigrants' Reform 21st-Century Immigration? - Gallup

LAS VEGAS (KSNV News3LV)

A group of Rancho High School students organized a rally this afternoon to promote the passage of the BRIDGE Act.

Its a bill that would allow children brought to the United States illegally at a young age to stay in the country. Those children are now referred to as DREAMERs.

Supporters say they believe it would be a more permanent solution than the current executive ordered signed by former President Barack Obama.

"We believe that our voices should be heard and, although we don't have DACA, we have family members that have DACA and we've seen how hard they work," said Rancho sophomore Joanna Conchas, who helped set up the rally.

"I have a sister myself, who has DACA, she's a DREAMer herself."

RELATED LINK | Trump's border, immigration actions worry Las Vegas 'Dreamers' and activists

Joanna says the culture in recent weeks of deportations and immigration roundups have left her in a state of fear.

"It's scary to not know maybe by the day of tomorrow, my parents will not be home or my sister will have no job and she'll be gone," she said.

Familiar chants of "Si se puede" translated to "Yes we can" filled the streets in front of the high school and drew about 40 students, teachers and supporters.

Rancho High School teacher Reuben D'Silva says he was undocumented when he was growing up in Las Vegas.

"It was something you kept to yourself. It was something that shamed my family a lot. The fact that we were quote-unquote illegal," D'Silva said.

The teacher sympathizes with students dealing with the same struggles he did and feels the BRIDGE Act can make it through a divided Congress.

RELATED LINK | Young DREAMers wait and worry on the next move from Donald Trump

"John McCain supports this bill, Senator Lindsey Graham supports this bill. These are conservative icons. There is growing bipartisan support for this bill," D'Silva said.

The BRIDGE Act still has a long way to go before the students can claim victory. It has just been referred to a committee.

Originally posted here:
Rancho High School students conduct rally for immigration reform ... - News3LV