Mediaboss Marketing

President Donald Trump has been criticized for adopting his "America first" campaign slogan because of its fraught historical implications. But it shouldn't be controversial that Trump wishes to shape his policies for the benefit of the country he leads.

That's at least as true on immigration as in on any other issue. Trump signed two executive orders Wednesday setting in motion the building of a wall on America's southern border. There are many border walls in the world and there is nothing inherently wrong with them. (Comparisons with the Berlin Wall are utterly inapt, for that edifice was built to keep people imprisoned within, rather than intended to keep people out).

The trouble with a wall is not that it does too much but that it does too little. A wall won't solve today's most pressing immigration problems.

"We are in the midst of a crisis on our southern border," Trump said at his appearance at the Department of Homeland Security on Wednesday. However that may be in the intangible sense that the U.S. no longer controls its frontiers as it should, it is not so if Trump's words were intended to convey a flood of illegal aliens coming north into America.

Border crossings are way down. The Pew Research Center has found that the number of illegal immigrants coming from Mexico has decreased for the last nine years, and more Mexicans are leaving via our southern border than are trying to come in.

Most immigrants who arrive in America illegally aren't burrowing under fences or trying to evade border control agents. And most aren't the young male gang members of campaign imagery, but young mothers with small children fleeing mayhem and seeking shelter in the U.S. They approach the border hoping to be detained so they can get a hearing before an asylum judge. They are escaping gangs and poverty-ridden countries in Central America, specifically Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador. About 80,000 Latin Americans sought asylum last year, up 900 percent in less than a decade.

An even bigger problem are people who enter the country legally then fail to leave once their visas run out. A recent estimate suggests this accounts for three-fifths of illegal immigrants. A Homeland Security Department study found that nearly half a million people were here illegally because of visa overstays in 2015, and that more than twice as many (93,000) came from Canada as from Mexico (42,000). Again, a wall will do nothing to address this problem.

A better approach would be to control which foreigners are granted residency. Immigration resonated with voters this year not merely as a security issue, but also as a jobs issue. Some critics overstate the negative effects of immigrants on the economy and ignore the benefits. But there are economic costs, and American workers have good reason to complain about mass immigration.

It drives down wages, the best recent research shows. Harvard economist George Borjas described his findings this way: "When the supply of workers goes up, the price that firms have to pay to hire workers goes down. Wage trends over the past half-century suggest that a 10 percent increase in the number of workers with a particular set of skills probably lowers the wage of that group by at least 3 percent."

The biggest victims are low-skilled workers.

Guest-worker programs aren't about helping the oppressed or welcoming new citizens. Their purpose is to provide lower-wage labor for businesses. Guest workers are less free to demand higher wages or better treatment, because "you're fired," also means "you're deported."

President Trump should end the low-skilled guest-worker program and reform the high-skilled program. White House adviser Stephen Miller has the good idea of allocating high-skilled guest-worker visas to the highest-paying jobs. Another good idea, as Washington Examiner columnist Michael Barone has noted, is to emulate Australia's skilled immigration points test, under which applicants must score a minimum number of points, based on age, skill, education, English language proficiency and other factors, to be granted residency.

These are just a few examples of what can be done. Trump should think beyond the wall when it comes to reforming our broken immigration system.

See more here:
Editorial: Immigration reform, beyond Trump's wall - Colorado Springs Gazette

Shortly after signing documents in the Oval Office, President Donald Trump said his crackdown on refugees and citizens from seven majority-Muslim countries "is not a Muslim ban." (Jan. 28) AP

President Trump signs an executive order barring immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries at the Pentagon in Arlington, Va., on Jan. 27, 2017.(Photo: Olivier Douliery / POOL, EPA)

The future of President Trump's executive order suspending immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries may come down to a legal battle between his powers as commander in chief and discrimination limitationsestablished by Congress.

A federal judge in New York issued a temporary, nationwide stay on the order late Saturday night. Lawyers, pushed along by a growing group of protesters, spent the day trying to free immigrants who were traveling when Trump's order was released, leaving them either detained at U.S. airports or stranded overseas.

But the legality of Trump's order won't be completely clear until it faces more hearings in federal court as Trump's Department of Justice squares off with a team of lawyers from civil rights and immigration advocacy groups.

Supporters of Trump's plan say he is standing on firm legal ground to banimmigrantsand refugees temporarily from those countries because they pose a national security threat. Trump's order opens by citing the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, and explains that the immigration suspension is necessary to give the federal government time to strengthen its vetting procedures for people coming from terror-prone countries.

"Throughout the history of this country, courts have given, for obvious reasons, the executive extraordinary latitude in making determinations associated with national security,"said Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a group that advocates for lower levels of legal and illegal immigration. "And this is a national security judgement, something that courts would never want to interfere with."

Sara Flounders from Jersey City at the Union Square subway station en route to JFK protests. Rick Green/NorthJersey.com

More coverage:

Protests erupt: The scene at JFK

Trump says immigration ban working 'nicely as protests, detainments hit airports

U.S. immigrants: 'Our president is trying to divide us'

Google CEO, tech leaders weighs in on how move affects their employees

How ban is affecting travel

People flood social media with tales of stranded family, friends

Trump says he's 'hit the ground running at a record pace'

A Syrian and his American wife are stuck in Iraq because of Trump's ban

Critics of Trump's plan say his national security argument is undercut by his repeated calls on the campaign trail for a "Muslim ban" and his comments Friday that he wants to prioritize the immigration of persecuted Christians over Muslims. Trump's ban also applies to everyone from Syria.

David Leopold, a Cleveland immigration attorney and past president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said a president clearly has a right to bar certain immigrants or groups of immigrants from entering the U.S. Trump's order cited a long-standing federal law that allows a president to bar entry to any immigrants or group of immigrants who the president deems"detrimental to the interests of the United States."

"But what the Trump administration failed to do," Leopold said, "is understand that nothing in our law justifies banning an entire religion, banning an entire nationality. He's going to have to answer how he can say that all of Syria is detrimental."

Leopold's argument rests largely on the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which forbids discrimination against immigrants based on their "nationality, place of birth, or place of residence." The U.S. had previously used an immigration system that set a limit on the number of people who could enter the U.S. from each country, a system that heavily favored immigration from western Europe.

USA TODAY

U.S. immigrants react to ban: 'Our president is trying to divide us'

But that law has been set aside by presidents during national emergencies, according toMichael Hethmon, senior counsel at the Immigration Reform Law Institute, which provides legal support to legislators and politicians who want to reduce immigration.

Hethmon uses the example of President Carter, who in 1980 barred some Iranians from entering the U.S. during a crisis over 52Americans being held hostage in Tehran. He said that case mirrors what Trump is facing now the United States facing a large numberof people in specific countries who are trying to harm the U.S.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

"The court will say, 'There's a rational basis for picking these seven countries,'" Hethmon said. "They're all in the midst of civil conflict, they're all places where terrorist networks that are particularly dangerous to the U.S. exists. There are multiple reasons why refugees from these countries merit additional, or even extensive, scrutiny."

The seven are Iran, Sudan and Syria which comprise the State Departmentslist of state sponsors of terrorism plus Iraq, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.

The key for a court to understand the true intent behind Trump's order whether it's a religious ban or a national security concern could lie in one paragraph of his executive order. Itdeclares that once the refugee program is reinstated, the Department of Homeland Security must prioritize refugee claims made by persecuted religious minorities.

"Whoever drafted the order, I think they thought they were being incredibly clever immunizing this from legal scrutiny," saidJens David Ohlin, an international law professor at Cornell Law School. "But they might have shot themselves in the foot with that one."

Ohlin said that one section, which he said was the only piece of the order that did not pin itself to the national security argument, may open the entire order to questions about favoring one religion over another. It also follows comments Trump made to the Christian Broadcast Service on Friday, when hesaid Christians had been treated unfairly under the U.S. refugee program and they needed to be prioritized in the future.

"Courts are going to be giving really serious scrutiny to that one," Ohlin said.

As legal questions continue to swirl over Trump's order, only one certainty exists. "This is the start of a wave of litigation," saidOmar Jadwat, director of the ACLUs Immigrants Rights Project.

Protests flared as President Trump's executive order blocked refugees from entering U.S. airports, including travelers who already had valid visas. USA TODAY NETWORK

1 of 12

Hear the chants protesters belted out at San Francisco International Airport on behalf of refugees banned under President Trump's executive order on immigration. USA TODAY NETWORK

2 of 12

In the wake of President Donald Trump's executive order on immigration Friday, many critics quickly took up a familiar rallying cry, lifting words from the Statue of Liberty that have for decades represented American immigration. Time

3 of 12

President Donald Trump has barred all refugees from entering the United States for four months, and indefinitely banned all refugees from Syria. USA TODAY NETWORK

4 of 12

Lawyers say dozens of travelers from countries named in President Trump's recent executive order were held at John F. Kennedy International Airport and other airports Saturday amid confusion about whether they could legally enter the country. Time

5 of 12

Shortly after signing documents in the Oval Office, President Donald Trump said his crackdown on refugees and citizens from seven majority-Muslim countries "is not a Muslim ban." (Jan. 28) AP

6 of 12

Iran says U.S. citizens are no longer welcome in the country. Buzz60

7 of 12

Activists protested on Saturday the detention of two Iraqi citizens at New York City's JFK airport, one day after President Donald Trump signed an executive order banning citizens from seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the US. IMAGES AND SOUNDBITES Video provided by AFP Newslook

8 of 12

US President Donald Trump unleashed a wave of alarm Saturday with his order to temporarily halt all refugee arrivals and impose tough controls on travelers from seven Muslim countries. Video provided by AFP Newslook

9 of 12

Lawyers are taking action against President Donald Trump's immigration policy. Veuer's Keleigh Nealon (@keleighnealon) has the story. Buzz60

10 of 12

President Donald Trump's signing of an executive action to bring sweeping changes to the nation's refugee policies is causing fear and alarm for immigrants in the U.S. whose family members will be affected. (Jan. 27) AP

11 of 12

Confusion, worry and outrage grew Saturday as President Donald Trump's crackdown on refugees and citizens from seven majority-Muslim countries took effect. (Jan. 28) AP

12 of 12

Protests erupt at U.S. airports over refugee ban

Protesters: 'We are people; we are not illegal'

'Give me your tired, your poor': Statue of Libertys immigration poem

Trump's refugee screening takes immediate effect

Protestors rally at JFK Airport over President Trump's executive order

Trump says refugee crackdown 'not a Muslim ban'

Iran says U.S. citizens are no longer welcome in the country

Activists protest Trump's immigration policy at JFK airport

Sudanese react to US control on travelers from Muslim countries

Refugees detained at U.S. borders challenge Donald Trump

Immigrants with affected family fearful of ban

Trump refugee ban prompts outrage

Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/2jCjr3a

Continued here:
Experts question legality of Trump's immigration ban on Muslim countries - USA TODAY

My family was far from alone. In Boston, immigrants make up nearly one-third of our population. We welcome and cherish those who are fleeing persecution or simply seeking a better life. We know our success -- and our nation's success -- has always depended on the drive, talent, community and culture of newcomers. That's why I was so angered by the White House's executive orders this week, aiming to strip cities like Boston of their federal funding and shut the door to desperate refugees. They sent the message that America is rejecting its heritage as a nation of immigrants and giving up on its role as a beacon of hope in the world. More immediately for cities like Boston, these orders threaten to undermine public safety, sap our economic vitality and tear apart our families. My response has been swift and certain. I stood up -- joined by the dozens of Boston leaders who are first- and second-generation immigrants -- and said that we will not change our values or turn our back on immigrants. I will do everything lawful within my power to protect our immigrant neighbors, documented or not. If necessary, I will use City Hall itself to shelter and protect them from persecution. I'm hopeful that it won't come to that. The fact is, we have American values, common sense and the United States Constitution on our side. In the meantime, we'll continue to build trust between law enforcement and immigrant communities. For everyone's safety, both documented and undocumented immigrants need to know they can report crimes without fear of being targeted over civil issues or mere suspicions. The Boston Police Department has worked hard to build this trust while focusing its energies on serious crimes. Cities with "Trust Acts" are among the safest in the United States. We won't be intimidated by threats to our federal funding, either. The Supreme Court has ruled that federal funds may not be withdrawn over issues unrelated to the funding legislation's purposes. In any case, we won't place money ahead of our neighbors' safety and security. If we are concerned about economic impacts, we have to recognize how much we depend on immigrants. In Boston, immigrants reflect a significant amount of medical and life science workers; more than one-third of all business owners; and 22% of our university students. Immigrants also contributed $3.5 billion to our city's economy in consumer spending alone. Nationally, urban regions -- the gateways for immigrants -- account for 91% of America's economic output and total wages. And regarding this nonsense about a wall, let's be clear: Undocumented southern border crossings have fallen dramatically over the past eight years. A wall is a waste of money, a useless substitute for real reform and a dismal symbol of fear at a time when we need confidence. The federal government's energy and resources should be aimed instead at solving the serious challenges we face, from healthcare to education to retirement security. Consider what's possible with the White House as our partner. In response to a challenge by former First Lady Michelle Obama, Boston has housed more than 800 homeless veterans since 2014, ending chronic veteran homelessness in our city. Contrary to the narrative in Washington, for mayors across the country, immigration is an area of bipartisan agreement. At the United States Conference of Mayors last week, leaders from red states and blue states agreed: The actions the White House is threatening would wreak havoc on urban economies and communities.

Finally, and importantly, these measures cannot be defended by differentiating between documented and undocumented immigrants. First, we reject the cruelty of breaking up families and pulling students out of colleges. More generally, immigrant communities have long blended a variety of legal statuses, because federal immigration law has not kept up with our economy's need for talent and hard work from around the world.

What we need, and what mayors have called for over many years, is comprehensive immigration reform. If Washington continues to fail to deliver on that responsibility, cities will continue to step up. Far from ignoring the challenge, mayors are upholding America's most deeply held values every day.

Originally posted here:
Boston mayor: Why cities will protect immigrants - CNN

January 27, 2017 10:52 PM By Pat Warren

ANNAPOLIS, Md (WJZ) Marylanders gather in protest of executive orders signed by President Trump on immigration policies. Immigration advocates and religious leaders were joined by lawmakers in a rally in Annapolis.

Many of those attending todays rally feel targeted by Trumps enhanced enforcement of immigration laws. CASA, Jews for Justice, and the Council on Islamic Relations responded to President Trumps immigration reform announced Wednesday at a rally at Lawyers Mall in Annapolis.

The president says his reform cracks down on sanctuary cities, empowers ICE officers to target and remove those who pose a threat to public safety.

It also gives Immigration and Customs Enforcement broad discretion in determining who that is, sending a wave of concern through Marylands immigrant and Muslim population and those who support them.

Were here to say it loud and say it clear, immigrants are welcome here, says one rally speaker.

President Trump. I think he forgets that his ancestors were not born in the United States, says Cynthia Steer from Montgomery County, who came to the rally on Friday.

Take a moment to look around, look next to you because this is what democracy looks like. So tell me, tell me what democracy looks like? This is what democracy looks like, says a rally leader to the crowd.

Its a fundamental Maryland value and American value that were accepting of those that come here, looking for that better life. We should continue that and fight back against the hate weve seen against immigrants, says Del. Eric Ludke, from Montgomery County.

The President denies discriminating.

We want dignity and equality for everyone and I will be a president I promise you, for everyone, says President Trump.

Todays demonstrators have a hard time reconciling those words with recent actions.

The presidents immigration order also calls for 10,000 additional border patrol officers.

Pat Warren joined the Eyewitness News team in 1992. Pat came to WJZ from WBNS-TV in Columbus, Ohio where she had been a news anchor and general assignment reporter. Her desire to give back to the community keeps Pat involved with many...

Track Weather On The Go With Our App!

Your Podcast Network Play.it

CBS All Access

Read the original:
Marylanders Rally In Annapolis Against Immigration Reform - CBS Local

President Donald Trump has been criticized for adopting his "America first" campaign slogan because of its fraught historical implications. But it shouldn't be controversial that Trump wishes to shape his policies for the benefit of the country he leads.

That's at least as true on immigration as in on any other issue. Trump signed two executive orders Wednesday setting in motion the building of a wall on America's southern border. There are many border walls in the world and there is nothing inherently wrong with them. (Comparisons with the Berlin Wall are utterly inapt, for that edifice was built to keep people imprisoned within, rather than intended to keep people out).

The trouble with a wall is not that it does too much but that it does too little. A wall won't solve today's most pressing immigration problems.

"We are in the midst of a crisis on our southern border," Trump said at his appearance at the Department of Homeland Security on Wednesday. However that may be in the intangible sense that the U.S. no longer controls its frontiers as it should, it is not so if Trump's words were intended to convey a flood of illegal aliens coming north into America.

Border crossings are way down. The Pew Research Center has found that the number of illegal immigrants coming from Mexico has decreased for the last nine years, and more Mexicans are leaving via our southern border than are trying to come in.

Most immigrants who arrive in America illegally aren't burrowing under fences or trying to evade border control agents. And most aren't the young male gang members of campaign imagery, but young mothers with small children fleeing mayhem and seeking shelter in the U.S. They approach the border hoping to be detained so they can get a hearing before an asylum judge. They are escaping gangs and poverty-ridden countries in Central America, specifically Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador. About 80,000 Latin Americans sought asylum last year, up 900 percent in less than a decade.

An even bigger problem are people who enter the country legally then fail to leave once their visas run out. A recent estimate suggests this accounts for three-fifths of illegal immigrants. A Homeland Security Department study found that nearly half a million people were here illegally because of visa overstays in 2015, and that more than twice as many (93,000) came from Canada as from Mexico (42,000). Again, a wall will do nothing to address this problem.

A better approach would be to control which foreigners are granted residency. Immigration resonated with voters this year not merely as a security issue, but also as a jobs issue. Some critics overstate the negative effects of immigrants on the economy and ignore the benefits. But there are economic costs, and American workers have good reason to complain about mass immigration.

It drives down wages, the best recent research shows. Harvard economist George Borjas described his findings this way: "When the supply of workers goes up, the price that firms have to pay to hire workers goes down. Wage trends over the past half-century suggest that a 10 percent increase in the number of workers with a particular set of skills probably lowers the wage of that group by at least 3 percent."

The biggest victims are low-skilled workers.

Guest-worker programs aren't about helping the oppressed or welcoming new citizens. Their purpose is to provide lower-wage labor for businesses. Guest workers are less free to demand higher wages or better treatment, because "you're fired," also means "you're deported."

President Trump should end the low-skilled guest-worker program and reform the high-skilled program. White House adviser Stephen Miller has the good idea of allocating high-skilled guest-worker visas to the highest-paying jobs. Another good idea, as Washington Examiner columnist Michael Barone has noted, is to emulate Australia's skilled immigration points test, under which applicants must score a minimum number of points, based on age, skill, education, English language proficiency and other factors, to be granted residency.

These are just a few examples of what can be done. Trump should think beyond the wall when it comes to reforming our broken immigration system.

More:
Immigration reform, beyond Trump's wall - Colorado Springs Gazette