Mediaboss Marketing

As Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes, a Democrat, is set to face-off with Republican U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson in the Nov. 8, 2022, election, his stance on immigration has taken a hit from the Republican opposition.

Or at least his perceived stance.

In an Aug. 10, 2022,news release, part of a series aiming to paint Barnes as extreme, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), claimed that Barnes "supports abolishing ICE."

ICE, of course, is U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, one of three agencies created in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks when Congress passed the Homeland Security Act.

The agency says its "mission is to protect America from the cross-border crime and illegal immigration that threaten national security and public safety." The agencys detention and deportation operations have faced the ire of immigration rights groups and others, putting ICE at the center of controversy for many years.

But it wasnt until spring2018 when "the Abolish ICE movement began to shift from a hashtag to a more formal stance," according to the Brennan Center for Justice.

Even then, as with the "defund the police" efforts, there are many different views on just what it means. Some want the agency eliminated entirely, others prefer reforms.

In a July 2018 article, the Brennan Center noted that if ICE were to be abolished, "other parts of the government would likely take up some of the agencys responsibilities."

So, returning to the claim: Does Barnes support "abolishing ICE"?

Does Barnes really want to abolish ICE?

When asked for backup, a spokesperson for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which aims to elect Republican senators across the country, pointed to two things:

The first is a 2018 photo of Barnes holding up a red T-shirt that reads "Abolish ICE." The photo was shared at the time on Reddit and has since made the rounds on Twitter, especially in the wake of Barnes winning the Democratic nomination in August.

The photo surfaced shortly after Barnes responded to a tweet from a Madison-based activist, who offered him the shirt from the Democratic Socialists of America.

"Don't know how I missed this reply, but I need that," Barnes replied to the tweet on July 4, 2018. At the time he was in the midst of his successful campaign for lieutenant governor.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee also pointed to when Barnes headlined an event on Nov. 15, 2021, for the Brooklyn, New York-based advocacy group Center for Popular Democracy,a group that has endorsed Barnes.

But the committee offered no reference to anything Barnes said at the event, or elsewhere on abolishing ICE.

Instead, it was mostly guilt by association: The NRSC shared a Vox article that noted the group was involved in a June 2018 march during which "protesters draped themselves in silver thermal blankets evoking images of migrant kids in shelters and chanted Abolish ICE and We care. "

In an October 2021 news release, Ana Maria Archila, co-executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy, said,"The repeated violence perpetrated by (Customs and Border Patrol) and ICE prove time and time again that these agencies cannot be reformed and must be abolished."

The November 2021 event that Barnes attended, however, focused on voting rights issues and the mobilizing of young and first-time voters, especially those from Black and Latino communities.

"This group endorsed the Lt. Governor; he did not endorse them or their policies," wrote Maddy McDaniel, a spokesperson for Barnes, in an email to PolitiFact Wisconsin. "At no point in the event or during any interaction with this group did he advocate for abolishing ICE."

Thats a valid point: If Barnes supports abolishing ICE, shouldnt there be evidence of him saying so?

That brings us to the T-shirt photo.

Examining the claim

McDaniel made a similar argument, saying,"Simply holding up a T-shirt that was given as a gift does NOT equate to supporting a policy." But he did hold up the shirt.

Barnes has said little about the circumstances.

A March 2022 article in the Wisconsin Examiner noted: "He held up the Abolish ICE T-shirt, he says, as an expression of solidarity with immigrants who were reacting with horror at the time to scenes of children ripped from their parents at the border."

McDaniel declined to say anything more. Instead, she argued that: "The Lt. Governor has been crystal clear that he does not support abolishing ICE."

What is Barnes position?

Lets dig in from that angle and what Barnes himself has said. That is, the positions he has publicly taken.

Barnes has made clear during the campaign, and in recent years, that he does not support abolishing ICE. Rather, he has called for the agency to be reformed. In a video on his website, Barnes says: "We need comprehensive immigration reform that secures the border and also includes a path to citizenship."

McDaniel also pointed to articles from the Wisconsin Examiner and Spectrum News in which Barnes said he does not support abolishing ICE.

In addition, in February 2022, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel published a piece addressing questions surrounding the photo of Barnes and his stance on abolishing ICE.

"I am not a part of the Abolish ICE movement because no one slogan can capture all the work we have to do," Barnes said. "But I do support comprehensive reform in our immigration agencies that protect our borders while establishing a pathway to citizenship and ensuring no one coming to this country has to experience traumas like family separation."

Asked if he sided with Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who wants to dismantle ICE, or with Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., who aims to overhaul the federal agency, Barnes told the Journal Sentinel: "Im not in any one persons camp, but I respect what they both bring to this important conversation."

Our ruling

The National Republican Senatorial Committee claimed that Barnes "supports abolishing ICE."

But the group identified no direct evidence or statements from the candidates saying such a thing only an appearance for a group that supports that position, and a photo with a T-shirt.

At the same time, there is plenty of evidence that Barnes has taken a less extreme position on the matter, calling for reforms.

In other words, we have a statement that "contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression." Thats our definition of Mostly False.

And thats our rating.

Continued here:
GOP Senate group off the mark with claim that Barnes backs abolishing ICE - PolitiFact

While Republican lawmakers such as Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson have been labeled by the corporate media as extremist, or others such as former President Donald Trump have been banned from social media, the same does not apply to those on the other side of the political aisle.

Leaders of the Democratic Party openly voice radical opinions on Big Tech platforms without garnering the same backlash. Democratic Senate candidate Mandela Barnes the current lieutenant governor of Wisconsin and Johnsons opponent for the fall midterm election is a perfect example.

One Twitter account that goes by FoiaFan created a thread of Barnes radical tweets on Sunday, and there are some doozies. In May 2021, for instance, Barnes exposed his anti-Israel posture when he wrote, Normalize saying Free Palestine, a phrase that has been associated with the goal to erase the Jewish state from existence.

Speaking of anti-Israeli, Barnes showed love to to squad member and Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar in the face of this deliberately misleading, racist and xenophobic aggression. In so doing, he propped up a radical lawmaker who has repeatedly expressed antisemitic viewpoints, conspiracy theories, and socialist sympathies.

His tweet came in response to Omars accusation that the nations core beliefs were threatened by how the Trump administration would rather cage children than pass comprehensive immigration reform, a baseless accusation and lie that Barnes perpetuated.

Barnes lies about the former administration werent limited to immigration policy. In February 2017, he jumped into the Russia hoax when he tweeted without evidence, Donald Trump is a Russian spy. Believe me, a classic fake narrative of the corrupt corporate media.

Barnes has also made a habit of policing speech, especially when it comes to discussing illegal immigration. Heres Barnes in 2015, dumbfounded that somebody would ever say illegal alien:

When former Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker used the term illegal alien in 2018 and PolitiFact sicced its bogus truth-o-meter on him, Barnes clapped back: The debate here shouldnt be whether the claim is true or not. It should be whether using the term illegal alien is racist fearmongering or not. Which is definitely true.

Whats more disturbing than the accurate term illegal alien is Barnes apparent belief that immigrants who cross the border illegally must all share the same skin color and that all the people who use the term also belong to one racial group. But people of all races and ethnicities use the phrase illegal alien, and likewise, people of all skin colors have entered the country illegally.

In March of 2017, Barnes once again painted border-security concerns as racist, equating support for a border wall with xenophobia rather than engaging with Americans actual concerns.

Additionally, new reports further expose Barnes extremist views when it comes to immigration: The Democratic Senate candidate supports abolishing ICE. This movement, known for accusing ICE of terrorizing our communities, seeks to erase the law enforcement agency in the name of human rights. Barnes was photographed with an Abolish ICE T-shirt, showcasing his anti-border security and extremist immigration sentiments.

Last but certainly not least in the lineup of extreme Barnes tweets, the Wisconsin candidate wrote on the 11th anniversary of 9/11, I have a problem with people that feel the need to mention Islamic before terrorists when speaking on 9-11 looking at you Rudy Giuliani, downplaying the ideological radicalism that motivated the attack, which left nearly 3,000 people dead and thousands more injured.

Barnes tweets make his viewpoints quite clear. It is now up to Wisconsinites this fall to decide whether he and his radical ideas will make their way to Capitol Hill.

Sophia is an intern at The Federalist and a student at Le Moyne College. She majors in English and intends to pursue a career in journalism.

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

See the article here:
Read These Shocking Tweets From WI Extremist Mandela Barnes - The Federalist

A new poll shows a wide majority of Latino voters in Nevada believe that abortion should be legal even if it goes against their personal beliefs on the issue.

The survey, conducted from July 20 to Aug. 1 by Mi Familia Vota and UnidosUS, found that 81 percent of those surveyed opposed taking the choice of abortion away from others. The same poll found that only 25 percent believed religious leaders should tell their members which candidates and policies to vote for, and the rest opposed that practice.

Latinos have historically not viewed political questions through a religious lens, which makes our next finding a little bit more understandable, pollster Gary Segura, president and co-founder of BSP Research, said during a call with reporters on Thursday.

The Nevada-specific findings were part of a multi-state poll of Latino voters who are considered key in the Silver States tight races for governor and Senate. The group leans solidly Democratic, although Republicans have made recent inroads, and 63 percent believe the country is on the wrong track.

Immigration has slipped far behind priorities such as inflation (a top-three concern for more than half of those surveyed), but the poll found that 79 percent agree with the statement that President Biden should not use the situation at the southern border as an excuse to do nothing to protect undocumented immigrants, and the same percentage believe the president should use his executive authority to act if Congress does not pass comprehensive immigration reform.

It has faded as an issue of importance as other issues in the immediate environment have become so concerning, Segura said. But it remains a deal breaker for Latinos most of whom who will oppose candidates who will not support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

Fifty-six percent of those surveyed said they were certain they would vote in November. Mi Familia Vota is planning to knock on 21,000 doors in Clark County, run digital campaigns that are both bilingual and directed to monolingual, English-speaking Latinos in Nevada, as well as send 240,000 calls and text messages in an attempt to mobilize voters.

You see high interest, particularly a few months out in a midterm election cycle, for participating in this election, said Rafael Collazo, the national political director of UnidosUS. This is not an apathetic electorate. It's unconvinced.

The poll surveyed 300 Nevada Latino eligible voters in English and Spanish and had a margin of error of plus or minus 5.7 percent.

Editors Note: This story appears in Indy 2022, The Nevada Independents newsletter dedicated to comprehensive coverage of the 2022 election. Sign up for the newsletter here.

Read more here:
81 percent of Nevada Latino voters think abortion should be legal, personal beliefs aside The Nevada Independent - The Nevada Independent

The Biden administration is again trying to shore up the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program against ongoing legal challenges that threaten to revoke protections for thousands of immigrants.

The effort is an important signal of the Biden administrations commitment to the program, but is far from a perfect fix. While the more than 450-page final rule, effective October 31, would formally codify DACA as a federal regulation, it will offer current DREAMers unauthorized immigrants who came to the US as children little immediate protection. It also doesnt allow any new DACA applications for now, narrowing its impact to the more than 600,000 people currently enrolled in the program.

Today, we are fulfilling our commitment to preserve and strengthen DACA by finalizing a rule that will reinforce protections, like work authorization, that allow Dreamers to live more freely and to invest in their communities more fully, President Joe Biden said in a statement on Wednesday.

Since former President Barack Obama created the program in 2012 via executive action, the program has shielded more than 800,000 DREAMers from deportation and allowed them to apply for work permits. Recent legal challenges to the program have put it in danger, however, leading the Biden administration to issue the new rule.

Because there are still more than two months until the rule goes into effect, the immediate status quo will not change, meaning those legal challenges still loom over the program, and DREAMers have no protection from any new challenges in the intervening period.

Even once the rule goes into effect, courts could still strike down the program as unlawful. If the rule is successfully implemented and Biden isnt reelected in 2024, his successor could potentially overturn it, but would likely have to go through the arduous federal rulemaking process to do so. Because of all this, the rule is no substitute for codifying the program in federal law, which is the only ironclad measure that would ensure its survival against attacks from anti-immigrant hawks.

While the Biden administrations new rule sends a clear message that DACA works, our communities need more, Marielena Hincapi, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, said in a statement. Strengthening DACA is a crucial step, but it is not a substitute for congressional action.

The rule replaces the policy guidance laid out in the 2012 memo that created DACA, maintaining the preexisting criteria for eligibility and the process for DACA applicants to request work permits. It also affirms that DACA is not a form of lawful status, but that DACA recipients are considered lawfully present for certain purposes and that they should not be prioritized for deportation.

But the rule is not a cure-all. Former President Donald Trump closed DACA to new applicants, but stopped short of dismantling the program altogether after the Supreme Court prevented him from doing so in a June 2020 ruling. The Biden administration briefly resumed processing new applicants, approving some 1,900 individuals for DACA status in the first five months of 2021, before a Texas federal judge ordered it to stop. Roughly 1.1 million individuals would have been eligible to apply for the program as of the end of 2021. For now, that court order remains in place, even despite the new rule.

Immigrant advocates have also been calling on the Biden administration to update the eligibility criteria for the program, which they argue is outdated. Under the current criteria, applicants must have been under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012, and have continuously resided in the US since at least June 15, 2007, among other requirements. Those eligibility dates havent been updated since the program was created.

The Department of Justice didnt immediately respond to comment as to why the rule did not update the eligibility requirements, but its likely out of fear of legal challenges.

The fact that the rule cleared the federal rulemaking process which involved soliciting and reviewing more than 16,000 comments from the public might make it more robust to legal challenges than the 2012 memo. But the program is still under immediate threat from a pending lawsuit in the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and additional challenges to the rule are anticipated.

If the Fifth Circuit strikes down DACA as expected, an average of 5,000 DACA recipients each week for the next two years will lose their ability to work and become vulnerable to deportation, according to Todd Schulte, the president of the immigrant advocacy group FWD.us.

Given this fact, it is absolutely critical for current DACA recipients to seek renewals as soon as they are eligible and consult with a lawyer about their options, he wrote in a statement for the group on Twitter.

Versions of the DREAM Act, which would have codified the DACA program in federal law and provided a path to citizenship to DREAMers, have failed to pass for years.

In March 2021, a round of bipartisan negotiations fizzled out. A bipartisan group of senators including Sens. Dick Durbin (D-IL), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Thom Tillis (R-NC) and John Cornyn (R-TX) restarted immigration reform talks in April, but have yet to achieve any meaningful progress.

One reason for that is Republicans have shown little interest in passing the DREAM Act or similar legislation unless its paired with beefed-up border security measures, something Democrats have rejected. Because of Democrats one-vote majority in the Senate, however, they need Republican buy-in to overcome any filibuster and to pass legislation.

Democrats tried to go it alone last year and pass immigration reforms in a social spending bill through budget reconciliation, which only requires a simple majority to pass, but the Senate parliamentarian rejected several of their proposals, arguing the new policies violated reconciliation rules.

Immigration reform remains broadly popular: A June 2021 poll by the American Civil Liberties Union found that 72 percent of voters support the DREAM Act. Polling like that has done little to sway GOP lawmakers, however, and with the midterm elections months away, Republicans have even less incentive to help Democrats realize their long-term goal of protecting DREAMers.

And, by delaying action, Republicans may be able to strengthen their bargaining position on the issue. If Republicans retake control of the House, as is widely expected, the odds of passing the DREAM Act without Democrats acquiescing to at least some GOP demands on the border are incredibly slim.

If theres any glimmer of hope for DREAMers, it might be in the Senates compromise on another highly divisive topic: gun control. Congress had been at an impasse on gun control since the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. But a series of major mass shootings finally galvanized enough bipartisan support to pass a gun safety package earlier this year that didnt go as far as Democrats wanted, but still introduced tailored reforms. With the right motivation, immigration advocates hope a similar sort of negotiation might be possible on immigration, as well.

Read the original:
DACA is in jeopardy. The Biden administrations latest move to save it might not work. - Vox.com

Concept of economic recession during the coronavirus outbreak in United States, downtrend stock with ... [+] red arrow and The Statue of Liberty with mask background

U.S. economic growth has declined the past two quarters, a sign that a recession is around the corner. But even without a new recession, U.S. economic growth is stuck in a rut and President Bidens agenda is making it harder for us to get out.

In an important piece in City Journal, James Pierson notes how real GDP growth has slowed over the last 60 years, from 4.5% per year in the 1960s to a low of 1.9% per year in the 2000s before slightly rebounding to 2.2% in the 2010s. This is a disturbing trend that should alarm voters and policymakers at every level of government. Economic growth makes us healthier, happier, and better able to defend ourselves against authoritarian regimes like Russia and China.

A growing economy also helps quell civil unrest. When there is more for everybody people are less envious of other peoples success. When there is a fixed amount of stuff, someones success often comes at anothers expense. A country cannot be at peace for long with a stagnant or shrinking economy.

Supporters claim that President Bidens and Congresss recently passed lawsthe CHIPS Act, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)as well as Bidens student loan forgiveness executive order, will boost growth. But this optimism is misplaced.

CHIPS HIPS Act

The CHIPS Act subsidizes American semiconductor manufacturing and research and penalizes companies for expanding production in China. It also throws a lot of money at STEM education programs, especially in marginalized or underserved communities that the Biden administration considers more in need of investment.

While all the stipulations for the generous government handouts may further some worthwhile goal, that goal is certainly not economic growth. Most of the investment in new U.S. semiconductor manufacturing and research was going to happen regardless of the CHIPS Act because of increased demand and broad recognition that supply chains had become too dependent on China. The figure below shows planned U.S. foundry investment from Samsung, Intel INTC , and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. as of 2021, well before the CHIPS Act was passed last month.

Planned US foundry investment 2021 - 2024

In short, businesses were making investments in U.S. semiconductors because they made financial sense. Now, some of them will get free taxpayer money to boot, which is a waste of scarce resources.

Industrial policy has never been the key to strong economic growth because the government is terrible at playing venture capitalist. Instead of focusing on the return on investment, the CHIPS Act will funnel government money to various firms, organizations, and regions of the country based in part on subjective factors like community marginalization. This may be valuable, but it is not a strategy focused on boosting growth.

Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and Inflation Reduction Act

Like the CHIPS Act, the Infrastructure Act will be a disappointment when it comes economic growth. It gives money to states and local governments to build roads, bridges, EV charging stations, airports, ports, etc. but it does nothing to make building those things less expensive.

The IRA suffers from the same fatal flaw: It allocates billions of dollars to green energysolar panels, windfarms, nuclear power, EVsbut leaves the underlying cost issues untouched.

Not addressing costs is a problem since America has some of the highest construction costs in the world. America has the 6th highest average cost of rail per kilometer in the world and the real cost to build a mile of highway increased from $10 million in 1960 to over $30 million by the 1990s.

America is also relatively bad at building universities, hospitals, and airports, in no small part because of government regulation and oversight. As Brian Potter, a researcher who studies all things construction, wrote As administrative costs risethe more involved the government is in projectsthe worse the U.S. does compared to other countries.

If we do not address our high construction costs via regulatory reforms and reforms to prevailing wage laws, we will never get the infrastructure Biden and other government officials promise.

Related, both the IRA and Infrastructure Act are littered with counterproductive Buy American provisions that also raise costs. For example, only EVs assembled in North America are eligible for the EV tax credit in the IRA, and by 2023 batteries in EVs cannot use components sourced from China, even though China is the largest producer of many of the raw materials used to make batteries (In part because U.S. regulations make it extremely difficult to build the required mines. You cant make this stuff up).

Buy American provisions insulate U.S. companies from international competition, allowing them to reduce quality, ignore costs, and raise prices. This is what happened to the U.S. steel and automobile industries in the 1970s.

U.S. companies sheltered from competition become reliant on government favors and subsidies and their interests become entangled with the government that protects them. This creates companies that are too-big-to-fail and leads to more government bailouts like the ones we saw during the financial crisis in 2008.

Student Loan Forgiveness

Bidens latest policy, student loan forgiveness, will not boost growth, either, despite what he says. For starters, it does not directly incentivize much new education or human capital investment since it primarily pays for old investments.

Second, it indirectly creates an incentive for people to overinvest in education in the future since they will be less concerned about making sure they earn enough money to pay back any loans. After all, a future president may just forgive a big chunk of them again. So instead of working or getting some other training that will make them more productive, people will be more inclined to earn superfluous government-subsidized college credits.

Third, it will likely drive up the cost of a college education over time since colleges will feel less pressure to keep costs down knowing the government will step in if tuition gets too expensive. This has already happened in the past: A 2019 study found that when Congress increased the caps on subsidized student loans to help make college more affordable, colleges raised tuition by $0.60 per dollar increase. Colleges will rationally decide it is more profitable to secure government loans for their students than to do the hard work of managing costs.

Finally, the Committee For a Responsible Federal Budget notes that forgiving student loans will increase the deficit and contribute to higher inflation. Bigger government deficits crowd out private-sector investment, which hurts growth, and higher inflation creates economic uncertainty and instability, which also hurts growth.

Bidens policy agenda is anti-growth

Nothing the Biden administration has done so far is an obvious boost to economic growth. His signature policy wins raise taxes, create numerous economic distortions via subsidies and tax credits, will raise not reduce inflation, and do not address the overregulation that makes building things in America so expensive.

And if that was not enough, the administration is also anti-trade, pro-tariff, and is ignoring the countrys broken immigration system, causing us to miss out on the foreign workers and entrepreneurs we need to boost economic growth.

It is fair to say that the Biden administration is the most anti-growth administration of the past 40 years. This does not mean everything other administrations did was pro-growth or that the economy will not grow under Biden. But each of the other administrations was in favor of at least some pro-growth policies, such as Reagans pro-growth tax reforms and deregulation or the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement promoted by Obama.

As I wrote previously, states can implement their own tax and regulatory reforms to boost economic growth and they should do so. Unfortunately, the federal headwinds created by the Biden administration will weaken the impact of any state-level pro-growth policies.

To get economic growth back to 3% or more per year we need a presidential administration that prioritizes it. Someone who supports simple things like protecting private property, tax reforms that lower rates and broaden the base, bilateral and multilateral trade agreements, immigration reform that increases the labor force, and broad regulatory reform that makes it easier to build things or start a business. Until we return to basics, U.S. economic growth will suffer.

Read the original here:
Biden's Economic Agenda Is The Most Anti-Growth Of The Last 40 Years - Forbes