| Media Search: |
Episode 5 - Immigration Reform
WTF is "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" and why does it seem to be the most contested issue in 21st Century America? We explain what the Senate meant by it in their 2013 bill. Read more...
By: MasPOLITICA
Original post:
Episode 5 - Immigration Reform - Video
By Ashley Killough, CNN
updated 9:38 PM EDT, Thu September 4, 2014
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Washington (CNN) -- Gov. Chris Christie, who has long avoided wading into the immigration debate, said Thursday in Mexico City that he won't lay out his position on immigration reform unless he decides to run for president.
"Until that time I have no role in the immigration debate, except for how it may affect the individual citizens of New Jersey, which I'll deal with as governor," the New Jersey Republican told reporters.
"But I won't have anything to say on immigration unless and until I become a candidate for president of the United States," he continued. "If that happens, then I will articulate a full position on it."
Third of Mexicans would migrate to the U.S., survey finds
His comments came on the second of a three-day trip to Mexico, where the governor is meeting with Mexican dignitaries and business leaders to build economic and education partnerships.
While Christie has repeatedly criticized President Obama for his handling of security enforcement at the U.S.-Mexico border, the governor has yet to detail his own position on legislation reform.
"I know you guys are begging to have me focus on immigration, and let me put you to rest: I'm not going to," he said, referring to the news media. "You can ask in 18 different ways ... I'm not giving you the story, so you can move on to whatever your next questions are."
Follow this link:
Christie won't take stand on immigration
By Everard Meade & Mary Meg McCarthy5:55 p.m.Sept. 4, 2014
Sensible, bipartisan immigration reform isnt dead. But if we dont get back to basic constitutional principles, it will drown in cultural politics.
Throughout the Cold War, federal judges of all different stripes blasted the summary and/or arbitrary detention and deportation of noncitizens. They accused the government of trampling the Constitution. Many cited the battle for hearts and minds and the reign of arbitrary imprisonment behind the Iron Curtain.
With less chest-thumping, the federal courts have continued to issue blistering rebukes of U.S. immigration courts and law enforcement, calling upon them to mind the process and the facts of a particular case, not its presumed policy implications.
But the vast majority of immigration claims in the United States are not reviewed by the federal courts. They are litigated and decided entirely within the executive branch, and they are subject to very little public or judicial scrutiny.
Immigrants do not have a right to court-appointed counsel. They are often detained in remote jails, far from family, social, and legal support. If they win relief, the government can appeal, and the attorney general can overrule the Board of Immigration Appeals.
The immigration court system is totally overwhelmed. The current backlog stands at 375,000 cases. This translates into waits of five or more years for a hearing, and a bureaucracy in which many individuals simply get lost.
We spend $18 billion per year on immigration enforcement, but only $360 million on the adjudicatory system. Only 263 immigration judges serve our nation of immigrants.
Casual observers assume that immigration status is more or less obvious. They imagine a person captured by the Border Patrol while sneaking through the desert and wonder why they need much of a hearing.
People in these situations are summarily returned every day. But, in most cases, the circumstances are more complex.
The rest is here:
Fairness should be focus of bipartisan immigration reform
For the past three weeks, police have been using a municipal code -- which bars people from aggressively pursuing others -- to keep abortion clinics in The City secure in the face of aggressive anti-abortion protesters, according to Police Chief Greg Suhr.
This effort, which is a stop-gap measure awaiting legislation in the works that will permanently deal with the issue, follows a June U.S. Supreme Court ruling that barred buffer zones -- such zones existed in San Francisco -- around such facilities.
In June, the Supreme Court struck down a Massachusetts law mandating a 35-foot security buffer around abortion clinics. The ruling in McCullen v. Coakley bars such buffers nationwide because it infringes on First Amendment rights.
But Wednesday night, Suhr told the Police Commission that the department has been enforcing a city code in order to keep clinics safe from aggressive protesters. Thus far, he noted, no one has been cited or arrested.
Suhr also mentioned legislation in the works that would allow police to move protesters away from a clinic for a time and then allow them to return. The idea, he added, would be to make sure abortion clinics are safe, can serve clients and that people's First Amendment rights are upheld.
"We have been working on legislation for the last few months in response to the Supreme Court ruling," Supervisor David Campos said. Those efforts, Campos said, have included Planned Parenthood, the Police Department and the City Attorney's Office.
Campos' legislation would be an anti-harassment ordinance preventing the "kind of harassment that we are seeing ... where people are being followed," he said. A similar law in Massachusetts is being used as a model.
"We will be introducing something very shortly," he said, adding that he would be glad to work with anyone on these efforts. To that end, Campos met with the Mayor's Office on Thursday to inform it for the first time of his legislation.
"The mayor and Supervisor Malia Cohen are working with the City Attorney's Office to craft legislation and it will be introduced in a few weeks," said Christine Falvey, a spokeswoman for Mayor Ed Lee. "The mayor wants to make sure that women and families in San Francisco are not denied access to family planning and reproductive health services."
The Mayor's Office said it was working on separate legislation since late July, although it is almost identical to Campos'.
View original post here:
SFPD keeps abortion clinics safe and gives First Amendment rights to protesters
Hillary Clinton #39;s `Hard Choices
July 18: In this excerpt, part two of Charlie Rose #39;s conversation with Hillary Rodham Clinton. Her book is called "Hard Choices." It is the story of her time...
By: Bloomberg News