Posts tagged ‘immigration’

November 22, 2014

Latest News: Immigration Plan, Buffalo Snow Ends, ‘Hunger Games’ Opens

Latest News: Immigration Plan, Buffalo Snow Ends, ‘Hunger Games’ Opens

Click on the link to get more news and video from original source: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/21/us/latest-news-immigration-plan-buffalo-snow-ends-hunger-games-opens.html?_r=0

Immigration Points

The audience at the Latin Grammy Awards in Las Vegas watched President Obama announce his immigration order. Credit Chris Pizzello/Invision, via AP

Good morning.

Here’s what you need to know:

• Obama moves ahead.

The president heads to Las Vegas today, where he will give more details on his immigration plan this afternoon.

Nevada has the nation’s highest proportion of undocumented immigrants, at 7.6 percent of its population.

Mr. Obama told Americans on Thursday that deporting millions is “not who we are” and announced executive actions to grant reprieves to as many as five million undocumented immigrants.

• Republican rebuttal.

“With this action, the president has chosen to deliberately sabotage any chance of enacting bipartisan reforms,” House Speaker John A. Boehner replied today.

And House Republicans filed a long-threatened lawsuit today against the Obama administration over unilateral actions on the health care law.

• Biden in Ukraine.

In Kiev today, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. condemned Russia’s behavior as “unacceptable” and urged Moscow to abide by a September peace deal.

Almost 1,000 people have been killed in Ukraine since the truce with Russian-backed separatists went into effect, the U.N. says.

• Racing toward a deadline.

Secretary of State John Kerry leaves Vienna for Paris today after talks on a nuclear deal with Iran.

Even if agreement is reached before Monday’s deadline, the final decision in Iran will be made by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader.

• Straining nerves and roofs.

Little or no snow is expected in the Buffalo region today after seven feet of snow fell in three days.

But flooding is a new fear: The forecast calls for a chance of rain on Saturday and more on Monday with temperatures nearing 60 degrees.

• Anti-E.U. party makes gains.

The right-wing U.K. Independence Party won its second seat in the British Parliament today with a victory in a special election.

MARKETS

• Wall Street stocks are rising strongly today on top of records set Thursday. Europe stocks are up about 2 percent, and Asian indexes closed with gains.

• China made a surprise cut in its benchmark interest rate today, the first in more than two years, to 5.6 percent to lift its cooling economy.

And Europe’s top central banker signaled today he was preparing a new round of stimulus to help its flagging growth.

• On the eve of today’s hearing by a Senate panel on bank regulation, the Fed unexpectedly announced that it would review crucial aspects of its bank supervision.

• Nintendo today starts selling its Super Smash Bros. video game, which had record advance orders, for its Wii U console.

Also new today are “amiibos,” figurines of characters like Mario, Link and Yoshi that connect wirelessly to the consoles.

NOTEWORTHY

• On the silver screen.

“The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1,” which comes out today, is expected to score the biggest box-office opening weekend of the year.

Our critic, Manohla Dargis, calls it “streamlined, blunt and easy.”

Here’s what else is coming to theaters today.

• A home for Nazi-era art?

Directors of a small Swiss museum this weekend are likely to accept a bequest of 1,000 artworks collected by a Nazi-era art dealer and kept private for decades by his son.

And a Georgia O’Keeffe painting, “Jimson Weed (White Flower No. 1)” from 1932, sold at Sotheby’s on Thursday for $44.4 million, an auction record for a work by a female artist.

• Finally, football team wins.

The Oakland Raiders earned their first victory in more than a year with a late scoring drive to stun the visiting Kansas City Chiefs, 24-20, on Thursday night.

And the N.F.L. decided to relocate the Bills-Jets game, scheduled for Sunday in snow-plagued Buffalo, to Detroit’s Ford Field on Monday night.

• Cosby’s show goes on.

The comedian Bill Cosby is still set to perform tonight at a sold-out show at the Melbourne, Fla., performing arts center, despite the cancellation of some of his projects over sexual assault allegations.

• Earth spins closer to heat record.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced that last month was the hottest October on record worldwide.

It makes it likely that 2014 will go down as our planet’s warmest year on record.

BACK STORY

The season of feasting is upon us. We may have to watch our waistlines, but for our pets, too much can be deadly.

Give in to those pleading eyes with a chunk of fatty turkey skin, and your dog or cat could end up with pancreatitis. Onion and garlic can give them anemia.

Chocolate-covered coffee beans snarfed off the floor are double trouble. Caffeine is poisonous to pets, as are the caffeine-like methylxanthines in chocolate.

Bread dough is especially dangerous, says Dr. Karyn L. Bischoff, a veterinarian and toxicologist.

Your dog’s stomach is a perfect medium for yeast, and the ethanol that yeast gives off can make your dog drunk and ill, she says. And the expanding dough could cut off its blood supply.

The same would probably be true for a cat. But Dr. Bischoff says she doesn’t know of any such cases.

“Dogs are just eat first, ask questions later,” she says. “Cats are a little smarter. They think these things through.”

The A.S.P.C.A. has a full list of people foods to keep away from paws and jaws.

Andrea Kannapell contributed reporting.

Your Morning Briefing is posted weekdays at 6 a.m. Eastern.

What would you like to see here? Contact us at briefing@nytimes.com.

Want to get the briefing by email? Here’s the sign-up.

Tags:
November 22, 2014

Obama to spare 5M from deportation

Obama to spare 5M from deportation


May 8, 2014

Districts Are Warned Not to Deny Students Over Immigration Status

Districts Are Warned Not to Deny Students Over Immigration Status

 

April 23, 2012

Supreme Court immigration case weighs states’ powers

Click on the link to get more news and video from original source:  http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/23/us-usa-immigration-arizona-idUSBRE83L04I20120423

People relax on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, March 25, 2012, one day before justices were scheduled to hear arguments on the constitutionality of President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law. REUTERS/Stelios Varias

By James Vicini

WASHINGTON | Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:18am EDT

(Reuters) – A clash over immigration law will go before the U.S. Supreme Court this week, pitting the state of Arizona against President Barack Obama in a case with election-year political ramifications for him and Republican rival Mitt Romney.

In its second-biggest case this term, the court – fresh from hearing the Obama healthcare overhaul case – will consider on Wednesday whether a tough Arizona immigration crackdown strayed too far into the federal government’s powers.

A pro-Arizona decision would be a legal and political setback for Obama, who has criticized the state’s law and vowed to push for immigration legislation if re-elected on November 6.

A decision against Arizona would deal a blow to Romney, who has said the government should drop its challenge to the law.

Americans generally support immigration laws like Arizona’s and are ambivalent about the federal and state roles at the core of the case, a new Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll found.

About 70 percent of those surveyed favored state laws that let police check a person’s immigration status and make it a crime for an illegal immigrant to work in the United States; about 30 percent opposed such measures.

On the question of who has responsibility for immigration laws, the core of the Supreme Court case, 59 percent said immigration was a national issue and laws relating to it should only be made by the federal government; 55 percent said individual states had the right to make such laws, too.

The oral arguments on this essential point set the stage for a rematch of the attorneys in last month’s healthcare battle.

Paul Clement, a solicitor general during Republican George W. Bush’s presidency, will represent Arizona.

Donald Verrilli, a former White House lawyer and solicitor general under Obama, will represent the federal government after what some deemed a lackluster performance in March.

PARTISAN DIVIDE

The case “pits a politically conservative state against a Democratic administration … just six months before the presidential-year elections,” said Steven Schwinn, a John Marshall Law School professor.

Like the healthcare case, the immigration case splits along party lines. Some Republican-led states and Romney supported Arizona’s effort to push out illegal immigrants, while some Democratic-led states backed the federal government and Obama.

Legal and political experts said the Supreme Court’s rulings, expected by June on immigration and healthcare – two hot-button issues – will weigh heavily on the elections.

The online Reuters/Ipsos poll of 960 Americans, conducted April 9-12, found respondents almost evenly split on whether Obama or Romney has a better immigration approach.

The fast-growing Hispanic population, now equal to 16 percent of all Americans, will be a key force in the election. In the past, Hispanics backed Obama and have been skeptical of Romney, who has acknowledged that he needs their support.

Regardless of how the court rules, if Romney continues to back the Arizona law and others like it, “he will find it difficult to win Latino supporters,” said Karthick Ramakrishnan, an immigration policy expert and associate professor of political science at the University of California, Riverside.

FEDERAL VS STATE

At issue in the case is whether federal immigration law pre-empted and thus barred the Arizona law’s four key provisions.

The Arizona law requires police to check the immigration status of anyone detained and suspected of being in the country illegally. Other parts of the law require immigrants to carry their papers at all times; ban illegal immigrants from soliciting for work in public places; and allow police to arrest immigrants without a warrant if an officer believes they have committed a crime that would make them deportable.

A federal judge and a U.S. appeals court earlier ruled for the Obama administration and blocked all four parts of the Arizona law from taking effect.

Clement will argue that the Arizona law was designed to cooperate with federal immigration efforts and that it did not conflict with federal policy or law.

“This is another federalism case. This is not all about immigration. It’s really about the relationship between the federal government and the state government. It’s the norm that you have state officials enforcing federal law,” he said in an interview with Reuters.

Clement said the burden was on the government to show why immigration law specifically prevented states from the usual participation in enforcement of federal policy.

There are an estimated 11.5 million illegal immigrants in the United States, a number that has remained steady over the last several years.

SENSITIVE IMMIGRATION JUDGMENTS

For his part, Verrilli has a standard policy of not commenting arguments he will make before the Supreme Court.

In written briefs filed with the court, Verrilli said that Congress gave the federal government alone the authority to make sensitive immigration judgments, balancing national security, law enforcement, foreign policy and humanitarian factors, along with the rights of law-abiding citizens and immigrants.

“Arizona seeks to impose its own judgment on those sensitive subjects,” Verrilli said. “For each state and each locality to set its own immigration policy in that fashion would wholly subvert Congress’s goal: a single national approach.”

Five other states – Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah – have followed Arizona’s lead and adopted similar laws, parts of which could be affected by the Supreme Court’s ruling. In some of those states, legal immigrants have faced run-ins with local law enforcement.

Legal experts said the Supreme Court could uphold all four provisions; rule that all four were pre-empted; or issue a mixed ruling, allowing some provisions to stand, but not others.

“If the court upholds the Arizona statute, then that will really be a significant change in that area of the law,” said Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, who leads the appellate and Supreme Court practice at the law firm Ropes & Gray.

“There are a number of precedents going back many decades that immigration regulation is a matter of foreign affairs reserved to the federal government,” he said.

The Supreme Court last year upheld a different Arizona law that penalizes businesses for hiring illegal immigrants. But that case involved a different pre-emption issue.

KAGAN RECUSED

The case this week will be heard by eight of the nine Supreme Court members. Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself, apparently because she worked on the case in her previous job as Obama’s solicitor general. In the event the court is evenly divided on the case, the appeals court ruling for the federal government would be affirmed.

The partisan battle was underscored by the outside briefs filed by the states and lawmakers. Two U.S. senators and 57 members of the House of Representatives, all Republicans, backed Arizona, while 68 Democratic members of Congress supported the position of their president.

Seventeen foreign countries, including Mexico and others in Central and South America, backed the U.S. government. Clement said the appeals court was wrong to allow foreign criticism of the law to influence its ruling.

No matter the Supreme Court ruling, it may not be the final word. Depending on the decision, Congress could rewrite federal law to allow more state regulation or clearly pre-empt it.

If the court rules for Arizona, Cecilia Wang of the American Civil Liberties Union vowed to press ahead with claims saying that the law violated constitutional rights and was based on illegal racial profiling. “Lawful U.S. citizens will be caught up in the dragnet,” she predicted.

If the court rules against Arizona, supporters of tougher state laws could try to craft new measures.

The Supreme Court case is Arizona v. United States, No. 11-182.

The precision of Reuters/Ipsos online polls is measured using a credibility interval. In this case, the poll had a credibility interval of plus or minus 3.7 percentage points for all respondents.

(Additional reporting by Jeremy Pelofsky and Joan Biskupic; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Howard Goller; Desking by Stacey Joyce)

September 23, 2011

Immigration takes center stage in Republican presidential debate

View Original News Source:  http://www.lohud.com/article/20110923/NEWS05/109230369/Immigration-takes-center-stage-Republican-presidential-debate

Written by: Susan Page and Jackie Kucinich
USA TODAY

ORLANDO — Call it a Sunshine State smackdown.

In the third Republican debate in three weeks, immigration joined Social Security as an issue creating fireworks between the two men leading the field in national polls. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney accused Texas Gov. Rick Perry of creating a “magnet” in Texas for illegal immigrants by offering in-state tuition at colleges for children regardless of their immigration status. “That shouldn’t be allowed,” Romney argued. “It makes no sense at all.”

Perry, in a stance that drew boos from an audience of 5,000 at the Orange County Convention Center, defended the policy. “If you say we should not educate children who come into our state … by no fault of their own, I don’t think you have a heart,” he replied.

The two men and seven other rivals bashed President Obama, vowed allegiance to the Constitution’s 10th Amendment on state’s rights and detailed the federal department they would most like to eliminate in a two-hour debate sponsored by Fox News and Google.

All of them tried to make their cases, but the spotlight was on the two men at the center of the stage who made the sharpest exchanges of the Republican campaign to date.

-

Presented by: FoxNewsChannel

-

On the issue of foreign aid, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Utah governor Jon Huntsman had to interrupt the moderators to get a word in.

The two leading candidates hit one other at what are likely their biggest vulnerabilities: Perry’s suggestion in his 2010 book that Social Security was unconstitutional and should be administered by the states, and Romney’s signature on a Massachusetts health-care law similar in some ways to Obama’s federal program.

Romney said Perry was trying to back away from what he wrote just six months ago. “There’s a Rick Perry out there” espousing that, Romney said to laughter. “You better find that Rick Perry and get him to stop saying that.”

Perry attacked Romney as an unreliable conservative and accused him of trying to back away from the health care law he signed in Massachusetts — “so speaking about not telling it straight,” he said.

He said Romney was no conservative on the issue of education.

“There’s one person on this stage who is for Obama’s Race to the Top, and that is Gov. Romney,” he said of the administration’s education initiative. “That is not conservative.”

But the Texas governor, who shot to the top of national polls soon after joining the race six weeks ago, was on the defensive for much of the evening, batting back criticism on Social Security, immigration and his lack of a specific jobs proposal.

Romney was direct, confident and prepared with concise answers. He suggested Perry was a career politician. “I was in government four years,” he said. “I didn’t inhale.”

The debate featured questions submitted on YouTube.

Four months before the opening Iowa caucuses, the Republican field is beginning to coalesce.

Perry and Romney led the GOP field, at 31 percent and 24 percent in a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken last weekend. Texas Rep. Ron Paul was the only other candidate in double digits, at 13 percent.

In the debate, Paul said he would not enforce the No Child Left Behind education law. “Don’t enforce the law, No Child Left Behind,” he said, acknowledging that the law was passed by President George W. Bush, a fellow Republican. He also questioned whether it was realistic to try to ban the use of the so-called day-after pill.

Struggling for traction is Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, who won the Iowa Straw Poll last month but has seen Perry peel away support among conservative evangelicals and Tea Party supporters. She was at 5 percen in the USA TODAY survey, tied with former House speaker Newt Gingrich and businessman Herman Cain.

At one point, Perry was asked about his relationship with former president George W. Bush, with whom he shares a Texas drawl but has had sometimes prickly relations.

“We’ve got a great rapport,” Perry said, saying the two men talk on “a relatively regular basis.” Still, he noted that he had been “very vocal” in disagreeing with Bush on creating the Medicare Part D drug benefit and on No Child Left Behind .

“It gets back to the federal government has no business telling states how to educate our children,” he said.

Earlier, at the Florida Faith and Freedom Coalition on Thursday, Bachmann said “conservatives don’t have to settle” for a nominee who doesn’t share their values, a comment that seemed aimed at Romney.

Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum took a similar tack at the conference, urging religious conservatives to look at the Republican contenders’ records as well as their rhetoric.

“Don’t just look at what box they check, what pledge they take; take a look at what bullets and arrows they’ve taken for the causes they believe in,” he said. “We have a long list of presidential candidates … who say one thing and then cower when the going gets tough.”

There’s still time for the Republican standings to shift, of course.

Four years ago this month, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani was at the top of the Gallup Poll with 30 percent, followed by former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson at 22 percent.

The eventual nominee, Arizona Sen. John McCain, trailed in third place at 18 percent.

Even so, history indicates that the hurdles are high for contenders who haven’t broken into double digits by now. In the past two decades, only once has a candidate who was in single digits at this point ended up winning the nomination. (That was Democrat Bill Clinton in 1992, a year when the two front-running candidates didn’t end up in the race.)

In Florida, Perry holds a modest lead over Romney among Republicans, 28 percent-22 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University Poll released Thursday.

The survey also showed how vulnerable President Obama is in the critical swing state, with 57 percent of those surveyed saying they disapprove of the job he’s doing as president; just 39 percent approved.

Meanwhile, one long-shot candidate, Michigan Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, announced he was dropping out of the race and endorsing Romney.

He cited his failure to be included in the debates as one reason. “We know the debates are validators,” he said in an interview with USA TODAY.

The Fox News/Google Debate (Full Length)

-

Candidates Unite in Attack on Perry

GOP presidential candidates looking to close in on front-runner Rick Perry redefined their campaign pitches during the Fox News-Google debate in Orlando, Fla., last night, then took their shots at the Texas governor.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 580 other followers

%d bloggers like this: