Democratic presidential hopeful Beto O’Rourke unveiled a sweeping immigration plan on Wednesday, promising to reform the U.S. asylum system, overhaul naturalization laws, and strengthen relations with Latin America.
“Coming from a city of immigrants, I’ve seen the incredible contributions of immigrants to our communities and local economies, and have been able to experience what happens when we allow everyone to contribute to their full potential,” O’Rourke said in a statement announcing the plan. “Under our administration, we will ensure that we advance a new vision of immigration that fully reflects our country’s values and empowers every individual to contribute to the shared greatness of our country.”
On day one, O’Rourke says he would usurp executive authority to reunite families separated at the border by Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy. Specifically, O’Rourke would issue an executive order to eliminate immigrant detention for all detainees, save those with criminal records. He would also terminate funding for private prison operators.
In lieu of detention, O’Rourke wants to bolster family case management, which he says is “nearly one-tenth the cost.” Additionally, his plan pledges to streamline the asylum process by adding judges and repealing policies that slow down adjudication. According to Syracuse University, there were 859,375 pending immigration cases in April 2019, which includes asylum cases that failed an initial review. On average, it takes 718 days to get an immigration hearing.
The presidential hopeful outlines a series of loftier goals as well, such as cementing an “earned” path to citizenship for America’s 11 million undocumented immigrants within his first 100 days, which would require congressional approval. While that may be a long shot, he says his amnesty plan would be “more efficient than previous proposals,” though he does not elaborate.
Despite being short on some specifics, O’Rourke does outline an innovative community-based visa designation that would allow local governments and religious congregations to sponsor refugees. Additionally, he suggests expanding visa caps, allowing immigrant-heavy industries like agriculture, manufacturing, and various service trades to hire immigrant labor.
O’Rourke believes we need to build up Latin America in order to fix our own immigration system. As such, he proposes a $5 billion investment in the region, with the primary beneficiaries listed as non-governmental organizations (NGOs), community-based groups, and public-private partnerships. However well-intentioned, outside efforts to rebuild foreign institutions from the ground up are rarely successful. In fact, they often make things worse.
While abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement ICE is an increasingly popular line among Democratic candidates, it doesn’t resonate with O’Rourke, who would instead create a commission to oversee the agency and inaugurate “improved training and continuing education courses.”
In Beto fashion, the former rocker infuses his plan with quotes from a range of immigrants, the majority of whom live in his hometown of El Paso, Texas. “It took me almost 18 years to finally be able to become a United States citizen,” says Carlo G. Maldonado, an immigration lawyer from Quito, Ecuador, who immigrated to the U.S. when he was 16 years old. “I am so honored today to be able to say that I am an American, and I’m honored that through my work every day I am able to help others navigate the immigration process and have a chance at the American Dream too.”
from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2Qzi2cb
via IFTTT
In perhaps the best sign thus far that a potential US war with Iran has been averted (at least for the near term), given the possibility that both heightened saber-rattling and the potential for an “accidental” deadly encounter between IRGC forces and the recent build-up of American deployments could have led to a major conflict, White House National Security Adviser John Bolton himself appears to now be fast climbing down the escalation ladder.
According to Reuters on Thursday Bolton is singing a different tune compared to the war rhetoric of the past weeks since the crisis began: “The threat from Iran is not over but quick action from the United States has helped deter it.” This echoes a prior Pentagon statement essentially saying the “clear” Iran threat intelligence against US forces was accurate but that the US carrier and other extra force deployments to the Persian Gulf region thwarted Iran’s intentions.
“I don’t think this threat is over, but I do think you can make at least a conditional claim that the quick response and the deployment and other steps that we took did serve as a deterrent,”Bolton told reporters during a visit to London on Thursday.
Image source: The New York Times
When pressed over whether he was at odds with President Trump who has repeatedly stated the US is not looking for regime change in Tehran, Bolton responded:
“The policy we’re pursuing is not a policy of regime change. That’s the fact and everybody should understand it that way.”
Bolton even seemed to have backed away from prior statements of defense officials which accused Iran’s leaders of having “ordered” attacks on oil tankers near the Strait of Hormuz as well as a Saudi oil pipeline in the past weeks.
Late last week an official Pentagon statement said“the leadership of Iran at the highest level” ordered a spate of disruptive attacks.
But now Bolton seems have have introduced more ambiguity, identifying Iran’s “surrogates” – and stopping short of prior direct and more aggressive “top leadership” accusations – as possibly behind the attacks. Per Reuters:
Bolton said there was some prospect that evidence Iran was behind attacks this month on oil tankers in the Gulf would be presented to the United Nations Security Council next week.
“I don’t think anybody who is familiar with the situation in the region, whether they have examined the evidence or not, has come to any conclusion other than that these attacks were carried out by Iran or their surrogates,” he said.
Over the past week, following Trump’s extended hand for Iran’s leaders to “call me,” we’ve seen a consistent deescalation following weeks of dangerous escalation, including threats and counter-threats of military action by both sides.
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani reportedly said this week that the “road is not closed” on talks with the US if Washington drops the sanctions and returns to upholding the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) – something not at all likely to happen.
via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2JMh5wH Tyler Durden
These appeals arise from a dispute concerning a television production based on the life of the Mexican-American celebrity Jenni Rivera, who died in a plane crash in December 2012. The entity that controls most of Rivera’s assets, Jenni Rivera Enterprises, LLC (JRE), entered into a nondisclosure agreement with Rivera’s former manager, Pete Salgado, that restricted his disclosure and use of certain personal information about Rivera and her family. Alleging Salgado breached that agreement by disclosing information to the producers and the broadcaster of a television series based on Rivera’s life, JRE sued Salgado and the program’s producers for breach of contract, interference with contract, and inducing breach of contract. JRE also sued the program’s broadcaster for interference with contract and inducing breach of contract….
The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ claim against Univision for tortuously inducing Salgado to breach his contract were viable as a matter of California law, but were preempted by the First Amendment, given that “Univision had no knowledge of the nondisclosure agreement at the time it entered into the license agreement with BTF [the producers of the series about Rivera],” and that all Univision did after learning of the agreement appeared to “consist[] of continuing to pay license fees to BTF and promoting Salgado’s involvement with the Series”:
“While refusing to recognize a broad privilege in newsgathering against application of generally applicable laws, the United States Supreme Court has also observed that ‘without some protection for seeking out the news, freedom of the press could be eviscerated.'” The United States Supreme Court has consistently limited the press’s newsgathering privilege, however, to circumstances in which the press “lawfully obtains truthful information about a matter of public significance.” …
Courts determine whether the media obtained information lawfully by considering whether the media obtained the information by “routine reporting techniques” or “traditional means of news-gathering.” … “At one extreme, “‘routine … reporting techniques,'” such as asking questions of people with information (“including those with confidential or restricted information”) could rarely, if ever, be deemed an actionable intrusion…. At the other extreme, violation of well-established legal areas of physical or sensory privacy—trespass into a home or tapping a personal telephone line, for example—could rarely, if ever, be justified by a reporter’s need to get the story. Such acts would be deemed highly offensive even if the information sought was of weighty public concern; they would also be outside any protection the Constitution provides to newsgathering.” … [T]he “First Amendment is not a license to trespass, to steal, or to intrude by electronic means into the precincts of another’s home or office” ….
California courts have not determined where intentionally interfering with a nondisclosure agreement falls on this continuum. Cases from other jurisdictions involving a First Amendment defense to claims against media for intentional interference with contract or economic relations have rejected those claims. (See, e.g., Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Times Pub. Co., Inc. (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 2001) 780 So.2d 310, 318 [under Florida law, a plaintiff tribe failed to show reporters had an improper motive to interfere with the tribe’s relationship with its employees by using routine news gathering techniques to obtain and publish truthful but confidential information about the tribe’s casino operations]; see also Huggins v. Povitch (N.Y.Sup.Ct., Apr. 19, 1996, No. 131164) 1996 WL 515498; Dulgarian v. Stone (1995) 420 Mass. 843, 852; but see Falwell v. Penthouse Intern., Ltd. (W.D.Va. 1981) 521 F.Supp. 1204, 1209 [suggesting in dicta that a publisher could be liable for inducing freelance writers “to violate the terms under which [an] interview was granted”].) …
We need not decide the broad question whether the torts of inducing a breach of contract and interfering with a contract are “independent torts” such that the First Amendment can never provide a defense to such claims when they arise from conduct that leads to the publication or broadcast of truthful and newsworthy information.
Here, it is uncontroverted Univision had no knowledge of the nondisclosure agreement at the time it entered into the license agreement with BTF. The evidence of Univision’s actions, after it learned of the nondisclosure agreement, that arguably contributed to Salgado’s continued breaches of the agreement consisted of continuing to pay license fees to BTF and promoting Salgado’s involvement with the Series.
Even if those actions were sufficient to serve as the basis of liability for tortious interference, they are not sufficiently “wrongful” or “unlawful” to overcome the First Amendment newsgathering and broadcast privileges. Therefore, the First Amendment protected Univision’s use and broadcast of the Series….
from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2JLGaYJ
via IFTTT
Socialism will always encounter two big problems when regimes attempt to implement it:
1) the impossibility of economic calculation without true market prices, and
2) the lack of an incentive to produce only what consumers actually want.
The following simple example helps to illustrate the impossibility of economic calculation without market prices: a Cuban restaurant in Miami Beach sells a picadillo dish (ground beef, plantains, rice) for $8. Prices in general and thus the $8 price provide vital information. Perhaps $1, might be profit, and $7 will be spent in costs, in other words, in the necessary consumption of wealth needed to produce the meal/wealth, things like equipment/electricity/food/supplies, and everything employees and their families will consume at home (food, energy) thanks to their paychecks that came from the $7/meal. The businessman discovered two things that are impossible for a central planning body to discover regardless of the good intentions of its members or their intelligence, 1) that there are enough customers nearby willing to patronize the restaurant at the $8/meal price thus making their lives better, and 2) how to reorder $7 worth of stuff(labor/supplies/etc.) to profitably produce the meal.
If he sets prices too high, customers will choose other superior competing options. If he sets prices too low, He won’t be able to cover costs and will go out of business. In other words, if he can’t entice consumers to buy at a profitable price, the entrepreneur is failing to reorder the world in a way desired by the hundreds/thousands of people nearby who each value things differently. Therefore, Socialism/Communism can’t work because only businessmen dispersed throughout society are at the right time and place needed to discover people’s desires(1) and (2) how to properly set prices and thus create a profitable and competitive order ( i.e., one that produces more than it consumes while also providing a superior alternative to customers/society).
Nikita Khrushchev, who followed Stalin as head of the centrally planned (Socialist/Communist) Soviet Union, is credited with saying “When all the world is socialist, Switzerland will have to remain capitalist, so that it can tell us the price of everything.”Unfortunately for Khrushchev, and the billions who suffered economic chaos and an inevitable decline in production under Socialist/Communist regimes all over the world, prices in Switzerland (or anywhere else) embody information about the costs/consumption of those particular places at specific times and are no good elsewhere.
With the Internet, pricing information all over the world can help customers find/nourish cheaper/better products/orders/companies and also help producers likewise thus greatly accelerating competitive knowledge/order-spreading but it will NEVER lead to the success of central economy-wide planning because no computers/system can get in the brains of entrepreneurs to predict what products/businesses they will create and thus alter society, and similarly, no computers can get in the minds of consumers and predict how they will choose to spend their money/wealth thus once again altering the social order’s numerous cycles of production and consumption. As Mises so eloquently explains:
The consumers, by their buying or abstention from buying, ultimately determine what should be produced and in what quantity and quality. They render profitable the affairs of those businessmen who best comply with their wishes and unprofitable the affairs of those who do not produce what they are asking for most urgently. Profits convey control of the factors of production into the hands of those who are employing them for the best possible satisfaction of the most urgent needs of the consumers, and losses withdraw them from the control of the inefficient businessmen. In a market economy not sabotaged by the government the owners of property are mandataries of the consumers as it were. On the market a daily repeated plebiscite determines who should own what and how much. It is the consumers who make some people rich and other people penniless.
But who is in a position to determine what it is the consumers want and need? Only private entrepreneurs who daily are either rewarded or punished by the needs of consumers in the marketplace. Socialism, lacking a price system has no means of knowing the needs of consumers.
Incentives
Socialist regimes in general also face an “incentive problem.” In free societies, or the private sector in general, each entrepreneur is incentivized to be as productive as possible and keep inefficiencies to a minimum since he owns/keeps the additional wealth or losses. On the other hand, the government employee or bureaucrat gets the same pay (ability to then consume) whether his department did a good job (produced a lot) or not, and is also not risking his own wealth since that comes from the taxpayers. In other words, regimes are national monopolies that lack the innovative/competitive incentives in competitive systems.
Inefficiency Requires Coercion
Central plans, of course, can’t work if people are free to not go along with them — so they inevitably require compulsion/slavery. For example, it is a criminal act in Communist countries to start a business. It is also a criminal act everywhere to not pay taxes that sustain public sector bureaucracies like “public education.” So there is little incentive or wealth to sustain other, more desirable competitors when taxpayers are forced to sustain certain government “enterprises.” For example, the NYC public(monopolistic) school bureaucracy consumes over 24,000 per year to “educate” a K-12 student. Refusing to pay a single dollar that goes to this bureaucracy comes with heavy sanctions from the state itself.
In his essay “Overlegislation” Herbert Spencer beautifully comments on the differences between governmental(law-made) orders and private/competitive ones:
How invariably officialism becomes corrupt every one knows. Exposed to no such antiseptic as free competition — not dependent for existence, as private unendowed organizations are, upon the maintenance of a vigorous vitality; all law-made agencies fall into an inert, over-fed state, from which to disease is a short step. Salaries flow in irrespective of the activity with which duty is performed; continue after duty wholly ceases; becomes rich prizes for the idle well born; and prompt to perjury, to bribery, to simony. … Officialism is habitually slow. When non-governmental agencies are dilatory, the public has its remedy: it ceases to employ them, and soon finds quicker ones. Under this discipline all private bodies are taught promptness. But for delays in State-departments there is no such easy cure. …
Consider first how immediately every private enterprise is dependent upon the need for it; and how impossible it is for it to continue if there be no need. Daily are new trades and new companies established. If they subserve some existing public want, they take root and grow. If they do not, they die of inanition. It needs no act of Parliament, to put them down. As with all natural organizations, if there is no function to them, no nutrient comes to them, and they dwindle away. Moreover, not only do the new agencies disappear if they are superfluous, but the old ones cease to be when they have done their work. Unlike law-made instrumentalities…these private instrumentalities dissolve when they become needless. …
Again, officialism is stupid. Under the natural course of things each citizen tends towards his fittest function. Those who are competent to the kind of work they undertake, succeed, and, in the average of cases, are advanced in proportion to their efficiency; while the incompetent, society soon finds out, ceases to employ, forces to try something easier, and eventually turns to use. But it is quite otherwise in State-organizations. Here, as everyone knows, birth, age, back-stairs intrigue, and sycophancy, determine the selections, rather than merit. The “fool of the family” readily finds a place in the Church, if “the family” have good connections. A youth, too ill-educated for any active profession, does very well for an officer in the Army. Gray hair or a title, is a far better guarantee of naval promotion than genius is. Nay, indeed, the man of capacity often finds that, in government offices, superiority is a hindrance — that his chiefs hate to be pestered with his proposed improvements, and are offended by his implied criticism. Not only, therefore, is legislative machinery complex, but it is made of inferior materials.
via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/30Y1vDq Tyler Durden
Democratic presidential hopeful Beto O’Rourke unveiled a sweeping immigration plan on Wednesday, promising to reform the U.S. asylum system, overhaul naturalization laws, and strengthen relations with Latin America.
“Coming from a city of immigrants, I’ve seen the incredible contributions of immigrants to our communities and local economies, and have been able to experience what happens when we allow everyone to contribute to their full potential,” O’Rourke said in a statement announcing the plan. “Under our administration, we will ensure that we advance a new vision of immigration that fully reflects our country’s values and empowers every individual to contribute to the shared greatness of our country.”
On day one, O’Rourke says he would usurp executive authority to reunite families separated at the border by Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy. Specifically, O’Rourke would issue an executive order to eliminate immigrant detention for all detainees, save those with criminal records. He would also terminate funding for private prison operators.
In lieu of detention, O’Rourke wants to bolster family case management, which he says is “nearly one-tenth the cost.” Additionally, his plan pledges to streamline the asylum process by adding judges and repealing policies that slow down adjudication. According to Syracuse University, there were 859,375 pending immigration cases in April 2019, which includes asylum cases that failed an initial review. On average, it takes 718 days to get an immigration hearing.
The presidential hopeful outlines a series of loftier goals as well, such as cementing an “earned” path to citizenship for America’s 11 million undocumented immigrants within his first 100 days, which would require congressional approval. While that may be a long shot, he says his amnesty plan would be “more efficient than previous proposals,” though he does not elaborate.
Despite being short on some specifics, O’Rourke does outline an innovative community-based visa designation that would allow local governments and religious congregations to sponsor refugees. Additionally, he suggests expanding visa caps, allowing immigrant-heavy industries like agriculture, manufacturing, and various service trades to hire immigrant labor.
O’Rourke believes we need to build up Latin America in order to fix our own immigration system. As such, he proposes a $5 billion investment in the region, with the primary beneficiaries listed as non-governmental organizations (NGOs), community-based groups, and public-private partnerships. However well-intentioned, outside efforts to rebuild foreign institutions from the ground up are rarely successful. In fact, they often make things worse.
While abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement ICE is an increasingly popular line among Democratic candidates, it doesn’t resonate with O’Rourke, who would instead create a commission to oversee the agency and inaugurate “improved training and continuing education courses.”
In Beto fashion, the former rocker infuses his plan with quotes from a range of immigrants, the majority of whom live in his hometown of El Paso, Texas. “It took me almost 18 years to finally be able to become a United States citizen,” says Carlo G. Maldonado, an immigration lawyer from Quito, Ecuador, who immigrated to the U.S. when he was 16 years old. “I am so honored today to be able to say that I am an American, and I’m honored that through my work every day I am able to help others navigate the immigration process and have a chance at the American Dream too.”
from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2Qzi2cb
via IFTTT
Three years after his death in a Milwaukee jail, the family of Terrill Thomas has received some small comfort in the form of a $6.75 settlement.
Thomas was arrested and jailed in April 2016 after being charged for shooting a man. At the time, his lawyer expressed concern to a judge that the 38-year-old suffered from mental health issues. Despite this warning, guards were ordered to shut off the water in Thomas’s cell after he flooded a previous cell. A fellow inmate urged guards to bring Thomas water, but the inmate was told he would need to alert the next guard on duty. Thomas died from dehydration after going at least six days without water. He never received his court-ordered mental health evaluation.
On Wednesday of this week, Thomas’ family received approximately $5 million from Milwaukee County and $1.7 million from Armor Correctional Health Services. This is believed to be the largest settlement for a jail death in the history of Wisconsin.
At the time of Thomas’ death, the Milwaukee County jail system was run by then-Sheriff David Clarke. Clarke resigned in 2017, but not before several inmates and a newborn baby died in his jails. Clarke has made a name for himself since then as a voice for law and order. He also regularly criticizes efforts to reform the criminal justice system.
In 2014, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinelpublished an investigation into the deaths of 18 people who perished while in custody of Milwaukee law enforcement.
from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2EJJJdM
via IFTTT
Suggested people or organizations whom we might be willing to help spread it far and wide (obviously, the more detail on the potential contacts, the better).
Gave us feedback on the style of the presentation, since we’re always willing to change the style as we learn more.
Please post your suggestions in the comments, or e-mail me at volokh at law.ucla.edu.
Future videos in the series will likely include most of the following, plus maybe some others:
Alexander Hamilton: free press pioneer.
Free speech at college.
Free speech on the Internet.
Money and speech / corporations and speech.
Speech and privacy.
from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2wqyUsw
via IFTTT
The Obama-Netflix deal may pale in comparison to the media powerhouse Hillary Clinton and her daughter Chelsea have cooked up; a new production company focusing on stories by and about women.
With Bill Clinton seemingly uninvolved for obvious reasons, Hillary and Chelsea have reportedly been speaking with studios about financing a slew of surely riveting programming, according to Bloomberg, citing people familiar with the matter who said that the discussions are still in their infancy.
The Clintons plan “to use film and television to influence culture and society now that Hillary Clinton is out of politics,” according to the report.
Hillary Clinton previously signed on to help produce a TV show with Steven Spielberg. That series, “The Woman’s Hour,” is an adaptation of a book about activists who fought to earn women the right to vote.
The Clintons are following in the footsteps of the Obamas. Former President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle created a production company, Higher Ground Productions, and have a deal at Netflix Inc. Their first slate of shows includes an adaptation of Michael Lewis’s book about federal bureaucracy, as well as a drama series about the world of fashion. –Bloomberg
Perhaps she’ll develop a series on how empowered women can rise to such power in America that they can circumvent laws regarding classified information, ignore Congressional subpoenas, use “bleachbit” and physical hammers to destroy evidence in a criminal investigation, and participate in highly unethical regime change – while getting away scot free!
In more recent Clinton news, Hillary Clinton will serve as a keynote speaker at the 2019 Cyber Defense Summit hosted by cybersecurity company FireEye, where she is very likely to recount how the 2016 election was “stolen” from her.
“I think it’s also critical to understand that, as I’ve been telling candidates who have come to see me, you can run the best campaign, you can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you,” said Clinton during an event in May.
via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2XbYgpM Tyler Durden
Three years after his death in a Milwaukee jail, the family of Terrill Thomas has received some small comfort in the form of a $6.75 settlement.
Thomas was arrested and jailed in April 2016 after being charged for shooting a man. At the time, his lawyer expressed concern to a judge that the 38-year-old suffered from mental health issues. Despite this warning, guards were ordered to shut off the water in Thomas’s cell after he flooded a previous cell. A fellow inmate urged guards to bring Thomas water, but the inmate was told he would need to alert the next guard on duty. Thomas died from dehydration after going at least six days without water. He never received his court-ordered mental health evaluation.
On Wednesday of this week, Thomas’ family received approximately $5 million from Milwaukee County and $1.7 million from Armor Correctional Health Services. This is believed to be the largest settlement for a jail death in the history of Wisconsin.
At the time of Thomas’ death, the Milwaukee County jail system was run by then-Sheriff David Clarke. Clarke resigned in 2017, but not before several inmates and a newborn baby died in his jails. Clarke has made a name for himself since then as a voice for law and order. He also regularly criticizes efforts to reform the criminal justice system.
In 2014, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinelpublished an investigation into the deaths of 18 people who perished while in custody of Milwaukee law enforcement.
from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2EJJJdM
via IFTTT
Suggested people or organizations whom we might be willing to help spread it far and wide (obviously, the more detail on the potential contacts, the better).
Gave us feedback on the style of the presentation, since we’re always willing to change the style as we learn more.
Please post your suggestions in the comments, or e-mail me at volokh at law.ucla.edu.
Future videos in the series will likely include most of the following, plus maybe some others:
Alexander Hamilton: free press pioneer.
Free speech at college.
Free speech on the Internet.
Money and speech / corporations and speech.
Speech and privacy.
from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2wqyUsw
via IFTTT
