Legal immigrants that have a work permit and are legally allowed to leave and work in the United States have now started fearing for their future, the current president making it clear that he does not tolerate immigrants, doing anything in his power to deport as many as he can. Now, even those who are backed by the law find it difficult to remain calm when seeing a police officer on the street.

Fear of Deportation Could Harden On-Going Criminal Investigations

Even if some immigrants are protected by the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals or have already been granted a working visa, they are growing increasingly worried that the US government might change its mind and send them back to their home countries.

The problem has become so big that police officers are concerned about losing key witnesses in on-going cases. Moreover, immigrants, both legal and illegal, have become so reluctant to speak to the authorities that the police are finding it hard to run investigations.

Out of fear of deportation, victims are no longer reporting crimes and witnesses are refusing to speak out, letting criminals have their way throughout the country. The travel ban was a catalyst that started a reaction of fear the likes America has never seen before.

New Jersey Immigrants Seem to Suffer the Hardest

Several organizations meant to provide a helping hand to immigrants have tried to speaking out to both documented and undocumented immigrants, offering unwavering support.

According to the New Jersey Alliance for Criminal Justice official website, immigrants are reluctant to speak to anyone wearing a uniform, not being able to differentiate between a police officer and an immigration agent. The problem goes deeper as:

 “immigrants are less likely to report crimes, act as witnesses in criminal investigations and prosecutions, or provide intelligence to law enforcement.”

Joanne Gottesman, director of the Immigrant Justice Clinic and professor of law at Rutgers University, describes the fear she hears in her clients’ voices lately. Even though she is running a small non-profit organization meant of offering advice to immigrants, the number of people who keep calling increases by the day, a clear sign that the immigrant community is currently dominated by fear and uncertainty.

For the moment, the authorities are advising legal immigrants to stay calm as they cannot be deported if they have all the proper documentation. Non-profit support organizations are available throughout the country if immigrants have more extensive questions about the validity of their paperwork and the conditions of their work visa.

Image Source: Flickr

 

STATES CHRONICLE – The Election Day is coming. In two months we will know who will be the next president of the U.S. There are groups who focus on getting out the vote from young people. According to them,  if you have the right to vote, you should use it. The problem is that not so many young people are interested in voting, although this could be one of the biggest responsibilities they have.

One group organized an event just to make more students understand why they should vote. They talked about the election, about how important is to make sure our friends and families are voting. Moreover, they had other topics such as death penalty. There are many young people who wonder why their vote is important.

Here are some arguments why you should vote. First of all, it is your right. People did not have many rights in the past and they were not able to express their opinion. You have the chance of choosing who will rule the country for the next four years and you should not waste it. Some of you might think that your vote is not important. Think of that: there are local contests where people won just by a few votes. If every human would think that he/she is not important, we would not have any democracy.

One of the most important arguments for voting is that this decision will affect your future. Oof course, now you might say that you are too young, you just want to have fun while preparing for your career. People who will be chosen this year will decide for your future. Four years from now you will want a good income, to have your own house and family. If you do not vote, someone else will decide your future.

Moreover, if you really like a subject or there is something you do not like about this country, now is your chance to talk about it. It does not matter if it is about legalizing marijuana, gay marriage or the global warming. Just see what every candidate thinks and chose the one that has the same opinion. If you are a student and you want to more rights, you should vote. Politicians will not think of your wishes because there are older people who vote than students.

Everyone who has the right to vote should do it because it affects our future. The next president could make decisions that will change our country for a long time.

Image source: Wikipedia

 

 

Texas’ Ted Cruz started his presidential campaign a week ago at the Rev. Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University but the precise following day, issues surfaced related to his health insurance cover.

Obamacare should have been one of Cruz’s top focuses. His recent statements say Obamacare is both illegal and “a train wreck.” And, obviously, it puts a government civil servant in the position of a middle man between patients and physicians, he adds.

But when last week Cruz said he planned to sign his family up for health insurance coverage via Obamacare, the media burst out.

He was quoted by CNN as saying:

“We’ll be getting new health insurance, and we’ll presumably do it through my job in the Senate, and so we’ll be on the federal exchange like millions of others on the federal exchange. I believe we should follow the law, even laws I disagree with.”

Immediately, liberals accused Cruz of being a hypocrite. However, that is not exactly so. To cite ethics researcher Rush Limbaugh:

“There’s no hypocrisy in Cruz using Obamacare, just like there’s no hypocrisy in people opposing Social Security using it.”

Had Cruz followed up on his initial articulation, he may have been out of trouble. The real issues began when his assistants declared the senator had not, indeed, set his mind on what to do about his health coverage. In this way started a week-long debate.

A GOP campaigner who’s supporting previous Florida Gov. Jeb Bush noted:

“He had a superb announcement. But then his message got thrown off by this Obamacare distraction.”

The reason Cruz all of a sudden requires health coverage is that his family was secured by a policy covered by his wife’s employer, Goldman Sachs but now she chose to go on unpaid leave while her spouse is campaigning for presidentials.

What are Cruz’s options for purchasing a policy via the federal -run program ? His wife could require Goldman Sachs to proceed with their health coverage under the company’s unpaid leave programs. Yet, somehow that may look like something else.

Another option would be for her to seek continued coverage under the government COBRA law — however since she didn’t lose her occupation, but is leaving by choice, she may not qualify.

Also, Cruz could purchase a health policy from an insurance agency. Blue Cross of Texas, for instance, offers coverage for a family headed by a 44-year-old starting at $623 a month. Then again, that that accompanies a heavy $12,700 deductible.

Lastly, Cruz could decline to purchase a policy altogether and pay a fine to the Treasury on top of his taxes.

Image Source: CBS News

Many have the feeling that Hillary Clinton is inevitably the Democratic Party`s candidate for the presidential election of 2016. But we should not precipitate about that, according to former Maryland governor, Martin O’Malley. Although Hillary Clinton is, at the present, favorite for the democratic frontrunner position, O`Malley does not see things this way.

“Most years there is the inevitable frontrunner. And that inevitable frontrunner is inevitable right up until he or she is no longer inevitable,”

he said, during the Morning Joe program on MSNBC.

Hillary Clinton is implicated in a controversy her using a private e-mail account, while in the position of secretary of state, which she has executed for a period of four years. She offered a press conference on Tuesday, but it did not help to quench the agitation. So it seems that Martin O`Malley timed his prick very wisely.

On March 12, a New York Times report shows that the Democratic Party`s congressmen see Hillary Clinton as the perfect candidate for the 2016 presidential race. “She is simply too big to fail”, they said.

Clinton already has a great reputation, and is considered to be the most important woman in American politics. In the polls on Democratic preferences for the 2016 election candidate, she has the highest scores. Although Hillary Clinton may feel certain about the outcome of the Democratic Party`s selection, Martin O`Malley disagrees.

He stated that if he entered the race, a consolation prize wouldn`t do. He wouldn`t be satisfied with a cabinet post or vice presidency.

“I would be running not only to win but to govern well, to make the case to the people of the country there are better choices we can make together that will make wages go up and to make college more affordable for our kids again,”

O`Malley said on this matter.

He added that he expects an elaborated discussion amongst Democrats in the time of the campaign.

On the other hand, O`Malley didn`t rush to make accusations and didn`t make use of any type of political demagogy. He refused to comment on the e-mail scandal in which Hillary Clinton is embroiled and added that he will make his political intentions public this spring.

O`Malley also didn`t announce any plan to replace Maryland`s Senator Barbara Mikulski, who said she wouldn`t run for re-election next year.

An NBC survey reveals that Hillary Clinton has 86 per cent support, as Martin O`Malley has only 11 per cent.

Image Source: CBS News

Antonio Villaraigosa, ex-mayor of Los Angeles, declared this week that he steps out of the Senate race. As per the politician’s statements the decisions follows more than six weeks of serious analysis and further opens the path for Attorney General Kamala Harris, who is presently the main contender for the position.

Villaraigosa stated during this announcement:

“I know that my heart and my family are here in California, not Washington, D.C. I have decided not to run for the U.S. Senate and instead continue my efforts to make California a better place to live, work and raise a family.”

Villaraigosa’s discourse suggests that he may be thinking about racing for senator in 2018, when Jerry Brown’s term reaches its end. Also, Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom has begun his board for the gubernatorial run, and Villaraigosa may also go in that direction.

Interestingly, surveys show that Villaraigosa may have to put up a serious fight against Harris.

The attorney general boasts a solid voter base in Northern California while Villaraigosa collects blended reactions even among LA residents, who ought to hypothetically back the former mayor. Voters of latin American origins firmly back him but the African-American voters, who have generally been a key piece of his coalition, are projected to go Harris this time.

Villaraigosa captured media attention over the recent weeks and made headlines with is purported plan to race for a Senate spot.  For instance, consultant Garry South had anticipated that Villaraigosa would seek Senate spot and start campaigning, saying “I think he’s going to run.”

What’s more, former House Secretary Henry Cisneros also made public his belief that Villaraigosa would join the race and former Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez was quoted saying that Villaraigosa was, “close” to selecting the campaign staff to run his Senate fight.

Villaraigosa held the post of state assemblyman from 1994 to 2000, putting in two years as speaker for the lower house. He also marked as Los Angeles city councilman from 2003 until he was  voted yto the mayoral seat in 2005. He exited office in 2013 because of term limits and now gets his “bread” as an expensive political consultant.

Harris has been San Francisco’s district attorney and just won a second term as attorney general in November.

Villaraigosa had an opportunity to turn into the state’s first elected Hispanic congressperson, repeating his leap forward when he turned into the first Latino to end up as Los Angeles mayor in more than a hundred years.

Harris could also score two firsts for a California representative — the state has never elected a black senator or one with Indian origins. She is born from a black father from Jamaica and an Indian mother.

Image Source: US News

The highest court in New York decided Tuesday that state legislation establishes where sex offenders can reside, not the over 100 municipal statutes defining limits around parks, schools and different zones where youngsters are likely to be found.

The Court of Appeals decided through an unanimous vote regarding a case in Nassau County, saying New York’s “exhaustive and itemized” regulations for identifying, confining and tracking enlisted sex criminals stop municipalities from authorizing their own residency regulations.

According to Judge Eugene Pigott Jr. state legislation already denies guilty parties marked Level 3 from being in any school areas or public access zones as well as parking their autos within 1,000 feet while on parole or monitored discharge.  Pigott Jr. noted:

“A local government’s police power is not absolute. It has to yield to the state on matters like this where they’re inconsistent.”

As indicated by the judge, municipal laws are effortlessly approved and, naturally, are backed by local residents but the communities have taken to moving the burden of sex offenders lodging to neighboring groups. Piggot noted that this led to frustration in the state’s policy.  All the other judges concurred.

The New York Civil Liberties Bureau, said in a court brief from the end of last year that 109 urban communities, towns and villages and 21 counties across the state had such local legislation.

The recent case was about Nassau County’s Local Law 4 instituted in 2006 that denies listed sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school. A man who had been sentenced in 2001 for having explicit entertainment showing children, moved to a condo nearby two schools after 22 months in jail and a year on parole. Michael Diack was accused of violating the municipal residency regulations.

A first judge rejected the charge, saying the local legislation was pre-empted by the state legislation. A midlevel court restored the complaint. The Court of Appeals rejected it once more this Tuesday.

State law likewise bans wrongdoers on post-trial probation or supervised discharge from entering school premises, Pigott composed. Given a low-level offender and off probation, Diack didn’t fell under the state limitations.

Lawyer Kathy Manley representing Diack, contended she and her partners have won comparable cases in a few separate counties, but this ruling applies to all. Manley declared:

“There’s a lot of other people all over the state that are subjected to these laws and now they’re all invalid”.

According to the attorney, most of the people are low level offenders and don’t really represent a major threat to the areas. Ed Mangano, the chief of Nassau County noted that the legislation was enacted to ensure children’s safety and he urged the state Legislature to alter the law to make it tougher since now it falls only under the state attributes.

Image Source: Auburnpub