Saturday, July 2 Daily Rundown: Top headlines by LinkedIn…

https://www.linkedin.com/news/daily-rundown/

Inflation: Reagan and Trump vs. Carter and Biden The…

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/jun/28/inflation-reagan-and-trump-vs-carter-and-biden/

Friday, July 1 Daily Rundown: Top headlines by LinkedIn…

https://www.linkedin.com/news/daily-rundown/

CIS Ombudsman Issues 2022 Annual Report to Congress

June 30, 2022 CIS Ombudsman Issues 2022 Annual Report to Congress Dear Stakeholder, Today, we submitted our 2022 Annual Report to Congress. This year’s report outlines some of the most significant problems encountered by individuals and employers when seeking immigration benefits, such as backlogs, issues with employment authorization documents (EADs), expedite requests, and more. We also provide recommendations for how U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) can address these problems and improve its administrative processes. Highlights of the 2022 Annual Report The Avalanche Impact of Backlogs: 2021 in Review. USCIS has frequently had to confront the impacts of its backlogs, but neither the backlogs nor their impacts have been as severe as the ones the agency currently faces. Lengthy processing times and the high numbers of unadjudicated cases—a result of the pandemic’s unprecedented effect on USCIS’ operations, employee attrition, and insufficient revenue—have had a massive adverse “snowball” effect on the agency’s operations as well as on its customers and stakeholders. To fully address the backlogs, USCIS must also continue to address their consequences. USCIS’ commitment to mitigating its backlogs of cases, as evidenced by setting aggressive processing goals for the end of FY 2023, must be matched with a full commitment to eradicating the worst of these pain points for applicants and petitioners so that they may continue to work, travel, obtain evidence of status, and be able to access expedited processing, when eligible, in a meaningful and consistent way. The Need for More Flexibility in Renewing Employment Authorization. Delays in renewing EADs interrupt employment for noncitizens while simultaneously hampering the ability of U.S. businesses to employ their workforce continuously. In the Annual Report, we recommend that USCIS build on existing efforts to mitigate the impact of EAD delays by increasing flexibility in the EAD renewal process, including for certain nonimmigrant spouses; continuing to identify occupations where EADs might be expedited in the national interest; further leveraging technology in support of EAD adjudications; allowing more flexibility in the Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, process; and eliminating the need for a separate EAD application in certain circumstances. Increasing Accessibility to Legitimate Travel: Advance Parole. Due to processing delays, adjustment of status applicants find it difficult to receive advance parole documents in a timely manner, which has led to more requests for USCIS to expedite Form I-131, Application for Travel Document, and to issue advance parole for emergencies. The Annual Report presents several recommendations to reduce barriers to travel and enable USCIS to better manage the process of providing advance parole. Improving Access to the Expedite Process. USCIS operations have been affected by the pandemic and insufficient resources, resulting in longer processing times for expedite requests. The expedite request caseload has consequently increased, further diverting resources within the agency and making it challenging for USCIS to process these requests efficiently. The Annual Report includes several recommendations for making the expedite request process more efficient, standardizing guidance on the process, and increasing efforts to collect data on the number of expedite requests USCIS receives as well as approval and denial rates. Initiating a Discussion on Ways to Address the Affirmative Asylum Backlog. The asylum backlog has grown to more than 430,000 pending cases, with devastating impacts on asylum seekers and their family members. In the Annual Report, we offer recommendations to address the backlog and identify new operational approaches to improve the quality and efficiency of asylum adjudications without compromising integrity or fairness. These recommendations are intended to spark a crucial discussion on innovative ways to address the backlog. Eliminating Barriers to Obtaining Proof of Employment Authorization for Asylum Applicants in Removal Proceedings. Asylum seekers, particularly those in removal proceedings, encounter significant barriers to obtaining proof of their employment authorization, both while their Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, is pending and after an immigration judge grants asylum. These barriers arise in part because the asylum process is split between USCIS and the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review. The Annual Report outlines several recommendations aimed at improving coordination and decreasing delays in processing EADs and providing evidence of status. USCIS’ Digital Strategy: Nearing an Inflection Point. While there is more work to be done, we are optimistic that USCIS’ digital strategy is nearing an inflection point that will allow for continued positive progress. The Annual Report offers several new recommendations focused on developing an application programming interface; digitizing Form I-912, Request for Fee Waiver; conducting a nationwide online filing and myUSCIS promotion campaign; and exploring ways to incentivize online filing. U Nonimmigrant Status Bona Fide Determination Process: Successes and Challenges in Taking on a Backlog. The Immigration and Nationality Act allows certain victims who assist law enforcement with a criminal investigation to apply for a U visa. However, due to high demand in this capped category, processing times for U nonimmigrant status have increased. To alleviate the negative effects of these backlogs, USCIS implemented the bona fide determination (BFD) process, which allows the agency to grant eligible petitioners employment authorization and deferred action more efficiently. In this year’s Annual Report, we explore some of the successes and challenges of the U visa BFD process. More Information For more information and to read previous annual reports, visit our Annual Report to Congress page. Our office also issues formal recommendations to USCIS throughout the year. Please visit our Recommendations page to read more, including the CIS Ombudsman’s most recent recommendation on USCIS’ fee-for-service funding model. The CIS Ombudsman is dedicated to assisting individuals and employers seeking to resolve problems with USCIS whenever possible. For more information on our office, please visit www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman or follow us on Facebook and LinkedIn. Please complete the CIS Ombudsman Customer Satisfaction Survey. We appreciate your feedback. Helpful Resources Outreach Annual Report Frequently Asked Questions Immigration Resources Contact the CIS Ombudsman You are subscribed to updates from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Manage Subscriptions  |  Privacy Policy  |  HelpConnect with DHS: Facebook  |  Twitter  |  Instagram  |  LinkedIn  |  Flickr  |  YouTube U.S. Department of Homeland Security www.dhs.gov   This email was sent to peter.hovis@gmail.com on behalf of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security | DHS.gov

Which side of the fence?

Subject: Fence test

You can’t get any more accurate than this!

This is straight forward country thinking.

by Jeff Foxworthy

Which side of the fence?

If you ever wondered which side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!

If a Republican doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one.

If a Democrat doesn’t like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

=============

If a Republican is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat.

If a Democrat is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

=============

If a Republican is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.

If a Democrat is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

=============

If a Republican is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.

If a Democrat is down-and-out he wonders who is going to take care of him.

=============

If a Republican doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.

A Democrat demands that those they don’t like be shut down.

=============

If a Republican is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.

A Democrat non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.

=============

If a Republican decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.

If a Democrat decides he needs health care, he demands that the rest of us pay for his.

==============

===============

If a Republican reads this, he’ll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.

A Democrat will delete it because he’s “offended.”

Gosar Introduces Legislation Honoring Fallen Granite Mountain Hotshots

WEBSITE |  UNSUBSCRIBE |  CONTACT ME

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Washington, DC Office 2057 Rayburn HOB Washington, DC 20515 Phone: (202) 225-2315 Kingman 220 N. 4th Street Kingman , AZ 86401 (By Appointment Only) Prescott 122 N. Cortez Street, Suite 104 Prescott, AZ 86301 Phone: (928) 445-1683 Gold Canyon 6499 S. Kings Ranch Road #4 Gold Canyon, AZ 86118 Phone: (480) 882-2697

Click Here to view this email in your browser Click Here to be removed from this list

View in your browser

Thursday, June 30 Daily Rundown: Top headlines by LinkedIn…

https://www.linkedin.com/news/daily-rundown/

Wednesday, June 29 Daily Rundown: Top headlines by LinkedIn…

https://www.linkedin.com/news/daily-rundown/

Democrats Have Become A Serious Threat To The Republic

Subject: Democrats Have Become A Serious Threat To The Republic

For the left, ‘democracy’ is no longer just a euphemism for ‘policies I want,’ it’s a belief in a system that exists outside the Constitution.

We must remove them. Only 133 days until the mid-terms. The first step in the overdue take back.

David Harsanyi  June 27, 2022

Visit on Twitter @davidharsanyi

https://thefederalist.com/2022/06/27/democrats-have-become-a-serious-threat-to-the-republic/

Those who seek to destroy or delegitimize the Supreme Court for upholding the Constitution are no better than those who desire to overturn or delegitimize presidential elections. In fact, they probably pose a greater long-term threat to American “democracy.”

Now, if you believe the above contention is hyperbole, consider that many leftists aren’t merely advocating for court-packing or nullification of the Dobbs decision; they justify those attacks with a litany of other grievances about the constitutional order.

Even as the Supreme Court relinquished its power, and threw the abortion issue–unmentioned anywhere in the Constitution–back to the voters, a horde of j-school graduates and politicians, either ignorant of basic civics or contemptuous of them, descended with panic-stricken warnings about the demise of “democracy.” Almost none of their objections were grounded in any sort of legal arguments about the alleged constitutionality of terminating unwanted human beings. Instead, their case centered around the specious idea that the court had undermined the will of voters by no longer dictating abortion policy by judicial fiat.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who, at this point, sounds virtually indistinguishable from Senate leadership or the authoritarians writing at The Washington Post, points out that seven of the nine justices on the court “were appointed by a party that hasn’t won a popular vote more than once in 30 years,” that one of their seats “was stolen,” and that “several lied to Congress to secure their appointment…”

None of those contentions are true. Every single justice on the court, including the ones Democrats preemptivelysmeared as deviants to undermine the legitimacy of the court, was nominated using the prescribed constitutional method that is used by every party. And every senator who voted to confirm those justices did so using the only legal process available to them. The “popular vote” is not a real thing.

When Democrats win both the Senate and the White House, they have the power to nominate and confirm any justice they desire. But they also seem to be under the impression that when they win only the White House, they’re still authorized to dictate whom Republicans are allowed to confirm (as was the case with Merrick Garland). And when they are completely out of national power, they simply reject the legitimacy of justices who do not meet their invented, evolving, extraconstitutional standards. Democrats treat every victory of the opposition as dubiously attained.

“The Founding Fathers wrote a constitution designed to prevent a tyranny of the majority,” says former Barack Obama adviser David Axelrod. “But what happens when you have a tyranny of the minority, gaming the system to promote a radical agenda that flouts the will of the majority under the guise of constitutionalism?” Similar assertions were repeated across the left-wing punditsphere this weekend.

Axelrod, in true Obama fashion, begs the question. But the fact that the Electoral College doesn’t align with the “popular vote” isn’t a disqualifying aspect of American politics, it is the very point. If the Electoral College always synchronized with the outcome of the nonexistent direct democratic national tallies, it wouldn’t need to exist. It isn’t a loophole; it is a deliberately created mechanism that stops a handful of states from dominating policy. (Not only is the national vote immaterial, but we really have no idea what one would look like because (winning) candidates do not run up scores in big states, they campaign nationally.)

Though I do wonder what remedy Axelrod or Ocasio-Cortez have in mind for this supposed problem? Should the GOP abdicate the presidency to a Democrat every time it fails to win the nonexistent “popular vote”? Should Republican senators from smaller states ignore their constituents and ask Elizabeth Warren for permission to support judicial nominees? Sounds like one-party rule.

None of this is to even mention that a lack of national legislation on an issue isn’t a “tyranny of the minority.” It’s federalism. There is no other way to keep a sprawling, geographically, ethnically, culturally, religiously diverse nation free and self-governing. That’s why enumerated powers exist. And that’s also why the increasingly radical progressive left is obsessed with getting rid of the filibuster, the only thing preserving some semblance of legislative limitation on federal power. The only people who refer to federalism as “minority rule” are people who believe that Americans need to be “ruled” over in the first place. Indeed, the court did not stop Illinois from making its own abortion policies. It’s Axelrod who wants the court to compel, by edict, abortion policy in states like Mississippi.

Democrats want the Supreme Court, created to adjudicate the constitutionality of laws free from political pressures, to follow public opinion polls. The only way we can truly know how voters feel about abortion is by subjecting the issue to the democratic process. Whether Roe, a legal decision, is popular is irrelevant–though it’s unsurprising the majority of Americans, after decades of media championing abortion, know little about it. Because, at some point, voters will decide if the Democratic Party’s new position, government-funded abortion on demand until crowning, or the position of states like Mississippi, 15 weeks bans, are more “radical.”

When the Supreme Court concocted the constitutional “right” to abortion in 1973, the pro-life movement didn’t promise to dismantle the system; rather it spent 50 years creating an intellectual and political movement that would begin to restore proper constitutional limits. They voted for presidents who promised to put textualists on the bench and elected senators who would confirm them. If you’re unhappy with those rules, you are free to amend the Constitution. But, for the contemporary left, “democracy” isn’t just a euphemism for “policies we support” anymore, it’s a pernicious belief that Republicans have a responsibility to live in a political system that exists outside of the Constitution. And a system with two sets of rules is untenable.

David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist. Harsanyi is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of five books—the most recent, Eurotrash: Why America Must Reject the Failed Ideas of a Dying Continent. His work has appeared in National Review, the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Reason, New York Post, and numerous other publications. Follow him on Twitter, @davidharsanyi.

Which side of the fence?

You can’t get any more accurate than this!

This is straight forward country thinking.

by Jeff Foxworthy

Which side of the fence?

If you ever wondered which side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!

If a Republican doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one.

If a Democrat doesn’t like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

=============

If a Republican is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat.

If a Democrat is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

=============

If a Republican is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.

If a Democrat is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

=============

If a Republican is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.

If a Democrat is down-and-out he wonders who is going to take care of him.

=============

If a Republican doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.

A Democrat demands that those they don’t like be shut down.

=============

If a Republican is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.

A Democrat non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.

=============

If a Republican decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.

If a Democrat decides he needs health care, he demands that the rest of us pay for his.

==============

===============

If a Republican reads this, he’ll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.

A Democrat will delete it because he’s “offended.”