The company has a long list of requirements, including a highly educated workforce, quality of life, and a strong university system.

It also has to be closed to an international airport. The Indianapolis International Airport fits the bill with direct flights to places like Seattle, New York and DC.

Experts are pointing to the low cost of living and doing business in the Hoosier state. “We have certainly built up our tech workforce, IT and related technologies and we can grow there. Between IUPUI with 35k students in downtown, IU Bloomington Flagship, Purdue, Ball State and others. We have a good university infrastructure to support a company like this,” says IU Kelley School of Business employee Mohan Tatikonda.

Filing those 50,000 jobs could be a challenge.

Amazon is looking for a metro area with more than 1 million people.

RETURNING TO THE RULE OF LAW IS CRUEL?

By Susan Stamper Brown

Those currently in freak-out mode who say it is cruel for President Trump to phase out DACA should take a deep breath. Otherwise, it will be impossible for them to separate logic from emotions long enough to understand that all the Trump administration is doing is returning America to the rule of law rather than allowing the law to be ruled by emotions.

This six-month phase out of Obama’s illegal executive branch overreach program, Deferred Action of Childhood Arrivals, rightly returns immigration laws to the Congress.

Trump made his intentions clear September 5 when he said, “I have a great heart for the folks we are talking about, a great love for them…hopefully now Congress will help them and do it properly.” As Townhall.com editor Guy Benson aptly points out, “The Trump administration clearly stated yesterday that they will not be ‘targeting’ these young people or reshuffling their enforcement priorities.”

Obama, who regularly referred to himself as a “constitutional law professor,” knew better. Now he opines on social media to much oohing and aahing, that rescinding his temporary DACA is “wrong,” “self-defeating” and “cruel.”

Seems to me, it was “wrong” for Democrats, who could’ve done something about immigration, didn’t when they owned Washington during Obama’s first term. According to NBC News, 2010 was “the one REAL moment of the Obama first term when immigration was possible, it was Senate Democratic leaders who weren’t ready to give up the politics of the issue. And the White House didn’t fight.”

Wasn’t it “cruel” that Obama waited until reelection time to create a temporary program like DACA to garner the Hispanic vote as Sen. Marco Rubio hinted in 2012? Likewise, it seems nauseously “self-defeating” that Obama blamed his action on Congress’ inaction. Might it be immoral to offer false hope to DREAMers and potentially the thousands of undocumented kids from El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala who flooded our borders reportedly to escape violence after DACA was publicized?

The last I checked, presidents aren’t allowed to bulldoze over the U.S. Constitution and rewrite laws simply because they disagree with them.

Obama said he was against that sort of thing before he was for it.

Remarkably, Speaker.gov documents 22 times Obama said he “couldn’t ignore or create his own immigration law,” including in 2010 when he said this:”[T]here are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws…I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally. Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship. And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.”

That changed in 2012 when Obama forsook his oath to ensure that “laws be faithfully executed” — and crowned himself as proverbial king. Obama justified DACA on the authority of “prosecutorial discretion,” but, as Fox News’ Gregg Jarrett recently expressed, it is more accurate that Obama was “distorting” prosecutorial discretion.

Legal experts agree DACA won’t stand up in court when challenged because, as Attorney General Jeff Sessions said, “Such an open-ended circumvention of immigration laws was an unconstitutional exercise of authority by the executive branch.”

Though Obama’s words are easy on the ears to the point they lull the nae¯ve to sleep, those who are “woke” understand that even in his retirement, Obama’s words continue to fan the flame of ignorance while his policies continue to divide and damage America.