Agriculture – Page 3 – immigrationcourtside.com

Alex Nowrasteh @ The National Interest: The Trump-Miller “Rationale” For Their So-Called “Immigration Ban” Is The Usual Nativist BS — Actually, Migrants To The US Don’t Threaten Your Health, Job, Or Wages, But White Nationalist Malarkey Dims Our Future! — Sadly, New Poll Shows Majority Supports Latest Round Of Immigrant Bashing!

https://apple.news/A_TYTiiUWPDyeXNykbPNZtQ

Here’s three reasons why.

by Alex Nowrasteh

President Trump recently said that there were two reasons for virtually halting all immigration to the United States in response to COVID-19. The first was to prevent the spread of the disease domestically. The second was to save American jobs for American citizens. We’ve already analyzed the first claim, this post will look at whether reducing immigration further will help save jobs for Americans. The answer is no.

Unemployment is spiking during the COVID-19 crisis. Americans are reacting to the virus by changing their economic behavior by working at home where possible, spending less time in dense public places, and in numerous other ways that result in less economic activity – sometimes voluntarily and sometimes in response to government shelter in place orders. As a result, employment is falling. In this situation, many pundits are arguing that further restricting immigration will preserve jobs for American citizens. Further restrictions will have no such impact. I’ve written much about the economic effects of immigration before, but here are some big takeaway points related to the recent immigration ban:

First, immigrants come to the United States primarily because of economic opportunity. Even those coming today on green cards intended for family‐ reunification are primarily coming to reunite with family members who, at one point in the chain, came for economic reasons. If the benefits of coming to the United States are greater than the costs (psychological costs, cost of moving, opportunity cost, danger of migrating, etc.), then many people will do so.

The biggest benefit of coming to the United States is higher wages, which are higher here because immigrant workers have a greater marginal value product (MVP=the number of goods produced by a worker multiplied by the market price for those goods). That means that immigrants are more productive here than in their home countries, so they supply more goods and services that are sold at higher prices. The amazing thing about demand for labor is that it is entirely determined by the worker’s MVP.

Economists Michael Clemens, Claudio Montenegro, and Lant Pritchett estimate the place premium, which is the estimated wage benefit of moving to the United States adjusting for the cost of living through a measurement called purchasing power parity (PPP). For example, they estimate that a working age Mexican male with 9–12 years of education who was educated in his home country can expect a 2.6-fold increase in his wages. That’s an enormous gain.

Immigration slows during a recession because the number of jobs decreases and, oftentimes, wages also adjust or their growth slows. Thus, the big benefit of immigrating to the United States evaporates for many immigrants during a recession. Immigration falls during recessions because immigrants benefit less from coming here, but natives benefit less too so the government also typically responds by increasing immigration enforcement. Less commonly, the government restricts legal immigration like President Herbert Hoover did in 1929 at the beginning of the Great Depression. The flow of illegal immigrants into the United States changes most dramatically during a recession as they’re the most economically sensitive immigrants.

. . . .

***********************

Read the complete article at the link.

For what it’s worth, Alex’s findings match my “anecdotal observations” over more than a decade at the U.S. Immigration Court. During the earlier recession and its aftermath, other than asylum applicants, more migrants appearing at my “Master Calendar” told me that they did not want to fight their cases and just wanted to “go home,” either voluntarily or at USG expense under a “final order.” As the US economy improved, the number of non-detained individuals agreeing to voluntary departure or “taking a final order” appeared to decrease.

While, as Alex acknowledges, immigration is not “totally market driven,” particularly for those fleeing persecution, we certainly would do better as a nation to design a robust legal immigration system that worked in harmony with market forces, rather than directly against them as has too often been the case.

Generally, markets are going to be a more effective and efficient regulators of immigration than expensive, coercive, and often ineffective, “maximum enforcement.”

Indeed, when our economy was “booming,” unemployment was low, and most of the estimated 10-11 million “undocumented individuals” in the U.S. were staying out of trouble, minding their own business, employed or studying, and contributing to our economic success. The trouble was not “failed enforcement,” as the White Nationalists like to claim, but rather a failed legal immigration system that should have found ways that these individuals who form an important part of our society could have been pre-screened and admitted legally in the first place. That also would have diminished the allure of human smugglers and facilitated even greater contributions to our tax base. The answer to a clearly failed and counterproductive policy is not to double down on its cruelest and most futile aspects — unfocused enforcement,

Even in cases where immediate immigraton isn’t possible, if there is a “real line” for legal immigration (not the bogus one invented by the nativists) and it progressed reasonably and predictably, most individuals would use it. In my experience, most immigrants and employers would much prefer to use the legal system, even if it has some delays and costs, if it presents a realistic and not-cost-prohibitive alternative to “extralegal” or “black market” migration.

If we are to continue to succeed as a nation, at some point, we must stop listening to the voices of the Trumps, Millers, Sessionses, Cuccinellis, Barrs and other White Nationalist bigots urging us to “return to the failed policies of the past” and instead develop a forward looking immigration and refugee system that sees migrants for what they are: an important and necessary element of our nation and our world. It’s the right and smart thing for a “nation of immigrants” to do.

The bad news: Despite its counterfactual basis and appeal to xenophobia and racism, the “temporary” immigration ban has widespread public support, according to today’s Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/americans-support-state-restrictions-on-businesses-and-halt-to-immigration-during-virus-outbreak-post-u-md-poll-finds/2020/04/27/763249ee-88af-11ea-9dfd-990f9dcc71fc_story.html

So, expect the ban to last indefinitely and to increase in scope regardless of what happens with COVID-19. Xenophobia, racism, and appeals to White Nationalism are once likely to be the centerpiece of Trump’s reelection strategy, particularly with the economy in ruins.

PWS

04-27-20

THE UGLY SIDE OF HISTORY: AMERICA CONTINUES TO TREAT ITS ESSENTIAL MIGRANT WORKERS AS “SUB-HUMAN” — “We cannot help what the virus does; all we can control is our reaction to it, and what we do next. This pandemic has shone a light on the ugliness of our “here.” Until the US treats all its immigrants as human beings, with full equal rights, we will still be far from ‘there,’” writes Maeve Higgins in the New York Review of Books.

https://apple.news/Ay-5bxf63ML-TZgioC-ixQA

Higgins writes:

While corporations are going on life support thanks to this huge government bailout, undocumented immigrants and their families, among them US citizens, are being allowed to suffer, to starve, and, without access to health care, perhaps even to die. As things already stood, undocumented immigrants were ineligible for any federally funded public health insurance programs. On top of that, the millions who have tax IDs, so that they can work without formal authorization, are now denied help in the form of unemployment benefits—they are the only US taxpayers excluded from the coronavirus stimulus package.

. . . .

It’s also troubling to single out immigrants because of the historic scapegoating of immigrants during other health crises. The historian Alan M. Kraut writes that in the 1830s, Irish immigrants were stigmatized as bearers of cholera, and at the end of the nineteenth century, tuberculosis was dubbed the “Jewish disease.” Scapegoating also obscures a longer thread in a bigger pattern, regardless of which party or administration is in power. According to Professor Viladrich, the American government’s denying assistance to this group of working immigrants is the historic norm.

“A lot of this is related to a labor force that is disposable,” she said. “There is no contradiction here; it is very consistent with ACA, with welfare reform, all of that. The systematic exclusion of immigrants is parallel with the systematic exploitation of immigrants.”

Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, lobbied hard to ensure that people without work authorization would be excluded from the CARES Act. On the Senate floor, he spoke against child tax credit going to people without social security numbers:

If you want to apply for money from the government through the child tax credit program, then you have to be a legitimate person… It has nothing to do with not liking immigrants. It has to do with saying, taxpayer money shouldn’t go to non-people.

His office later said he was referring to people who fraudulently claimed a child in order to reap the federal benefit. Whatever he meant by “legitimate person” and “non-people,” the effect was the same: in the eyes of the law, undocumented immigrants would be non-people.

Giorgio Agamben, an Italian philosopher, used the term “bare life” to describe a life reduced to plain biological facts, the robbing of a person’s political existence by those who have the power to define who is included as a worthy human being and who is excluded. While the labor of undocumented people is gladly accepted, their humanity has been tidily erased by lawmakers in Washington, D.C.

The immigration and legal historian Daniel Kanstroom reminds us that in times of trouble, like wars or national emergencies, immigrants are the first to get thrown overboard. It was in part due to the ban on Chinese immigrants back in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century that the demand for Mexican workers increased dramatically. In his 2007 book Deportation Nation: Outsiders in American History, Kanstroom explained how this ban combined with wartime labor needs in 1917 led to the US government’s systematic recruitment of Mexican workers: “From 1917 through 1921, an estimated 50,000–80,000 Mexican farm workers entered the United States under this program, establishing a legal model and cultural mindset that endured for decades to come.”

Kanstroom cites a line from the 1911 Dillingham Commission, an extensive bipartisan investigation into immigration, that “The Mexican… is less desirable as a citizen than as a laborer.” The precedent was set, and what followed was a cycle of recruitment, restriction, and expulsion. More than one million people of Mexican ancestry were forcibly removed from the United States during the Depression years. Some of the people deported by the government to Mexico were US citizens, but then as now, because of their undocumented relatives, they were subject to the same brutal treatment.

In 1942, as a wartime labor shortage loomed, the US worked out an agreement with Mexico for short-term, low-wage workers to fill in the gap. The Bracero Program, as it was known, continued until 1964, with some 4.5 million Mexican workers legally entering the country during those years. There were enormous contradictions in the way those workers were treated: ad hoc legalization programs designed to help big farmers took place at some times; then, at others, there were huge deportation drives when the demand for labor fell off—most notoriously, the terrifying round-ups of 1954’s so-called Operation Wetback.

According to the scholar of migration Nicholas De Genova, “It is precisely their distinctive legal vulnerability, their putative ‘illegality’ and official ‘exclusion,’ that inflames the irrepressible desire and demand for undocumented migrants as a highly exploitable workforce—and thus ensures their enthusiastic importation and subordinate incorporation.” It is no mistake that there remain millions of “illegal” workers of Latino ethnicity contributing their labor, taxes, and humanity to this country; it suits America very well in the good times, and always has.

. . . .

*********************************

Read the rest of Maev’s outstanding analysis of our sordid history of abusing essential immigrant workers, from enslaved African Americans, to Chinese laborers, to Latino workers who have been propping up our economy and keeping us alive during the time of pandemic. Their reward: dehumanization, degradation, deportation without due process, and sometimes death.

I speak often at Courtside about how Trump’s self-righteous, immoral, scofflaw White Nationalist cabal — folks like Miller, Bannon, Sessions, Barr, Cuccinelli, Paul — have been engineering a vile “Dred Scottification” program to dehumanize, abuse, and exploit the most vulnerable, yet often most essential, among us.

I have also highlighted how the Trump kakistocracy’s efforts to create an extralegal, unconstitutional “Reincarnation of Jim Crow” too often have been supported and encouraged by some of those highly privileged Supreme Court Justices whose job was supposed to be protecting all of us, and particularly the most vulnerable persons, from invidious Executive abuses: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.

The latest example: In the middle of humanitarian trauma, the “socially distant Justices” managed to find time for a little gratuitous cruelty: denying an application to stay the regime’s irrational, racist, and unlawful “public charge rules” that threaten the lives and safety of immigrants, their U.S. citizen families, and U.S. society as a whole. https://apple.news/ABNL4e_DtRPS4eN5m5gx1ug

Amy Howe writes at Scotusblog:

Under federal immigration law, noncitizens cannot receive a green card if the government believes that they are likely to become reliant on government assistance. The dispute now before the court arose last year, after the Trump administration defined “public charge” to refer to noncitizens who receive various government benefits, such as health care, for more than 12 months over a three-year period. The challengers had argued that the rule is “impeding efforts to stop the spread of the coronavirus, preserve scarce hospital capacity and medical supplies, and protect the lives of everyone in the community” because it deters immigrants from seeking testing and treatment for the virus out of fear that it will endanger their ability to obtain a green card. The federal government countered that it has made clear that the use of publicly funded health care related to COVID-19 “will not be considered in making predictions about whether” immigrants are likely to become a public charge.

https://shar.es/aHxGIP

The Government’s argument doesn’t pass the “straight face” test. The monetary savings from this rule are minuscule; its overriding purpose was to dump on immigrant families and intimidate ethnic, primarily Hispanic, communities. It was the “brainchild” of neo-Nazi Stephen Miller. What greater proof could there be of its White Nationalist purpose? Given the regime’s well-established record of lies and unbridled hostility toward immigrants and communities of color, why would anyone have confidence in the regime’s often hollow or disingenuous “promises?”

Those of us who believe in honoring our immigrant heritage, making our constitutional guarantees reality rather than unfulfilled promises, that human values, empathy, and kindness matter, and that we can and must do better than shallow, often outright evil, folks like Trump, Miller, Cuccinelli, Roberts, Barr, et al. need to retake our Government at the ballot box this November and build a better, fairer, more humane future for America and all persons in our country.

This November, vote like your life depends on it! Because it does!

PWS

04-27-20

ERIN CORCORAN @ THE HILL: RACISM, BIGOTRY, & XENOPHOBIA ARE ALWAYS BAD POLICIES — The Pandemic Is No Exception — “Immigrants are part of the solution to the challenges we face today and should be welcomed rather than banned.”

https://apple.news/AKgOx97sDRfSvo9oc3h61cA

The use of executive branch power to wage a war on immigrants is one of the defining legacies of President Trump. He went on the offensive under the disguise of the coronavirus pandemic to advance his policy priority to significantly restrict legal immigration to the United States. This politically motivated maneuver violates federal and international law, and this is also morally reprehensible and disastrous for the domestic economy at home.

. . . .

It is not just health care that needs immigrants. A recent study found that the majority of economic growth between 2011 and 2016 is due to greater labor supply due to immigration. Immigrants also assist the country with innovation. They are twice as likely to start a business, to receive a Nobel Prize or Academy Award, or to receive a patent than native born workers.

Denying protection to individuals fleeing persecution based on potential public health grounds sends dangerous signals to oppressors and rogue nations that they are free to act with impunity because powerful nations are unwilling to protect their victims. Refugees searching for protection are built in the collective responsibility of the international community, even in any period of public crisis. Efforts by the president to renounce these duties are morally wrong and politically dangerous for the world.

Waging a war on immigrants will not protect us from the coronavirus. It instead puts individuals fleeing harm in further danger and weakens the economy of the United States. Immigrants are part of the solution to the challenges we face today and should be welcomed rather than banned.

.

*********************

Read the rest of Erin’s article at the link.

The Clown Prince’s 🤡 “maliciously incompetent” ☠️ response to the coronavirus pandemic 🤮 continues to be one of the most stunning failures of Presidential leadership in U.S. history — one that will continue to put American lives at risk well into the future.

Unhappily, cowardly bashing of immigrants and constantly sending out racist “dog whistles” helped this charlatan get elected and remains one of the few things he’s good at (grifting, lying, and avoiding responsibility are others).

This November, vote like your life depends on it! Because it does!

PWS

04-26-20

JIM CROW WINS, AMERICA LOSES, AGAIN — WHITE NATIONALIST CLOWN-IN-CHIEF 🤡 HALTS IMMIGRATION TO DIVERT ATTENTION FROM MASSIVE FAILURE OF GOVERNANCE, AS FECKLESS DEMS PROTEST! — Announced By Tweet At Time When Borders Closed Anyway — A “pathetic attempt to shift blame from his Visible Incompetence to an Invisible Enemy,” Says Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) 😰👎🏻

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

Courtside Exclusive

April 21, 2020. Migrants didn’t bring coronavirus to the U.S. Inevitable as its arrival was, U.S. travelers returning from abroad hastened the infection. The Trump regime ignored advanced warnings, wasted time, failed to prepare, and intentionally misled the public into believing that the problem was minor and under control. As we know, it was neither. No wonder the “Chief Clown” needs to shift attention to “the usual suspects.”

Rather than being a threat, courageous, talented, hard-working migrants of all types have been at the forefront of our battle against coronavirus. They put their own lives at risk to provide health care, medical research, food, sanitation, delivery, stocking, transportation, cleaning, technology, and other essential services. Their reward from Trump, Miller, and the other regime racists: to be scapegoated and further dehumanized by those whose “malicious incompetence” actually threatens the health and safety of all Americans.

Nobody knows what the U.S. economy will look like post-COVID-19. But, we can be sure that migrants will play a key role in our future. And, of course, permanent legal immigrants are carefully screened and required to undergo health examination before being admitted.

Meanwhile, Democrats complain, but show show no sign of actually using their leverage to halt the regime’s invidious assault on migrants. They weren’t even to get all taxpaying immigrant families included in the initial stimulus payments nor have they been able to require immigration authorities to comply with best health practices for detained migrants. Nor does it look like the needs of migrants will be addressed by the latest proposed legislation, although exact details are still pending. So, their bluster is just that —bluster.

Undoubtedly, the brave lawyers of the New Due Process Army will mount legal challenges to this latest assault on the rule of law. While some challenges might succeed in the lower Federal Courts, to date the “J.R. Five” on the Supremes have shown no inclination to look critically at any of the regime’s many misuses and abuses of so-called “emergency” and “national security” rationales, even when they are transparently bogus “pretexts” for xenophobia, religious bigotry, and racism.

Perhaps it’s largely a moot point right now. Market forces affect immigration. With worldwide travel restrictions, borders closed, and 22 million out of work in the U.S., the allure of migration to the U.S. should be sharply reduced.

The Trump regime’s open hostility to immigrants plus our chaotic response to COVID-19, perhaps the world’s worst overall at this point, might make the U.S. a less attractive place for future immigration, particularly for legal migrants who have other choices. Demand for migration is normally a sign of economic and social health. As America fades into disorder under the kakistocracy, so might our ability to attract migrants, particularly those we claim to prize.

According to James Hohmann at the Washington Post, senior officials at the DHS were surprised by Trump’s late night tweet announcing the impending action. As Hohmann noted, that’s an indication of the deep thought, analysis, and preparation that went into this action. Trump has normalized incompetence and dumb decisions made based on a racist political agenda to the point where they barley cause a ripple in our distorted national discussion anymore. I’d say it was like being “goverened” by a five-year-old, but that would be a supreme insult to most five-year-olds I know.

While the “Chief Clown” can’t move fast enough to reopen the economy, even in the face of solid evidence that the it’s premature in most areas, don’t expect the bogus “immigration emergency” to end as long as this regime is in power. Crisis becomes yet another opportunity for the “worst of the worst among us” — the kakistocracy — to act on their biases and prejudices and get away with it.

Here’s a report from Rebecca Shabad @ NBC News:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/xenophobe-chief-democrats-blast-trump-s-plan-suspend-immigration-u-n1188551

WASHINGTON — Congressional Democrats slammed President Donald Trump after he announced that he plans to suspend immigration to the United States, arguing that such a move does nothing to protect Americans from the coronavirus and deflects attention away from his handling of the outbreak.

House Democratic Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., tweeted that Trump is the “xenophobe. In. chief.”

“This action is not only an attempt to divert attention away from Trump’s failure to stop the spread of the coronavirus and save lives, but an authoritarian-like move to take advantage of a crisis and advance his anti-immigrant agenda. We must come together to reject his division,” tweeted Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

Shortly after 10 p.m. ET on Monday, Trump announced in a tweet, “In light of the attack from the Invisible Enemy, as well as the need to protect the jobs of our GREAT American Citizens, I will be signing an Executive Order to temporarily suspend immigration into the United States!”

There were no additional details. A senior administration official said Trump could sign the executive order as early as this week.

The tweet came as the death toll in the U.S. from COVID-19 topped 42,000 people, according to Johns Hopkins’ Coronavirus Resource Center.

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., Democrats’ 2016 vice presidential nominee, called it a “pathetic attempt to shift blame from his Visible Incompetence to an Invisible Enemy.”

. . . .

*****************

Read Rebecca’s full article at the link.

Due Process Forever. The White Nationalist Kakistocracy Never!

PWS

04-21-20

FORCED ENVIRONMENTAL MIGRATION: The Next Global Crisis Is Coming – Walls, Gulags, Weaponized Courts, & Institutionalized Cruelty Won’t Stop It! – “The benefits of accepting more migrants goes far beyond economics. Studies show that increasing immigration quotas improves both economic innovation and community resilience, proving that diversity and inclusion make the United States stronger.”

https://apple.news/AEhIK_rMuTuussVUz0LMm9w

Rosemary Dent writes for International Policy Digest:

“Pacific Island states do not need to be underwater before triggering human rights obligations to protect the right to life.” – Kate Schuetze, Pacific Researcher with Amnesty International

This is a quote in reference to a landmark human rights case brought to the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) in February 2016. Ioane Teitiota of the island nation of Kiribati was originally refused asylum as a ‘climate refugee’ by New Zealand’s authorities and was subsequently deported. While the HRC did not rule this action unlawful, the committee did set a global precedent in recognizing the serious threat to the right to life that climate change poses on many communities globally. Furthermore, the HRC urged governments to consider the broader effects of climate change in future cases, essentially validating the concept of a ‘climate refugee’ outside the context of a natural disaster.

As the impacts of climate change become more severe and widespread, the United States must prepare for the resulting surge of human migration. Climate scientists are currently predicting that both primary and secondary impacts of climate change will collectively produce 140–200 million climate refugees by 2050. This sharp increase, if mismanaged, would likely overwhelm refugee processing systems, flood points of entry to the United States and strain both society and the economy. In order to protect the United States from these potential shocks, the government must begin to prepare the appropriate infrastructure, processes, and funding for integrating climate refugees into the population. As the coronavirus ravages the country, it is highlighting many of the systemic failures that occur when the government is not adequately prepared or pro-active.

In 1990, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recognized human migration as the biggest impact of climate change. The IPCC predicted that primary impacts like shoreline erosion, coastal flooding, and agricultural disruptions would create massive disruptions to the livelihoods of millions. The resulting secondary impacts relate to the effects on society globally; such as political unrest, food insecurity, and mass migrations. As four out of five refugees flee on foot to nations bordering their home country, most human migration is localized to areas affected by conflict. However, as climate change affects communities globally, the flows of refugees will no longer be concentrated to conflict zones and their surrounding nations, bringing the issue to U.S. borders. The sheer scale of migration that the IPCC is predicting renders any previous methods of dealing with refugees unsuitable for this impending crisis.

In terms of physical processing capacity, the United States is currently severely unprepared. Presently, it takes between eighteen to twenty-four months for a refugee to be screened and vetted before being approved to be resettled. This process involves in-person interviews, ongoing vetting by various intelligence agencies, health screening, and application reviews. These are all important and necessary steps to take in order to safeguard domestic security and safety of American citizens. However, expanding the capacity of these processes is necessary to prevent overwhelmed systems and employees, as it can result in errors or oversights. The administration must begin to work with sector experts and employees to determine the most efficient and effective way to expand these services.

These initial consultations are a necessary first step to creating a cohesive plan of action for the imminent refugee crisis. It would be irresponsible to simply increase the refugee intake limit without first establishing an effective process, as this would generate fragmented and disjointed state-level responses. A unified federal approach to intake climate refugees will standardize the procedure for smooth resettlement and promote economic growth.

Ensuring a legal framework is in place, with clear and inclusive classifications and resettlement plans will allow migrants to fully participate and enrich society. Unpreparedness will strain the U.S. economy, systems and society. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), admitting migrants is beneficial for a domestic economy because they add human capital and boost the working-age population. The United States has an aging population, as people over the age of sixty-five are projected to outnumber children in the United States population by 2030. If this gap continues to grow, it will cause the number of dependent individuals to be greater than those contributing to the economy. Accepting more migrants into the United States can alleviate this problem, provided that sufficient processing and resettlement programs exist to direct migrants into the workforce effectively.

The benefits of accepting more migrants goes far beyond economics. Studies show that increasing immigration quotas improves both economic innovation and community resilience, proving that diversity and inclusion make the United States stronger. In view of the abundant challenges ahead for the United States, as highlighted by the current pandemic, uniting communities and reinforcing the economy to maintain employment levels will be key to survival. As a global leader in developing methods for climate change adaptation, the United States must be prepared to take these first steps.

*****************************************

Needless to say, we’re not going to get the necessary enlightened humanitarian leadership and careful expert planning necessary to deal with such a global crisis from the Trump kakistocracy. That’s why regime change in November is essential for both the future of our nation and the future of our world.

Due Process Forever! Kakistocracy Never!

PWS

04-20-20

FOOD: CHOWHOUND: How Migrants Feed America’s First Responders in Crisis! — Report From Memphis

https://apple.news/AOBHMvDQbTL23pPX8vfQs2A

Simone Paget in Chowhound:

From celebrities and chefs to local food banks and grassroots organizations, people everywhere have been pitching in to help mitigate the effects of the coronavirus pandemic on our communities. Here’s how Global Cafe in Memphis is helping healthcare workers in a city that’s both food-insecure and extremely charitable.

Memphis has been a long-time hub for the civil rights movement and more recently, food activism. Global Cafe is no exception.

Located in Crosstown Concourse—a former Sears distribution building that has been transformed into a 1,200,000 square foot mixed use space—the international food hall hosts three immigrant/refugee food entrepreneurs cooking and selling an eclectic mix of affordably priced, authentic dishes from their home countries, which currently includes a delicious mix of Syrian, Sudanese and Venezuelan cuisine. Think: delectable arepas, amazingly tender shawarma, and freshly made baba ganoush.

Since the COVID-19 crisis, the Global Cafe team has been putting their culinary ingenuity to work feeding overtaxed medical professionals and people economically impacted by the virus. For a small donation, they’ll buy food, cook it, and deliver it to people in need.

So far, they’ve cooked and delivered hundreds of meals to the night ER shift at LeBohneur Germantown, the physicians at LeBonheur, the respiratory ICU unit at Baptist East, as well as First Congo Food Justice Ministry in Midtown and the staff of Church Health.

Giving back to the community is part of Global Cafe’s life blood, explains owner and CEO, Sabine Langer.

“Post-election, the climate was very negative towards immigrants and refugees. As an immigrant, I wanted to find a way to make a difference in the lives of immigrants and refugees. I wasn’t sure exactly how but after lots of research, it became apparent that I could help some of the women I had met that were cooking on the side trying to make an additional income to support their families,” she says.

By empowering immigrant and refugee entrepreneurs to set up food businesses with zero start-up cost, Langer says that the food hall has been a wonderful catalyst for many of the team members.

“One of our chefs was able to pay off her house, another one was able to purchase a house, and our trusted dishwasher recently bought a car. It’s fantastic to see this and it warms my heart to know that we are true to our mission and really making a difference in everyone’s lives,” she says.

. . . .

**************

Read the rest of Simone’s article, along with some great food pictures, at the link.

Immigrants have long been a powerful force in our culinary arts and food supply. That has become even more obvious during this crisis.

When the pandemic finally gets under control, will we recognize these essential contributions by improving wages, working conditions, and providing a social safety net for these essential workers? Or, will we go back to undervaluing and disrespecting their contributions? Will we emerge as a more equitable, just, and caring society? Or, as happened after the last recession, will we allow the privileged and powerful to increase their authority and line their pockets at the expense of the vast majority of Americans? The lack of an adequate “safety net” has become obvious; but will we finally do what’s necessary to promote the common good rather than living from “crisis to crisis?”

Already, far-right White Nationalist pols like Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions are cynically using the pandemic as an excuse for pushing “immigration moratoriums” and other nativist schemes. Don’t let them get away with it! Immigrants aren’t “taking our jobs;” they’re “saving our lives,” often at the risk of their own!

PWS

04-20-18

CLOWN-IN-CHIEF’S ATTEMPTS TO SHIFT BLAME & ATTENTION FROM HIS OWN ABSURDIST SPECTACLE MAKE A BAD SITUATION MUCH WORSE! — The WHO’s Flawed Response to COVID-19 Was Still Better Than His! — “Captain Clown” “propounds powerful gibberish, [as] the mutiny builds.” 🤡☠️⚰️🤡☠️⚰️🆘

Trump Clown — Donald J. Trump
Clown in Chief

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/15/trumps-ugly-new-blame-shifting-scam-spotlights-his-own-failures/

Greg Sargent writes in the WashPost:

President Trump is spinning his new decision to suspend funding to the World Health Organization as an act of decisive leadership — one that showcases his devotion to effective crisis management, to gathering good empirical information, and to holding people accountable for leadership failures that had catastrophic human consequences.

In just about every conceivable way, this is the opposite of the truth.

In making this new move, Trump is inviting us to review the basic timeline of events. And it demonstrates that the WHO, for all its initial failures, was still far ahead of Trump in embracing the need for a comprehensive response to coronavirus.

The timeline also once again illustrates Trump’s epic failures in that regard, and reveals the degree to which Trump is now relying on transparently ridiculous scapegoating to erase his own central role in this catastrophe.

[Full coverage of the coronavirus pandemic]

In announcing an end to funding for the WHO, Trump claimed the organization was complicit in China’s early coverup of the outbreak’s severity there. He insisted the WHO “pushed China’s misinformation,” and ripped WHO for “severely mismanaging and covering up the spread.”

Trump also claimed that if not for WHO, “the outbreak could have been contained at its source with very little death.” He lamented that the U.S. can’t rely on WHO for “accurate, timely and independent information to make important public health recommendations and decisions.”

For Trump to position himself in this manner as a spokesperson for crisis management, empiricism and accountability would be positively comical, if the stakes weren’t so monumentally dangerous.

The WHO’s initial mistakes were real, and many critics beyond Trump have pointed to them. The organization was too trusting of China’s early obfuscations about coronavirus, and failed to aggressively push China to be more transparent. The WHO also arguably was too slow to declare a global public health emergency.

But cutting off funding as a punishment is counterproductive and deeply absurd. Indeed, even if you accept that the WHO committed serious errors, the timeline is still far more damning to Trump, by the terms that he himself has set through his criticism of the organization.

The timeline is far more damning to Trump

By Jan. 23, the WHO was already warning that coronavirus could “appear in any country,” and urged all countries to be “prepared for containment” and get ready to exercise “isolation” and “prevention” measures against its spread.

At around the same time, on Jan. 22, Trump was asked point-blank whether he worried about coronavirus’s spread, and he answered: “No, not at all,” insisting it was just “one person coming from China” and that “we have it totally under control.”

And on Jan. 24, Trump hailed China’s “effort” against coronavirus and its “transparency” about it, predicting that “it will all work out well.”

So Trump showed less concern about its spread in countries outside China — including in our own — than the WHO did.

On Jan. 30, the WHO declared coronavirus a global public health emergency. While WHO was still too credulous toward China’s response, WHO also warned that all countries must review “preparedness plans” and take seriously what was coming.

By contrast, on Jan. 30, Trump was directly warned by his Health and Human Services secretary of the threat coronavirus posed. Trump dismissed this as “alarmist.”

And on Feb. 2, Trump boasted to Sean Hannity: “We pretty much shut it down, coming in from China.” He hailed our “tremendous relationship” with that country. Trump continued praising China’s handling of coronavirus all through the entire month of February.

So at the very least, Trump showed precisely the same credulity about China that Trump is now faulting the WHO for showing, but without appreciating the urgency of the international threat coronavirus posed to the degree that the WHO did.

As MSNBC’s Ari Melber aptly put it, these attacks on the WHO are “only calling attention to the fact that the WHO was ahead of President Trump.”

. . . .

Trump is attacking the WHO right now so we’ll talk about the WHO’s shortcomings, and not his own role in this catastrophe. But this blame-shifting utter nonsense, and no one should grant it the slightest shred of credibility.

*******************

Greg Sargent
Opinion Writer
Washington Post

At the link, read Greg’s complete article which also dismembers Trump’s bogus claim that his “Chinese travel ban” had a major impact on deterring the spread of the pandemic.

So, here’s what really appears to be happening as America’s national government disintegrates under Trump’s malicious incompetence. America is breaking up into a number of “Regional Federated States” which have banded together for mutual assistance under decisive governors, largely, but not exclusively Democrats. We already have one on the West Coast and one in the Northeast. I’d look for the governors of Virginia and Maryland and the Mayor of DC to perhaps form a “DMV Region” to manage the pandemic and the recovery.

That covers about 1/3 of the U.S. population and much of the economic and tax base. The rest of the states will have to limp along as best they can with governors largely in charge and trying to get as much help as they can from the sinking Federal ship by going around Trump and dealing with Pence, Fauci, and Birx. Everyone also counts on some help from the Fed, which isn’t immune from Trump’s blustering nonsensical attacks, but is largely beyond his control and therefore free of his blundering ineptness.

There’s likely to be very bad news for the health and safety of those in states whose GOP governors have proved to be as inept and willfully blind as Trump and the rest of his kakistocracy. South Dakota is a prime example of what happens under a clueless GOP Governor.

Notably, most of the initial victims in South Dakota were Latinos working in the supposedly “essential” meat packing industry under conditions that clearly violated best health practices. The Governor claims that the plant would have remained open even under a “Stay at Home” order. Now, however, workers are sick and all those plants are closed anyway. The worst possible result. So, we’ll see how “essential” they really were. Perhaps if everybody had stayed home, the disease wouldn’t have spread and the plants could have reopened on a more limited basis with proper social distancing and protective equipment. And, if workers are really “essential,” why aren’t we looking out for their health, safety, and income protection?

Internationally, world leaders have long ago learned that Trump is incapable of leadership and that under him the U.S. is no longer a trustworthy or reliable partner. Nothing in Trump’s inept handling of the Pandemic in the U.S., his pathetic attempts to shift the blame elsewhere, and his incredibly stupid decision to stop funding the WHO would convince them otherwise.

Sure, like the drunken bully/oaf in the bar, the “Trumped-up U.S.” throws its weight around in unpredictable ways and is too big to be ignored or easily removed from the premises. So, world leaders have figured out how to move on without the U.S. and hope to largely avoid the irrational acts of petty vengeance and retribution for which he is famous.

Not a pretty picture. But, it will be even worse if we don’t remove Trump and the GOP from power in November.

Dana Milbank had a “spot on” assessment of “Captain Clown” 🤡 in today’s Post:

. . . .

Like Bligh, he is abusive. Unlike Bligh, he is a poor navigator. The Trump-as-errant-captain theme has been explored, delightfully, by novelist Dave Eggers in his recent allegory, “The Captain and the Glory”:

“He nudged the wheel a bit left, and the entire ship listed leftward, which was both frightening and thrilling. He turned the wheel to the right, and the totality of the ship, and its uncountable passengers and their possessions, all were sent rightward. In the cafeteria, where the passengers were eating lunch, a thousand plates and glasses shattered. An elderly man was thrown from his chair, struck his head on the dessert cart and died later that night. High above, the Captain was elated by the riveting drama caused by the surprises of his steering.”

So it is with our captain, who claims absolute authority but takes no responsibility. He announces he’s cutting off funding to the World Health Organization in the middle of the pandemic. He condemns the WHO for praising China’s transparency, even though he said in January he “greatly appreciates [China’s] efforts and transparency.” His conflicting messages about reopening the economy throw the country into confusion. He assembles so many coronavirus task forces that he will need another to keep track of them all. And after his long delayed and botched virus response, even now the number of tests in U.S. commercial labs is falling.

At Wednesday evening’s session, Trump turned the tiller randomly. After proclaiming the United States has “passed the peak” of the virus, he swerved into complaints about “partisan obstruction” holding up his nominees and threatened the never-before-tested “constitutional authority to adjourn both houses of Congress,” which would provoke another crisis in the middle of the pandemic.

He veered into complaints about the “disgusting”Voice of Americaand the “impeachment hoax.”He lurched into attacks on the World Trade Organization , various Democrats and governors generally, asserting that “we have the right to do whatever we want.”He accused the WHO of a conspiracy to hide the virusand boasted about his name going on government-issued relief checks: “People will be very happy to get a big fat beautiful check, and my name is on it.”

The ship has become accustomed to such unpredictable steering: He touts a virus treatment that so far shows more alarming side effects than efficacy. He announces virus-testing schemes that don’t exist. He talks about pardoning Joe Exotic. He blames everybody except his own administration, which is doing things very, very strongly and powerfully. “The Defense Production Act was used very powerfully, more powerfully than anybody would know, in fact, so powerfully that, for the most part, we didn’t have to officially take it out,” he proclaims.

[[The Opinions section is looking for stories of how the coronavirus has affected people of all walks of life. Write to us.]]

As the captain propounds powerful gibberish, the mutiny builds. Regional blocs make their own pandemic-recovery plans. Allies condemn his assault on the WHO. Republican Sen. Susan Collins (Maine) tells Politico that Trump has been “very uneven.” Even Trump-friendly outlets such as Fox News and the Wall Street Journal editorial page offer some criticism.

“WSJ is Fake News!” shouts the captain.

“What the hell is happening to @FoxNews?”

What’s happening, captain, is you’ve hit the rocks.

******************************

Dana Milbank
Opinion Columnist
Washington Post

Read Dana’s full op-ed here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/captain-trump-hits-the-rocks/2020/04/15/e7643c32-7f57-11ea-9040-68981f488eed_story.html

End the Clown Show! 🤡🤡 This November, vote like your life depends on it! Because it does!

PWS

04-17-20

TIME TO RECOGNIZE THE TRUTH: UNDOCUMENTED RESIDENTS ARE KEY TO OUR SOCIETY, OUR RECOVERY, & OUR FUTURE — They Must Be Included In Coronavirus Relief, Says León Krauze @ WashPost: “Undocumented immigrants are productive members of society who deserve all the care afforded to others.“

Leon Krauze
Journalist, Author, Educator

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/13/undocumented-immigrants-essential-us-economy-deserve-federal-help-too/

Krauze writes in the WashPost:

The novel coronavirus has been particularly harsh on immigrants. After facing years of harassment and persecution from the Trump administration, the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States have now been left unprotected, unable to receive aid from the government’s historic stimulus package, even though they pay billions of dollars in taxes every year

Local and state officials, especially those in immigrant-friendly states such as California, are scrambling to find a way to help their undocumented communities, but it might not be enough. Without appropriate federal support, prompt access to more effective unemployment benefits or paid sick leave for those in need, many communities could be devastated. Left with the agonizing decision of going to work in the midst of a pandemic that requires strict limits on public movement or see their livelihood disappear, many undocumented people are already risking their health.

[Full coverage of the coronavirus pandemic]

This is a travesty. Undocumented immigrants are productive members of society who deserve all the care afforded to others.Even this administration has deemed workers who harvest and process the country’s food supply as essential, asking them to keep their “normal work schedule” during the crisis. “It’s like suddenly they realized we are here contributing,” Nancy Silva, an immigrant from Mexico who works in the fields of Southern California, told the New York Times. “Contributing” is an understatement. The immigrant workforce is critical for a significant number of industries in the United States.

In June, I interviewed John Rosenow, a Wisconsin dairy farmer who has relied on Mexican immigrants for years. “Our industry doesn’t exist without immigrant labor,” he told me. “Eighty percent of the milk in Wisconsin is harvested by immigrants. If you took the immigrants away, way over half of the farms would go out of business.” Wisconsin’s dairy industry is not alone in its dependence on immigrant labor. Indeed, almost 20 percent of food processing workers and more than 36 percent of agricultural workers are undocumented. The health-care industry relies heavily on immigrants as well,as do the country’s construction and service businesses.

. . . .

Martínez worries that a protracted economic crisis could worsen the nativist backlash against immigration. “If things continue this way,” he said, “we could see further restrictions on work or entrepreneur visas, no matter the obvious contributions we all make to the economy.”

The United States will be worse for it, both morally and economically.

**************************

Read the complete op-ed at the link.

The well-being of the United States as a whole has never been a part of the Trump agenda. Nor is it for the White Nationalist restrictionists who promote his immigration agenda. Their agenda is based largely on racist myths and preconceived false narratives about the dangers of the “other.”

But, in any emergency creating an economic downturn there will be a race to find “scapegoats.” Indeed, essentially “caught red-handed and in full view in failure,” Trump is desperately looking to shift the blame elsewhere for his Administration’s poor initial response and lack of planning. “With great power comes no responsibility” could be his motto.

The nativists are already toting out their shopworn arguments that the pandemic should be an excuse and justification for yet harsher and more restrictive immigration measures. The rest of us need to fight back against their counterproductive nonsense.

PWS

04-14-20

MIGRANTS, REGARDLESS OF STATUS, ARE ESSENTIAL TO OUR SOCIETY & OUR RECOVERY AS A NATION – Excluding Them From Pandemic Relief Is Counterproductive

Javier H. Valdes
Co-Director
Make the Road NY

https://apple.news/AZ3raIrMIQX2JtEjfdMbJRw

Javier H. Valdés & Nedia Morsy write in the NY Daily News:

Immigrants are on the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic, but they’re being left out of the federal government’s solutions.

Immigrants are our delivery workers, grocery-store and warehouse workers, nurses, janitors and more. They make up more than 50% of the city’s frontline workers. Many don’t have the luxury of working remotely; millions are going to work, putting themselves at risk to provide others with food, basic necessities and care.

Few employers provide adequate protective materials or protocols to reduce risk to workers. Amazon workers on Staten Island, many of them immigrants, have walked off the job because the company failed to provide safe working conditions despite confirmed COVID-19 cases on-site. Employees at another company’s New Jersey warehouse were told to report to work and were not given adequate protective gear, before being unlawfully told they could not take paid sick days. They continue working in a tinderbox of potential infection.

Meanwhile, other immigrants have been devastated by joblessness. Unemployment has disproportionately hit Hispanic and immigrant communities. In New York City, where a CUNY study found 29% of households have at least one newly jobless person in this crisis, the figure for Hispanic households is 41%.

Immigrant communities have also been hit hardest by the virus itself, with communities like Corona, Queens and the South Bronx reporting the highest death tolls.

We hear daily from desperate workers who have lost their jobs, but, because they are undocumented, are ineligible for unemployment insurance. And they don’t have enough savings to pay rent.

Take Alejandra, a pregnant Long Island mother, who, until last month, worked a minimum-wage factory job. She was laid off and doesn’t know how she will pay her bills. Since her health insurance was through work, she also faces the uncertainty of getting through her pregnancy uninsured.

So far, the Trump administration and Congress have mostly excluded immigrants like Alejandra from relief. The cash assistance passed in the third stimulus bill, the CARES Act, excludes Individual Taxpayer Identification Number filers, a tax status many undocumented immigrants use. Many of the millions of children and spouses of ITIN holders will also be ineligible, even if they are U.S. citizens.

. . . .

Having already prioritized the Trump administration’s enormous slush fund for Wall Street, Congress must advance a just recovery package that puts people first, regardless of immigration status. That means immediate, recurring cash payments and unemployment insurance for all. It means testing and treatment for all. It means worker safety provisions and paid sick leave for all. It means a rent freeze so families have safe spaces to self-quarantine. And it means releasing people from jails, prisons and detention centers at grave risk.

While state and local governments must also respond quickly and prioritize the most vulnerable, only Washington can ensure recovery at the necessary scale.

We need a recovery package that goes directly to working-class and low-income people and includes everyone. If we leave immigrants behind, everyone will suffer.

Valdés* is the co-executive director of Make the Road New York. Morsy is the organizing director of Make the Road New Jersey.*

***************************************

Read the complete article at the link.

The GOP Right’s view of who is “critical” or “essential” to society has been wrong from the git go. Indeed, the many undocumented workers laboring in our food supply chain have proved to be essential to our survival. In fact, they always have been essential. The pandemic and ensuing crisis has just made the truth more obvious.

But, don’t expect the dose of reality dished out by the pandemic to change GOP dogma going forward. Policies driven largely by racism, classism, and the desire to maintain disproportionate power have always dealt in myths, rather than facts, anyway. That makes them largely “factproof.”

It will be up to the rest of us, working together and cooperatively, to build a fairer, juster, more humane, better nation “on the other side” of the current crisis.

Join the New Due Process Army & Fight For a Just America For Everyone!

PWS

04-11-20

LEFT OUT IN THE COLD: Analysis By Nicole Narea @ VOX Shows How Millions Of Tax Paying Migrants, Many Performing Essential Services & With U.S. Citizen Kids, Have Been Excluded From Pandemic Relief — Fed Official Says Everyone Should Be Included in Stimulus!

https://apple.news/Ae8uHwJYRQUm2xAC1CUtbOQ

Nicole writes:

President Donald Trump signed a $2 trillion coronavirus relief bill last week that promises to mitigate the impact of the crisis on workers — but it leaves out many immigrants.

The bill, known as the CARES Act, delivers direct payments to most taxpayers, vastly expands unemployment benefits, and makes testing for the virus free, among other provisions. But although unauthorized immigrants are no more immune from the effects of the current crisis, the stimulus bill conspicuously leaves them out in the cold — potentially putting them at greater economic and health risk, and impeding public health efforts to stop the spread of coronavirus.

The unauthorized worker population is particularly vulnerable to the virus due to inadequate access to health care. Noncitizens are significantly more likely to be uninsured compared to US citizens, which may dissuade them from seeking medical care if they contract the virus. Compounding matters are the Trump administration’s hardline immigration policies — including wide-scale immigration raids and a rule that can penalize green card applicants for using Medicaid — which have made noncitizens afraid to access care. These factors pose a problem for America’s efforts to slow the spread of the virus, which has killed more than 3,400 in the US as of March 31.

“We’re operating in an environment where we’re constantly having to reassure patients that they can access services,” Jim Mangia, CEO and president of St. John’s Well Child and Family Center — a network of community health centers in the Los Angeles area that serve about 32,000 undocumented immigrants annually — said in a press call. “It’s a constant struggle and in the midst of a pandemic, it’s even more difficult and more dangerous.”

While many immigrants are continuing to work in essential fields, ranging from medical care to cleaning to grocery stores, they may take an economic hit like many other workers who are facing layoffs, furloughs, and pay cuts. And absent financial relief for the population of unauthorized immigrants workers in particular, many may try to continue going to work despite public health warnings to stay home, which could further spread the virus and pose a risk to public health.

“Those who cannot obtain relief are likely to continue going out and trying to earn a living, at the risk of themselves and spreading the virus to others,” Theresa Cardinal Brown, director of immigration and cross-border policy at the Bipartisan Policy Institute, told Vox. “The cost of providing this benefit to them has to be weighed against the need to keep up the restrictions to stop the virus spread.”

Immigrants are eligible for some free testing

Here’s one thing the bill does offer to unauthorized immigrants: free coronavirus testing at government-funded community health centers through a $1 billion federal program. But some community health centers have already reported shortages of tests; Mangia said St. John’s only had 39 tests last week when almost 900 patients presented with symptoms of Covid-19, the illness caused by the novel coronavirus.

. . . .

Many immigrants won’t receive cash-based benefits

But the centerpiece provisions of the bill — the expanded unemployment benefits and up to $1,200 in cash payments to taxpayers — won’t be accessible to millions of immigrants.

“Immigrant workers and families who are paying taxes have been cut out from receiving a single dollar,” Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, said in a statement.

The bill increases unemployment benefits by $600 for all workers for up to four months, on top of what they would get from unemployment insurance. As my colleague Dylan Matthews writes, this is a huge increase from January, when the average UI check was $385 per week.

But only immigrants who can show that they’re authorized to work in the US can file for unemployment, including green card and temporary visa holders. For visa holders who have been laid off during the crisis, they will only be eligible for unemployment for as long as their visa stays valid. That’s a period of 60 days for those on H-1B skilled worker visas, unless they find another job in that time — an unlikely prospect given that many businesses have already instituted hiring freezes.

Only some states, including California and Texas, allow beneficiaries of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which offers work permits to some 700,000 unauthorized immigrants who came to the US as children, to file for unemployment. Unauthorized immigrant workers more broadly — who number some 7.6 million, according to the Pew Research Center — are also typically ineligible for unemployment, but policies differ by state.

Under the stimulus bill, the government will also start sending out checks to most taxpayers starting in April. The amounts range based on income, but they’re phased out for individuals making more than $99,000 and couples making $198,000.

Only immigrants who have Social Security numbers can receive those checks, including green card holders and “resident aliens” who have lived in the US long enough (usually five years) to file taxes as residents. Temporary visa holders, DACA recipients, and beneficiaries of Temporary Protected Status — which the US has historically offered to citizens of countries suffering from catastrophes such as natural disasters or armed conflict — could therefore qualify.

But there is a big exclusion for those in households with people of mixed immigration status, where some tax filers or their children may use what’s called an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN).

The IRS issues ITINs to unauthorized immigrants so they can pay taxes, even though they don’t have a Social Security number. If anyone in the household uses an ITIN — either a spouse or a dependent child — that means no one in the household will qualify for the stimulus checks, unless one spouse served in the military in 2019.

The stipulation could impact an estimated 16.7 million people who live in mixed-status households nationwide, including 8.2 million US-born or naturalized citizens.

This also includes those with deportation protections under the Obama-era DACA program, children and young adults whose parents often don’t have legal status. They’re left wondering how they can help support their families so that their parents don’t have to go to work, where they risk getting sick, and how they can help cover the costs of their parents’ medical care should they need it, Sanaa Abrar, advocacy director at the immigrant advocacy group United We Dream, told Vox.

“With the national health crisis and what’s becoming a national unemployment crisis, folks are concerned about how they’re not only going to stay healthy and safe but also how they’re going to keep their jobs and how they’re going to find means of financial support,” she said.

******************

Read Nicole’s complete analysis at the link.

Meanwhile, Eric Rosengren, the President of the Boston Fed, writing in the Wall Street Journal, also says that it is a mistake from an economic standpoint to leave anybody behind in the stimulus.

https://apple.news/AzvF-kikaSuiTxFGVV_3nnA

. . . .

Mr. Rosengren spoke separately Wednesday in a speech delivered by video in which he underscored the importance of focusing federal resources on the most vulnerable households.

“We are all being challenged right now, but our legacy can be that we rose to the challenge and kept a focus on the vulnerable, those with low and moderate income, and those whose livelihoods operate on the thinnest of margins,” Mr. Rosengren said in the text of a speech to be given by video in Boston.

. . . .

*********************

Read the complete article at the link.

Thanks, Nicole, for your outstanding analysis of a critical, largely “below the radar screen” issue that potentially threatens everyone’s health and welfare.

So, policies that exclude American families and workers based on status both endanger our public health and threaten our economic recovery. The cruel, xenophobic, irrational White Nationalist polices of the Trump regime actually threaten both our present and our future. Can’t do much worse than that!

PWS

04-01-20

NY TIMES BLASTED FOR GIVING FORUM TO WHITE NATIONALIST PROPAGANDA FROM CIS SHILL! — “The organization has gained credibility by writing pseudo-science ‘research’ papers that are little more than racist ideology dressed up in scholarly language.”

Sebastian Murdock
Senior Reporter
HuffPost

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/new-york-times-anti-immigration-op-ed-hate-group_n_5e21d9d8c5b673621f752f9c

The Center for Immigration Studies, an anti-immigration think tank, is categorized as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

BY SEBASTIAN MURDOCK

SENIOR REPORTER

HIUFFPOST

The New York Times published an op-ed decrying immigration by an author claiming to be a “liberal restrictionist” who is in fact attached to a known hate group.

The column, published Friday, was written by , “a senior research fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies,” according to the biography listed under his byline.

CIS, which calls itself “an independent, non-partisan, non-profit, research organization,” is a known hate group that has been described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an anti-immigrant movement that hires racist writers and associates with white nationalists.

“I’m a Liberal Who Thinks Immigration Must Be Restricted,” Kammer’s headline reads. The piece begins with an anecdote about how immigrants take the jobs of American-born workers and later claims “many liberal Democrats” want illegal immigration to run rampant:

Now many liberal Democrats, including those who call for the abolition of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, seek to erase the distinction between legal and illegal immigration. Under the banner of inclusiveness, equality, human rights, racial reconciliation and reparations for American interventions in the third world, those liberals demand sanctuary for those who make it past the Border Patrol or overstay a visa. Few speak openly of open borders, but that is essentially what they are calling for.

Throughout the piece, Kammer seems set on reminding readers that he is liberal, even if his views might suggest otherwise.

“That’s why I call myself a liberal restrictionist,” Kammer, a former journalist, writes. “I have long considered myself a moderate liberal, in part because Democrats have always been the allies of working people.”

White House adviser Stephen Miller, a white nationalist, has cited CIS when speaking about immigration, and in 2011, the group released a report attempting to connect immigration with the creation of future terrorists, calling them “terror babies.”

The organization has gained credibility by writing pseudo-science “research” papers that are little more than racist ideology dressed up in scholarly language. According to the SPLC, “longtime CIS executive director Mark Krikorian’s contributions to the immigration policy debate rarely rise above petulant commentary dashed with extremist statements.”

Running a column by an author employed by a known hate group is the latest in the Times’s run of publishing racist pieces in its opinion section. In December, columnist and known bedbug Bret Stephens cited a study by a white nationalist that falsely claimed Ashkenazi Jews have a higher IQ than other races. The study he cited “traffics in centuries-old anti-Semitic tropes,” according to the SPLC.

Do better, New York Times.

****************

Ben Mathis-Lilley
Chief News Blogger
SLATE

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/01/times-op-ed-white-nationalist-center-for-immigration-studies.html

THE SLATEST

Times Taps White Nationalist Organization for Thought-Provoking Perspective on Immigration

By BEN MATHIS-LILLEY

JAN 17, 20206:42 PM

The New York Times opinion section under editor James Bennet ostensibly aims to challenge the paper’s predominately liberal readers by presenting them with thoughtful critiques of their worldview. In practice, it runs pieces like this recent argument that launching a war against Iran would end attacks against American interests in the Middle East—which was written by a veteran of the Bush administration who had predicted confidently in a 2003 piece also published by the Times that launching a war against Iraq would end attacks against American interests in the Middle East. There was no acknowledgment in the new piece of the old one, as an opinion section committed to intellectual honesty might require, nor was it particularly challenging in the sense of being difficult to rebut. But it did make people on the left feel bad, and like they were losing their minds, which is the bar that Bennet’s section requires an argument to clear.

The essay “I’m a Liberal Who Thinks Immigration Must Be Restricted,” published in the Times Thursday, may represent the nadir of this approach. It makes a familiar argument: that “the left” believes in a “post-national” system of open borders which sacrifices the interests of native-born working Americans to the interests of low-skilled foreign immigrants who drive down wages and disrupt the cultural cohesiveness of their communities. It argues for respecting a distinction between legal and illegal immigration and asserts that Donald Trump’s position on immigration can be appreciated, in a non-racist way, as “a patriotic battle to defend common people.” It accuses Trump’s critics of having had their minds addled by “tribal passions” and a fetish for conflict “between ethnic groups,” and it proposes a “conciliatory” policy that would offer amnesty to existing undocumented workers but institute a crackdown regime of visa enforcement that would prevent future undocumented individuals from finding jobs.

The familiarity of the article’s arguments is matched by the familiarity of its flaws. While large-scale immigration is, in fact, believed by some non-racists to flatten wages at the bottom of the pay scale, it’s also known to accelerate rather than retard economic expansion overall, and tends to be supported by progressives who advocate for other means of increasing working-class wages and sharing the benefits of GDP growth. The distinction between “legal” and “illegal” immigration is not some ancient, race-agnostic pillar of global affairs, but rather a concept that was instituted in the United States in the early 20th century to explicitly discriminate against Asian, southern European, and eastern European individuals and expanded in the 1960s to explicitly discriminate against Mexicans. Trump’s support is strongest in areas where there are fewer undocumented immigrants, not more, and he lost four of the five states that have the highest undocumented populations per capita. Many of the most immigration-heavy and ethnically diverse cities in the U.S. are also the safest and wealthiest and are considered so desirable to live in by migrating native-born Americans that they are experiencing housing crises.

As to whether criticizing an administration that instituted the premeditated, systematic separation of young children from their parents after they applied legally for asylum is a matter of unseemly “tribal passions,” or whether support for the principles of inclusive American citizenship described on the Statue of Liberty constitutes “post-national” anti-patriotism, perhaps we can agree to disagree.

More concerning than any of these specific problems, though, is the piece’s provenance: It’s written by someone named Jerry Kammer, a fellow at a think tank called the Center for Immigration Studies. Kammer has made a career out of covering immigration policy, he writes, for two reasons: “I was fascinated by its human, political and moral complexity. I also wanted to push back against the campaign by activist groups to label restrictionism as inherently racist.” He expresses regret that “odious people” with white-power affiliations have given the cause of cutting back on immigration a “bad name.”

What neither Kammer nor the Times discloses is that the Center for Immigration Studies was in fact founded by these people, most prominent among them a white nationalist named John Tanton who died last year. Tanton, as the Southern Poverty Law Center has documented, believed that the United States needed to maintain a “European-American majority, and a clear one at that”; he founded CIS, he wrote in the 1980s, in order to give his ideas the appearance of independent “credibility.”

Kammer does write that he disagrees with “some of the center’s hard-line positions.” Among his more hard-line colleagues at CIS are a writer named Jason Richwine, who contributed to a journal founded by white supremacist Richard Spencer and who has said that “IQ” is the “most important” difference between racial groups. (As the SPLC has documented, CIS has circulated literally hundreds of articles by explicit white supremacists like Spencer via links in its weekly newsletter. Its director once accused Barack Obama of trying to “foment race war.”) A statement of purpose on the CIS website is credited to longtime Tanton collaborator Dan Stein, who once complained that mass immigration was a tool developed by “Ted Kennedy and his political allies” in approximately 1958 to “retaliate against Anglo-Saxon dominance.”

In 1997, the Wall Street Journal wrote about Tanton in a piece called “The Intellectual Roots of Nativism.” It was a scathing article which noted that Tanton had once described the immigrant’s contribution to society as “defecating and creating garbage and looking for jobs.” The piece expressed concern that “otherwise sober-minded conservatives” and “reasonable critics of immigration” were affiliating themselves with his ideas. The author of that WSJ article, a 28-year-old journalist named Tucker Carlson, has since made the career-advancing decision to embrace Tanton-style nativism; he was in the news not too long ago for complaining in his role as a Fox News host that immigrants make the United States physically “dirtier.”

Whatever space ever existed between mainstream conservatism and white-power nationalism, Carlson demonstrates, has collapsed. And it turns out that the “odious people” that Kammer references in the Times are actually his colleagues and forebears, who created his organization so that policies intended to perpetuate “European-American” and “Anglo-Saxon” superiority could be laundered into the respectable discourse. What else is there to say but: It worked!

**************************

So, we have a White Nationalist in the White House assisted by neo-Nazi advisor Stephen Miller actually turning nativism into “Government policy.” Other white supremacists are scattered in key positions throughout the Government, particularly the immigration bureaucracy. Trump tweets and right-wing media put out a constant barrage of nativist lies, misrepresentations, false narratives, and racial, ethnic, and religious slurs.

So, just why is it that the “mainstream media” owes White Nationalists yet another forum to spread their nativist propaganda?

It’s not limited, of course, to just the Times. The WashPost regularly publishes largely fact and value free right-wing blather from professional shills like Marc Thiessen and Hugh Hewitt under the guise of “op-eds.”

And Chuck Todd regularly invites GOP congenital liars and Trump toadies like Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA), and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) to spread their lies, false narratives, and debunked “conspiracy theories” from the “bully pulpit” of “Meet the Press.” To top it off, Chuck then appears to be flabbergasted that when he confronts these guys with truth and facts, they “double down” continuing to lie to his face, ignore established facts, and spread Putinesque conspiracy theories.

Fact is, most of the Trump agenda is corrupt, counterfactual, unethical, inhumane, divisive, and corrosive to American democracy. We receive enough of it from lots of sources every day, pretty much 24-7-365. Is it really necessary for those supposedly dedicated to truth and democracy to give more free “air time” to nativist shills spreading their racially corrosive, divisive, anti-democracy propaganda?

PWS

01-18-20

POLITICS: DANIEL DENVIR @ LITERARY HUB: The Case Against Immigration Centrism – Liberals Inevitably Get Co-Opted Into “Nativism Lite” & The Result Is Donald Trump & His Overtly White Nationalist GOP!

https://apple.news/ASCSwefgISM2mLjzRVdJeWQ

When It Comes to Immigration, Political Centrism is Useless

With Trump in office, things can seem absurdly bleak. But after Republicans lost the House, it became clear that Trump’s first two years were for nativists a critical opportunity to reshape the contours of the American demos. And they blew it: Republicans had total control of government yet legislative cuts to legal immigration went nowhere. Meanwhile, Democratic voters are moving sharply left in the face of accelerating Republican extremism. The percentage of Americans calling for a decrease in legal immigration has plummeted since the early 2000s—particularly but not exclusively among Democrats. Indeed, since 2006 Democratic voters have swung from a strong plurality supporting legal immigration cuts to a stronger plurality backing increased legal immigration.

In promoting attacks on “illegal immigration” and militarizing the border, establishment politicians from both major parties inflamed popular anti-immigrant sentiment. But they helped move the Overton window so far right that it snapped loose of its bipartisan frame, prompting vociferous resistance on the left. The war on “illegal immigrants” was based on a bipartisan consensus. It is becoming very partisan. That’s good.

As nativists well know, immigration means that we the people is increasingly made up of people who don’t look like Trump and his base. And they correctly worry that immigration is driving a large-scale demographic transformation that could ultimately doom the conservative movement—a prospect that the most honestly racist figures on the far-right call “white genocide.” Non-white people disproportionately vote Democrat—a trend gravely exacerbated by unconstrained Republican racism that has alienated even wealthy and economically conservative non-white people. Demographics aren’t destiny. But thanks to the foundational role that racism plays in American capitalism, they do mean quite a bit.

In August 2019, Trump finally implemented an aggressive attack on legal immigration, expanding the definition of what makes an immigrant “likely to become a public charge” and thus excludable from the country.28 The rule further empowers immigration officers to deny entry to poor and working-class immigrants, particularly from Latin America, or to deny immigrants already in the country a green card. The rule radically expands a provision of US immigration law dating back to the Immigration Act of 1882 and, before that, to New York and Massachusetts’s enforcement targeting Irish paupers. The Migration Policy Institute predicts that the rule “could cause a significant share of the nearly 23 million noncitizens and U.S. citizens in immigrant families using public benefits to disenroll.” And visa denials under Trump had already skyrocketed before the new rule was in place.

It is unclear how profoundly the rule will reshape either the size or the class, national, and racial makeup of legal immigration. But regardless, the new rule is a reflection of Trump’s inability to secure cuts or changes to legal immigration in Congress. The rule will very likely be rolled back under even a milquetoast Democratic president. The same holds true with Trump’s deep cuts to refugee admissions, and the draconian proposal pushed by some in his orbit to cut admissions to zero. Trump is effectively terrorizing migrants in the present but failing to secure the enduring legislative change that would outlast his presidency.

There is no majority constituency today for enacting such legislation—nor any viable institutional vehicle for it. Whatever opportunity existed to leverage a white-grievance-fueled presidency toward a full nativist program has faded even as the right clings to power thanks to the system’s profoundly anti-democratic features. The left is nowhere near winning. But it is at long last emerging as a real force in clear conflict with both the Trumpist right and the center that facilitated its rise.

For Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Obama, Biden, Feinstein, Schumer, and a host of other Democrats, a measure of nativism was useful. Quite a bit more than that has proven necessary for Republicans. But too much nativism is a problem: no rational capitalist favors shutting out exploitable migrant labor. As Karl Marx wrote in The Eighteenth Brumaire, political stances that seem rooted in principle are in reality founded—if often in indirect, unconscious, and obscure ways—in “material conditions of existence.” This is no doubt the case here.

The United States has undergone decades of enforcement escalation, fashioning a useful scapegoat for neoliberalism and empire while maintaining a segmented labor market. But business frequently lost too, most spectacularly with the repeated defeat of comprehensive immigration reform. Business wants the undocumented to be legalized and guest workers who provide the benefits of undocumented labor without the risk. But what perhaps best reflects—but by no means exclusively reflects—the power of business is what hasn’t happened: deep legislative cuts to authorized immigration have been consistently off the table for more than two decades. This has been the case since the 1996 legislation to slash legal immigration was defeated in favor of a law to persecute undocumented immigrants and “criminal aliens.” The immigration debate has taken on a bizarre and contradictory life of its own. The unspeakability of cuts to authorized immigration, and the failure to impose effective employer sanctions and employment verification systems reveal that immigration policy was still tethered, narrowly but firmly, to the interests of capital. With Trump, full nativism is spoken. But substantial immigration reductions still cannot pass Congress.

A full examination of the complex role of business, the rich, and their various factions during the past two decades of immigration politics is yet to be written. Some of its basic contours, however, are clear. For one, the capitalist class has become recklessly polyphonic. Lumpen-billionaires like the Mercer family and the Koch brothers have spent vast amounts to promote their ideologically distinct priorities rather than those of the collective. The Tanton network is a case in point: it received more than $150 million since 2005 from the Colcom Foundation, founded by the late Mellon heir Cordelia Scaife May. Ironically, independent right-wing oligarchs who pursue idiosyncratic agendas now rival the Chamber of Commerce for influence thanks to the policy achievements of groups like the Chamber of Commerce, which helped those oligarchs make and keep their billions. But does establishment big business even care about immigration anymore?

Political scientist Margaret Peters argues that productivity gains and globalization’s facilitation of an overseas supply of low-wage labor has led to a lessening of business’s need for immigrant workers, resulting in more restriction. The evidence for this, however, is mixed. On the one hand, business has not won a major legislative expansion of immigration since 1990. But it has also not suffered a major defeat. What’s clear is that business can tolerate border security theatrics and the demonization of “criminal aliens,” and is content to exploit undocumented workers. As anthropologist Nicholas De Genova writes, “It is deportability, and not deportation per se, that has historically rendered undocumented migrant labor a distinctly disposable commodity.”34 Business opposes dramatic cuts to authorized immigration, effective employer sanctions, and mandatory employee verification. Business prefers legalization, but that doesn’t rival priorities like tax cuts and deregulation; if it did, business would abandon the Republican Party. The roles played in immigration politics by business interests with various and often bipartisan attachments require further research, which will in turn help to clarify the woefully under-studied sociology of ruling class power more generally.

Meanwhile, business’s hold on the Democratic Party has come under intense assault. The war on “illegal immigrants” that accelerated in the 1990s is facilitating a realignment of left-of-center politics in favor of a diverse, immigrant-inclusive working class in opposition to war, neoliberal oligarchy, and hard borders. The post–Cold War dominance of carceral neoliberalism had made such a popular coalition impossible; the exhaustion of that model signaled by the 2008 crisis has made it astonishingly credible. Record deportations and a radicalizing racist right triggered a revolt among the Democratic Party’s young and increasingly diverse base. That base has along with much of American public opinion moved to perhaps the most staunchly pro-immigrant position in American history—and, in doing so, toward a radically inclusive vision of the American working class. Amid a post-Recession boom in labor militancy, that portends trouble for the entire political establishment and the racist and oligarchic order it protects.

Trump’s election set that trajectory into overdrive, rendering opinions on immigration a basic proxy for one’s partisan allegiance. Border militarization that once garnered bipartisan support is now the polarizing Wall. Obama’s brutal migrant detention centers have under Trump been labeled “concentration camps.” The number of Republicans who believe that the United States risks losing its national identity if the country welcomes immigrants from the world over has increased since Trump’s election.35 At the same time, Democrats have become more hostile to enforcement. In 2010, 47 percent of Democrats said that they equally prioritized a pathway to legalizing undocumented immigrants and “better border security and stronger enforcement of immigration laws,” while just 29 percent prioritized a pathway to legalization alone. By 2018, the number prioritizing legalization alone skyrocketed to 51 percent. As the war on immigrants kicked into high gear in 1994, just 32 percent of Democrats and 30 percent of Republicans agreed that immigrants strengthened the country. By 2016, the share of Democrats who said so had surged to 78 percent.

Extreme polarization, the establishment’s bête noire, is in fact the only solution to the long-standing bipartisan agreement that immigration is a problem for enforcement to solve. Demanded and rejected, oppressed and expelled, this country’s many others have long insisted that the promise of American freedom, designed for if never truly delivered to white settlers, belongs to them too because they too are the people. And contrary to what Trump’s presidency might suggest, a growing number of Americans agree and are turning against nativism and war. Racism is, as the remarkable number of Americans embracing socialism understand, an obstacle to freeing everyone.

The issue of borders is, in turn, a simple one in principle for socialists: borders are a nationalist enterprise and thus incompatible with an internationalist workers’ creed. Migration is a symptom of social violence when it is compelled by poverty, war, or climate change. But moving to faraway and strange places is often a beautiful journey too, one nurtured by love, adventure, and the drive for self-determination and realization. Migration should be free and the choice to migrate should be freely made. The border does not protect Americans against cultural change, economic insecurity, and terrorism. It bolsters a system of global inequality that harms people everywhere by dividing them.

Even with public opinion moving rapidly to our side, border controls will not fall anytime soon. To chip away at them, we must understand their historical particularity. The legal right to travel was, for most white people, a basic one for much of American history. It remains so for wealthy people, particularly those with passports from rich countries. Border controls arose in the United States not out of any neutral law enforcement principle but to exclude Asians, Jews, Italians, Latinos, blacks, Muslims, and other Others in the service of an exploitative and expansionist empire. Our land borders began to harden only alongside the rise of industrial capitalism, and were only militarized in recent decades.

If Democrats stick to the center on immigration, they will find themselves fighting on two fronts. A fight against Republicans, with the left at their back, will be far easier to win—and a more noble victory. Simple realism dictates that no legislation to grant citizenship to millions will be passed until Republicans are defeated. There’s no use trying to appease them. The bipartisan consensus supporting harsh immigration and border enforcement has fractured. Democratic elected officials need to catch up or be defeated too. It’s the task of the left to accelerate the nascent split, demanding radical reforms that correspond to our dream of a world where no human being is illegal. We must transform nation-states so that they no longer divide workers but instead are conduits for the democratic control of our social, economic, political, and ecological futures.

We must urgently develop demands for policies that will not create an open border overnight but a radically more open border soon. The border must be demilitarized, which would include demolishing the hundreds of miles of already existing wall and dramatically downsizing the Border Patrol. Criminal sanctions on illegal entry and reentry and the public charge rule must be repealed. Links between ICE and local law enforcement created by Secure Communities and 287(g) must be broken. Opportunities for legal immigration, particularly from Mexico and Central America, must be expanded. The right to asylum must be honored. And citizenship for those who reside here must be a stand-alone cause, unencumbered by compromises that are not only distasteful but also politically ineffectual—and that today would provoke opposition from both the nativist right and the grassroots left.

************************************************

The nativists start with lies, myths, and distortions. The liberals start with truth and humane values. They used to meet in the “center right” which is “nativism lite” and bad news for migrants and for humane values.

With some logic, Denvir argues that the nativist right has now come “out of their shell” and just advocates against all foreigners and for maximum human cruelty. In other words, complete dehumanization and abandonment of the common good: A trashing of the “Statute of Liberty” (see, e.g., Stephen Miller & “Cooch Cooch”) and an obliteration of the real, diverse America, a nation of immigrants, in favor of a mythical “Whitbread” version that never really existed (as American has always been heavily reliant on the labor of non-white immigrants — but they often were intentionally kept without social standing or political power).

In many ways, the right’s abandonment of the “pro-immigration, anti-illegal immigration” false narrative frees liberals to explore more robust, realistic immigration policies that would serve the national interest, recognize the truth of American as a rich and diverse nation of immigrants, and, perhaps most helpfully, sharply reduce the amount of time, effort, and goodwill squandered on ultimately unrealistic and impractical immigration enforcement schemes and gimmicks (see e.g., “The Wall” & “The New American Gulag”). In that context, immigration enforcement could be rationalized and made more efficient to serve the actual national interests rather than the political (and sometimes financial) interests of the far-right nativist minority.

Interesting thoughts to ponder.

PWS

01-17-20

WHITE NATIONALIST AGENDA: Trump Regime Announces Plans For All-Out Assault On Legal Immigration — “It’s an attempt to lock into place changes to immigration policy that cannot be easily undone, regardless of the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.”

https://apple.news/AKO1peXCgQpS_Ol7Hfyg_6g

Stuart Anderson writes in Forbes:

Trump Plans Far-Reaching Set Of New Immigration Regulations

The Trump administration plans a far-reaching set of new immigration regulations that, if enacted, would profoundly affect employers, international students, H-1B and L-1 visa holders, EB-5 investors, asylum seekers and others. The proposed forthcoming rules are detailed in the administration’s just-released Unified Agenda for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

H-1B Visas: “As a result of more restrictive Trump administration policies, denial rates for H-1B petitions have increased significantly, rising from 6% in FY 2015 to 24% through the third quarter of FY 2019 for new H-1B petitions for initial employment,” according to a recent National Foundation for American Policy analysis. A new H-1B regulation would make life even more difficult for employers and high-skilled foreign nationals.

The summary of a forthcoming H-1B rule states it would: “[R]evise the definition of specialty occupation to increase focus on obtaining the best and the brightest foreign nationals via the H-1B program, and revise the definition of employment and employer-employee relationship to better protect U.S. workers and wages. In addition, DHS will propose additional requirements designed to ensure employers pay appropriate wages to H-1B visa holders.” (The target date for publishing a proposed rule is December 2019.)

The rule could be used to defend the administration against lawsuits from companies that contend many actions by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on H-1B petitions have violated the Administrative Procedure Act by not going through the rulemaking process.

“Undoubtedly they will push the boundaries and aim for long-term, structural changes to the H-1B visa category,” said Lynden Melmed, a partner at Berry Appleman & Leiden and former Chief Counsel for USCIS, in an interview. “But absent new authority from Congress, going too far risks a court injunction and they could end up with nothing.”

One way USCIS may try to push the boundaries would be to place into regulation the theory behind a March 31, 2017, internal document now used in adjudications that excluded computer programmers from qualifying as a specialty occupation. The document discusses computer programmers and tells adjudicators that since the Department of Labor Occupational Outlook Handbook states that “. . . some employers hire workers with an associate’s degree . . . it suggests that entry level computer programmer positions do not necessarily require a bachelor’s degree and would not generally qualify as a position in a specialty occupation.” (Emphasis added.)

The March 31, 2017, document notes this has applicability to many occupations and states: “The Policy Memorandum is specific to the computer programmer occupation. However, this same analysis should be conducted for occupations where the Occupational Outlook Handbook does not specify that the minimum requirement for a particular position is normally a bachelor’s or higher degree in a specific specialty.” (Emphasis added.)

“Companies may be surprised to learn how many different positions do not require a bachelor’s degree under Department of Labor standards,” said Melmed. “Employers may have to rethink how they approach their talent strategy.”

A new regulation that would “revise the definition of employment and employer-employee” will make it even more difficult for IT services companies and others that place employees at customer locations. Such companies already have experienced much higher H-1B denial rates due to USCIS policies that, attorneys say, have targeted the companies for tougher scrutiny.

H-4 EAD: The administration continues to place on the regulatory agenda a measure to rescind an existing rule that allows many spouses of H-1B visa holders to work. The target date for a proposed rule is March 2020. (See here for more background.)

L-1 Visas: The irony of USCIS trying to tighten the L-1 visa category is companies complain the Trump administration already has made it nearly impossible to gain approval of L-1 visas at U.S. consulates in India to transfer employees into the United States. Companies also cite U.S. consular posts in China as a problem. “Our refusal rate for L visas at consular posts in India is 80% to 90%,” an executive of a major U.S. company told me in an interview. Denial rates have also increased considerably at USCIS for individual L-1B petitions (used for employees with “specialized knowledge”).

According to the summary of a new item placed on the regulatory agenda: “In order to improve the integrity of the L-1 program, the Department of Homeland Security will propose to revise the definition of specialized knowledge, to clarify the definition of employment and employer-employee relationship, and ensure employers pay appropriate wages to L-1 visa holders.” (September 2020 is the target date for publishing a proposed rule.)

Companies note they already endure visa denials by consular officers who, with little background knowledge, decide that a company should only have a limited number of people who possess “specialized knowledge” – even though there is nothing in the law or regulation about a numerical limit within a company on employees with specialized knowledge of a company’s “product, service, research, equipment, techniques, management, or . . . expertise in the organization’s processes and procedures.”

Regulating on L-1 wages may place USCIS in legal difficulties. “As a practical matter, most employers already pay their L-1 workers at high rates of pay,” said Kevin Miner, a partner at the Fragomen law firm, in an interview. “We will want to see what specific regulatory proposals are made regarding wage rates for L-1 workers, since Congress specifically did not impose prevailing wage requirements in the L-1 statute. Adding requirements that Congress has not put into the statute would be an overreach by the agency and would call into question the legal viability of the new regulations.”

International Students, OPT and Unlawful Presence: New enrollment of international students at U.S. universities declined by more than 10% between the 2015-16 and 2018-2019 academic years – and new Trump administration regulations are likely to further discourage international students from coming to America.

The ability to gain practical work experience following a course of studies attracts many international students to the United States. Many competitors for talent and students, such as Canada and Australia, already make it easier than the United States for international students to work after graduation.

The administration continues to target Optional Practical Training (OPT), which allows international students to work for 12 months after graduation and 24 additional months in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) fields. A summary of a rule proposal on the agenda states: “ICE [Immigration and Custom Enforcement] will amend existing regulations and revise the practical training options available to nonimmigrant students on F and M visas.” (August 2020 is the target date for a proposed rule.)

Ironically, Trump administration officials from the State Department recently praised Optional Practical Training. “OPT is one of our greatest strengths,” said Caroline Casagrande, a deputy assistant secretary at the U.S. Department of State, during a November 18, 2019, press event on international students. “And we know that students value the practical experience that they gain here in the United States and it is one of our most helpful recruitment tools as a reason that a student chooses to study in the United States.”

A 2019 National Foundation for American Policy study by economist Madeline Zavodny concluded, “There is no evidence that foreign students participating in the OPT program reduce job opportunities for U.S. workers.”

In 2018, USCIS issued policy memos that could cause many international students who unknowingly violate their immigration status to be barred from the United States for 10 years. On May 3, 2019, a U.S. District Court issued an injunction blocking the two policy memos following a lawsuit (Guilford College) filed by universities.

USCIS placed on the regulatory agenda plans for a proposed rule (with a September 2020 prospective date) called “Enhancing the Integrity of the Unlawful Presence Inadmissibility Provisions.”

“The recent announcement in the regulatory agenda regarding unlawful presence is likely a response to the Guilford College litigation,” Paul Hughes, a partner at McDermott Will & Emery and the lead attorney in the case, told me. “In Guilford College, the court issued a nationwide injunction blocking USCIS from applying this memo, both because it did not undertake the notice-and-comment rulemaking required by the Administrative Procedure Act, and because it was at odds with the statutory text. It appears that the administration is now trying to use rulemaking in an apparent effort to cure the procedural errors they made the first time.”

The Department of Homeland Security regulatory agenda contains at least two other measures of interest to the education community and international students. An item on the agenda (with a June 2020 target date for a proposed rule) states: “ICE proposes to vet all designated school officials (DSOs) and responsible officers (ROs), who ensure that ICE has access to accurate data on covered individuals via the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS).”

An item that remains on the regulatory agenda – with a February 2020 target date for publishing a proposed rule – would establish a “maximum period of authorized stay for students.” Currently, international students are admitted for the “duration of status” until they complete their studies. Universities warn changing to a maximum period of stay is likely to carry negative consequences for students.

EB-5: USCIS has proposed and finalized (November 21, 2019) a rule governing EB-5 (employment-based fifth preference) “immigrant investor classification and associated regional centers” that made significant changes to the category, including substantially raising the minimum investment amount for a foreign investor. The administration appears interested in further restricting the category with two items placed on the agenda. One would make regulatory changes to the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Regional Center Program, including how they file, and their designation, termination and continued participation. The other rule would “increase monitoring and oversight of the EB-5 program as well as encourage investment in rural areas.”

Family Sponsorship: After failing to convince Congress to reduce or eliminate most family-sponsored immigration, the Trump administration put forward two measures that could significantly reduce legal immigration to the United States: 1) an October 4, 2019, presidential proclamation (blocked at least temporarily by a court) would bar new immigrants from entering the United States without health insurance and 2) a rule on Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds – finalized on August 14, 2019, but blocked by an injunction.

A proposed rule on “Enhancing the Integrity of the Affidavit of Support” shows the administration wants to restrict and discourage Americans from sponsoring family members. “DHS intends to update regulations at 8 CFR 213a by aligning the requirements with the statutory provisions and amending sponsorship requirements to better ensure a sponsor has the assets and resources to support the intended immigrant at the statutorily required level,” according to a summary. “DHS further intends to update the provisions to allow the public benefit granting agencies to more easily obtain information from USCIS in order to seek reimbursement from a sponsor when the sponsored immigrant has received public benefits.”

Asylum: Many items on the regulatory agenda aim to restrict asylum, which has already seen wholesale changes in procedures in the past three years. All of the proposed rules are designed to make it more difficult for individuals to avail themselves of the U.S. asylum system.

In one measure, “The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Homeland Security propose to amend their respective regulations governing the bars to asylum eligibility. The Departments also propose to remove their respective regulations governing the automatic reconsideration of discretionary denials of asylum applications.” In another proposed rule, DOJ and DHS would “amend regulations governing the standards and procedures for making credible fear determinations or reasonable fear determinations for aliens who are subject to expedited removal, but who want to seek asylum or express a fear of persecution or torture.” Others would affect asylum interviews, work authorization and procedures.

Other Rules on the Agenda: The administration proposes to continue with its announced fee increases for immigration benefits, make changes that could affect adjustment of status and limit a future administration’s use of parole and employment authorization. “Removal of International Entrepreneur Parole Program” is listed on the agenda with a “final action” date of December 2019.

The Trump administration’s regulatory agenda on immigration is ambitious and far-reaching. It’s an attempt to lock into place changes to immigration policy that cannot be easily undone, regardless of the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. There is one glaring omission from the Trump administration’s regulatory agenda – any measure to make it easier for foreign-born individuals to work, study or live in the United States.

***************************************

With “Moscow Mitch” and the GOP making sure that Congress can’t do its job and the Supremes and much of the Federal Judiciary apparently in his pocket, Trump’s plans for a White Nationalist Fascist State are on a roll. As Stuart points out, once the damage is done to our nation, it’s likely to take a long time to repair, regardless of when Trump finally leaves office.

Who would have thought that institutions and values developed painstakingly over centuries would be so easily thrust aside by a lawless authoritarian and his gang.

PWS

11-22-19

NICOLE NAREA @ VOX: “CONFIRMING THE AMERICAN DREAM” –Debunking Another Trump White Nationalist False Narrative: Even The Poorest Immigrants Quickly Adapt & Become Self-Sufficient! — “The adult children of immigrants, almost universally, show more upward economic mobility than their peers whose parents were born in the United States.”

https://apple.news/A54Jcss-aTZ21cr6npgpyDA

Nicole Narea reports at Vox News:

A new study shows that even the poorest immigrants lift themselves up within a generation

It appears that the idea of the “American Dream” has some truth.

By Nicole Narea @nicolenarea Nov 1, 2019, 2:20pm EDT

Share this story

Share this on Facebook (opens in new window)

Share this on Twitter (opens in new window)

SHAREAll sharing options

Carmen del Thalia Mallol holds her daughter Lia, 4, after becoming a new US citizen during a naturalization ceremony inside the National September 11 Memorial Museum on July 2, 2019, in New York City. Drew Angerer/Getty Images

The adult children of immigrants, almost universally, show more upward economic mobility than their peers whose parents were born in the United States. Indeed, a new working paper by Stanford University’s Ran Abramitzky; Princeton University’s Leah Platt Boustan and Elisa Jácome; and the University of California Davis’ Santiago Pérez finds that this is especially true for the lowest-income immigrants and remains true for the most recent cohorts for which data is available.

Drawing from census data, publicly available administrative data, and federal income tax data, they traced the income levels of millions of fathers and sons over time dating back to 1880. The children of immigrants climbed higher in the income rankings than those born to US natives across history and in 44 of the 47 sending countries they studied.

The paper contradicts President Donald Trump’s rhetoric suggesting that immigrants drain the social safety net rather than pulling themselves up and that immigrants from a select few countries are more desirable than others. On that basis, the president has pursued numerous policies aimed at preventing low-income immigrants, particularly those from what he has referred to as “shithole countries,” from entering and settling in the US.

Even poor immigrants’ kids achieve success

Prior research has shown that immigrants who start out earning less than their US-born peers are unlikely to catch up in their lifetimes. And among more recent immigrants, that initial income gap is growing bigger and harder to close.

But the new study shows that, even if immigrants start out with low income levels, most are not only catching up eventually but surpassing their US-born peers — even if it takes a generation.

Even children of the poorest immigrants from most countries have higher levels of economic mobility than their peers born to American parents. https://economics.princeton.edu/2019/10/25/immigrant-mobility-abramitzky-boustan/

The typical explanation offered for this kind of immigrant achievement is some inherent quality resulting from cultural differences, such as a strong work ethic or placing a value on education. But the working paper offers a more tangible explanation for the mobility gap: Immigrants tend to settle where there is more economic opportunity and take jobs that are below their true skill level.

“We don’t even have to reach for these cultural explanations,” Boustan said in an interview. “A lot of it has to do with immigrants being willing to move anywhere and choosing locations where there are growing industries and a good set of job opportunities for their kids. Those are choices that immigrants are making that are different from the US-born and that could be a feature of immigrant success.”

It makes sense why immigrants choose to move to areas of higher economic opportunity as compared to the US-born. Without social and professional networks anchoring them to one place, they are more “footloose” and flexible in where they ultimately settle, Abramitzky said. Historically, that has meant that foreign-born populations tend to cluster in urban areas.

The first generation arriving in the US, however, might also have difficulty finding work at income levels that reflect their true talents and abilities due to a variety of factors: limited English skills, lack of an established professional network in the US, and discrimination, Boustan said.

A classic scenario might be a Russian scientist who comes to the US and works as a cab driver. In that case, the second generation might be able to move up more quickly than their father’s income ranking would suggest.

“What might matter for the kids is what their father’s true talents and abilities were, rather than where he gets placed in the labor market,” Boustan said.

The economic mobility gap, the paper finds, is particularly stark when examining the children of those on the lowest rungs of the income ladder, ranked below the 25th percentile. In that category, the children of immigrants climb three to six percentile rank points higher than the children of natives.

The gap narrows, however, when examining families from the top income levels. And it even reverses slightly when comparing children growing up in the same geographic area.

The paper, while expansive, has some limitations: It relies on federal income tax records that likely do not capture unauthorized immigrants, the primary target of the president’s ire as he attempts to make the southern border all but impenetrable to migrants from Central America attempting to cross illegally.

But it’s reasonable to speculate that unauthorized immigrants would also settle in areas of economic opportunity and take jobs below their skill level, potentially resulting in similar rates of economic mobility as compared to other immigrants, the researchers said. The only caveat could be that unauthorized immigrants and their children experience more discrimination in the US, limiting their access to higher-paying jobs.

All kinds of immigrants move up the ladder

Boustan said the paper pushes back on the idea of “model minorities”: that minorities from certain ethnic or racial backgrounds tend to find more socioeconomic success than others. It’s typically been used to describe Asians in contrast to Hispanics and African Americans. But regardless of race or ethnicity, children of immigrants from the overwhelming majority of the countries they studied performed better than the US-born.

The paper’s findings also challenge Trump’s ideas about who should be allowed to immigrate to the US.

In January 2018, he reportedly derided immigrants from what he considers “shithole countries,” including El Salvador and African nations, while simultaneously calling for “more people from Norway.” And he infamously maligned Mexican immigrants when launching his campaign for president in 2015.

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best,” he said. “They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us.”

In fact, immigrants from Mexico, El Salvador, and African nations such as Nigeria are all performing better than the US-born. And in past waves of immigration, immigrants from Norway actually performed worse than the US-born.

“We take it as a warning against taking a nostalgic view of immigration,” Abramitzky said.

****************************

Trump’s (and his fellow White Nationalists’) racist-inspired false narratives are harming America and preventing us from becoming even greater. Obviously, a smarter, more decent Administration would cut the xenophobic nonsense, legalize the law-abiding migrants already here, and propose ways to expand legal immigration across the board.

Those actions, not expensive, mean-spirited, and ultimately futile “enforcement only” gimmicks, would address the “immigration issue” in a fair, humane, and mutually beneficial manner. Also, by reducing the “unnecessarily undocumented population” and providing more realistic opportunities for future legal immigration and integration into our society, immigration enforcement would become far more focused, efficient, and effective.

Instead of treating needed workers and legitimate refugees like “bank robbers” (often actually ignoring the real criminals), the DHS could concentrate on a smaller number of individuals attempting to evade a more reasonable and realistic system. Additionally, with real lines for legal immigration, rather than imaginary ones the Trump crowd often disingenuously references, being sent “to the back of the line” would be more of a deterrent than it is now.

Although, as Nicole points out, the study didn’t specifically cover undocumented individuals, the findings of this study certainly match my “real life” experiences in Immigration Court. The overwhelming majority of those coming before me on the non-detained docket were basically decent, law abiding folks performing productive functions in our communities. For a short time at the end of the Obama Administration, ICE actually recognized the futility of removing such individuals and exercised “prosecutorial discretion” (“PD”) through “administrative closing” in many cases where removal would actually diminish our nation while wasting limited court time.

Those very few individuals who ”flunked out” of the “PD program by getting in trouble were returned to court, usually on the detained docket, and in most cases removed. The others formed a “natural core” for a future legislative legalization program that a smarter, kinder, braver Administration would have proposed.

Naturally, one of the first things the Trump White Nationalists tried to do was end two of the most successful programs ever instituted within DHS: DACA and PD. The results of these mean-spirited and short sighted actions have been highly problematic for the individuals involved as well as our country.

PWS

11-02-19

IN SUDDEN REVERSAL, TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WILL NOW EXTEND TPS FOR SALVADORANS — Likely A “Payoff” For Corrupt “Safe Third Country” Agreement With El Salvador!

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-10-28/trump-administration-extends-tps-for-salvadorans-allowing-thousands-to-stay-in-u-s

Molly O’Toole & Tracy Wilkinson report for the LA Times:

The Trump administration on Monday extended Temporary Protected Status for thousands of Salvadorans in the United States, granting them reprieve from removal to El Salvador.

Administration officials had insisted for weeks that the continuance of TPS was not on the table in exchange for the resumption of aid to the small Central American country, or the signing of a recent agreement on asylum seekers. An estimated 200,000 Salvadorans in the U.S. have TPS, making them the largest single group under the program. Many live in Los Angeles.

El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele, a millionaire millennial who has had warm words for President Trump and his officials, touted the move in a Twitter announcement on Monday morning as a victory for his newly elected administration.

“They said it was impossible,” Bukele said. “That the Salvadoran government couldn’t do anything. … But we knew that our allies would not abandon us.”

A U.S. District Court in Northern California last October blocked the Department of Homeland Security from terminating TPS for El Salvador and a handful of other countries. Administration officials have sought to dismantle the program as part of their wider efforts to reduce immigration. TPS offers recipients protection from removal and the right to work legally in the U.S.

The announcement also puts the U.S. in the difficult position of extending a program intended for people fleeing natural disasters or civil unrest, while at the same time effectively designating El Salvador a safe country for asylum seekers. The State Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Officials have offered little detail of the U.S. asylum agreement with El Salvador, which has yet to take effect. The deal was among several extensively negotiated with so-called Northern Triangle countries by outgoing acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan, who is due to step down this week.

Central America’s Northern Triangle is an impoverished and violence-ridden region that accounts for the majority of migrants now fleeing to the United States.

**********************************

In addition to helping the 200,000 mostly productive long-term Salvadoran TPS residents of the U.S. who lack formal immigration status, the extension benefits both countries. The TPS Salvadorans and their families have been living in fear and uncertainty ever since the Trump Administration announced an intent to terminate Salvadoran TPS (which, naturally, irrationally contravened the advice of its own professional staff and almost all outside experts and appeared to be against the wishes fo the Salvadoran Government).

El Salvador avoids the potential problem of having to resettle several hundred thousand individuals whose homes, family ties, and futures are in the U.S. They also will be able to continue to benefit from the “remissions” that many of these individuals send to family in El Salvador, a significant factor in the Salvadoran economy.

At the same time, the “deal” costs Trump nothing, except for probably some “pushback” from his most ardent White Nationalist supporters.

First, the Administration already was enjoined from terminating the Salvadoran TPS program. Second, with a 1.3 million case largely self-created backlog in the Immigration Courts, the Administration wouldn’t have been able to remove most of the 200,000 individuals at any time in the near future. Third, TPS renewals will likely generate a profit for USCIS for the fees charged for extending work authorizations.

Fourth, and rather ironically, the Salvadorans, along with most of the other 10-11 million so-called undocumented residents of the U.S., are among the “drivers” of U.S. economic prosperity, which is about the only thing propping Trump up these days. Despite the Trump Administration’s string of shamelessly false narratives about the “damage” caused by undocumented workers, their mass removal would undoubtedly “tank” the U.S. economy, at least in the short run.

Of course the “losers” in this are the refugees who continue to pour out of El Salvador and the other essentially “failed states” of the Northern Triangle. They face not only truncation of their legal right to apply for asylum in the United States, but also potential death or mayhem upon forced return or deportation to El Salvador as the result of the bogus “Safe Third Agreement” and equally bogus new requirements that asylum seekers apply in the first country they reach. (El Salvador doesn’t even have a functioning asylum system and is anything but “safe.”)

Perhaps we’ll eventually find out that El Salvador also had to agree to investigate the Biden family as a price for the extension.

PWS

10-29-19

Related posts:

This November, vote like your life depends on it! Because it does!

Related posts:

This November, vote like your life depends on it! Because it does!

Related posts:

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

Courtside Exclusive

Due Process Forever. The White Nationalist Kakistocracy Never!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Kakistocracy Never!

Related posts:

Related posts:

End the Clown Show! 🤡🤡 This November, vote like your life depends on it! Because it does!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Join the New Due Process Army & Fight For a Just America For Everyone!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: