Mediaboss Marketing

This is an opinion column.

It was early November 2008, a few days before the U.S. Presidential election. I lived in New York and was at lunch with a friend. There was much anticipation and optimism in my circles about the possible election of then-U.S. Sen. Barack Obama to Americas highest officeand concern.

For his safety.

I just hope, my friend said, her voice trailing off. The words needed not be said.

I sought, best I could, to ease her fears, to change the subject.

If hes elected, I said, I guarantee you two things will happen: One, hell have the best Secret Service in history, and two, hell make white folks crazy.

We laughed out loud.

Funny thingor not so much, reallythats exactly what happened.

Now, nowbreathe. Not all white folks, of course. It was hyperbole. So, chill.

Still, it happened. The election of the first Black President of the United States turned up the burners beneath the simmering stew of racism percolating in the darkest crock pots of our nation. And for the next eight years, a whole bunch of folks sat down at the table and indulged.

Until their bellies overflowed. Until they were enraged. So much so that .

congressional leaders of the opposing party flat-out said theyd lend zero to support his policiesno matter whom they might benefit.

those same lawmakers petulantly refused to consider an Obama Supreme Court nominee during the final days of his presidency even, defying the very Constitution they haughtily claim to defend.

a president was elected whose primary policy seemed to be to simply unObama Americaoh, and enrich himself and already-enriched friends.

his zealots stormed the U.S. Capitol, an act of insurrection none of us has seen, and hopefully will never see again.

our own states leadersAlabama Republicans, lets be clear, led by Gov. Kay Iveyfor years steadfastly and petulantly refused to expand Medicaid, refused to access millions of federal dollars to help provide more Alabamians with health insurance coverage. Coverage that might improve their lives. Coverage that might incentivize them to go to the doctor before theyre gripped by a life-threatening illness.

All because, well, degummed, it was Obamas idea. It was part of Obamacare, the term they tried to derisively deploy to stain the Affordable Care Act, the flawed but what-else-you-got effort to create affordable healthcare options for Americans most in need. (The former president ultimately flipped the deriders and laughingly embraced the term.)

Now, here we are, more than 12 years since 2008, and Im grateful. Grateful that, according to a new poll, most Alabamians have finally come around on expanding Medicaid to cover more low-income adults, mainly working adults whose employers do not provide insurance or who still cannot afford it.

Sixty-nine percent of respondents to the poll from Cover Alabama, a group of 90 organizations that support Medicaid expansion, either strongly or somewhat support it, too. Even a smidge more than half of Alabama Republicans (50.6 percent) support expansion after staunchly railing against it because, frankly, it was part of the ACA.

Some, including Gov. Ivey, guise their opposition as fiscal. Whenever the subject arises, she usually responds with some derivation of, Can we afford it?

We blew our chance at a rare federal freebie and it cost the state millions. When expansion was launched in 2014, the federal government paid 100 percent of the cost for the first three years. We had a winning lottery ticket lost it in the washer.

After the first three years, the feds still paid 90 percent of any increased costs to states. Now, theyre about to pay more. As my colleague Kyle Whitmire pointed out earlier this week, the Democrat-crafted stimulus percolating in the U.S. House includes a provision boosting federal coverage to 95 percent of costs.

The question Gov. Ivey and other holdouts should be asking: Can we not afford it?

Especially now, as Alabamians contend with the disastrous effects of COVID-19. Effects that shined a light on embarrassing, long-ignored racial and socioeconomic disparities. Effects likely to manifest themselves for years, maybe decades, among Alabamians who survived the virus.

Its estimated Medicaid expansion would touch more than 200,000 low-income residents. Individuals earning up to $17,609 and families with incomes of about $30,000 would qualify.

As Donald Trump failingly tried to dismantle Obamacare, six more states approved Medicaid expansion during his presidency, including ruby-red Oklahoma and Missouri.

Now, were one of only 12 states still stubbornly without Medicaid expansion. Aint we proud?

Give up the ghost, Gov. Iveythe Obama ghost. Or risk being haunted by something far more frightening: failing, once again, to help Alabamians struggling to help themselves. Especially so now.

Thats truly nuts.

A voice for whats right and wrong in Birmingham, Alabama (and beyond), Roys column appears in The Birmingham News and AL.com, as well as in the Huntsville Times, the Mobile Register. Reach him at rjohnson@al.com and follow him at twitter.com/roysj

Read the original:
Johnson: Give up the Obama ghost Governor, expand Medicaid now - AL.com

WASHINGTON (AP) The last time Merrick Garland was nominated by the White House for a job, Republicans wouldn't even meet with him.

Now, the once-snubbed Supreme Court pick will finally come before the Senate, this time as President Joe Biden's choice for attorney general. Garland, an appeals court judge, is widely expected to sail through his confirmation process, which begins Monday before the Democratic-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee, with bipartisan support.

Judge Garlands extensive legal experience makes him well-suited to lead the Department of Justice, and I appreciated his commitment to keep politics out of the Justice Department, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said in a statement. Unless I hear something new, I expect to support his nomination before the full Senate."

Bidens choice of Garland reflects the presidents goal of restoring the departments reputation as an independent body. During his four years as president, Donald Trump had insisted that the attorney general must be loyal to him personally, a position that battered the departments reputation. Garland's high court nomination by President Barack Obama in 2016 died because the Republican-controlled Senate refused to hold a hearing.

Garland will inherit a Justice Department that endured a tumultuous time under Trump rife with political drama and controversial decisions and abundant criticism from Democrats over what they saw as the politicizing of the nations top law enforcement agencies.

The departments priorities and messaging are expected to shift drastically in the Biden administration, with a focus more on civil rights issue, criminal justice overhauls and policing policies in the wake of nationwide protests over the death of Black Americans at the hands of law enforcement.

Garland plans to tell senators the department must ensure laws are fairly and faithfully enforced and the rights of all Americans are protected, while reaffirming an adherence to policies to protect its political independence, with the attorney general acting as a lawyer for the American people, not for the president. The Justice Department on late Saturday released a copy of Garlands opening statement.

Garland will also confront some immediate challenges, including the criminal tax investigation into Bidens son, Hunter, and calls from some Democrats to investigate Trump, especially after thousands of pro-Trump rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 as Congress was meeting to certify Bidens electoral win. Garland, in his prepared remarks for the Senate committee, calls the insurrection a heinous attack that sought to distrust a cornerstone of our democracy: the peaceful transfer of power to a newly elected government.

A special counsels inquiry started by William Barr, while he was attorney general, into the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation also remains open. It will be up to Garland to decide what to make public from that report,

Garland was at the center of a political firestorm five years ago as part of a Republican gamble that eventually shaped the future of the Supreme Court. As Obamas nominee to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who had died unexpectedly in February of 2016, Garland was a moderate choice and generally well liked by senators.

But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said hours after Scalias death that he would not consider any Obama nominee and that the voters should decide by picking a new president that November. McConnell's entire caucus went along. Many declined even to meet with Garland, even though some privately questioned the gambit.

It was a huge political risk. Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton was ahead in most polls and could have easily nominated someone more liberal than Garland had she won the White House. But she did not, Trump did and Republicans were elated as they voted to confirm Neil Gorsuch as a justice a year later. The bet later paid off unexpected returns as the Senate remained in Republican hands for the next four years and Trump had the opportunity to nominate two additional conservative justices, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, reshaping the political balance of the court.

Before the high court drama, Garland had been repeatedly praised by some Republicans as exactly the sort of moderate nominee they could support.

The criticism, such as it was, came from liberals, who had hoped Obama would pick someone more progressive, or diverse, than Garland. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, then seeking the 2016 nomination against Clinton, said he wouldnt have chosen Garland. Liberal activist groups were tepid in their support.

Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., was one of a handful of senators who met with Garland, but didn't budge from his position that a president should not choose a Supreme Court nominee in an election year. Graham reversed course when his party had the chance, ramming through Coney Barrett's nomination in record time during a global pandemic with just weeks to go before the 2020 election, which his party then lost.

Graham said in a tweet that Garland would be a sound choice to lead the Justice Department. He is a man of great character, integrity, and tremendous competency in the law."

Garland is a white man, but two other members of the Justice Department leadership, Vanita Gupta and Kristen Clarke, are women with significant experience in civil rights. Their selections appeared designed to blunt any concerns about Biden's choice for attorney general and served as a signal that progressive causes would be prioritized in the new administration.

Garland is an experienced judge who held senior positions at the Justice Department decades ago, including as a supervisor in the prosecution of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. But he is set to return to a department that is radically different from the one he left. His experience prosecuting domestic terrorism cases could prove exceptionally handy now.

Garland probably will face pressure from civil rights groups to end the federal death penalty after an unprecedented run of capital punishment during the Trump administration. Thirteen federal executions were carried out in six months, and they became superspreaders during the coronavirus pandemic.

There could be questions, too, about the department's handling of a federal criminal and civil rights investigation examining whether members of New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's administration intentionally manipulated data about nursing home coronavirus deaths.

The new chairman of the Senate committee handling the nomination, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said Garland was well deserving of the post.

And in light of his past treatment of the United States Senate, his day before the microphones is long overdue, Durbin said.

Associated Press writers Mark Sherman and Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.

Read more:
Snubbed as Obama high court pick, Garland in line to be AG - FOX5 Las Vegas

We were both headed to Bogot from JFK in a massive, empty airplane. No older than 10 years old, the boy sitting across the aisle from me was flying alone, proudly clutching his American passport in one hand while he gripped an iPhone in the other. Together, we flew over oceans, seas, and borders. I didnt know if he was coming home or leaving; all I knew was that he was able to look forward and backward. Its a subtle point that often gets lost in the tumultuous political debate these days: Undocumented immigrants dont get to look back. The American dream is a one-way ticket that offers captivity in the land that always promised mobility.

This little boy reminded me of myself. As the daughter of separated parents who lived lives separated by the Atlantic Ocean, I spent my entire childhood ping-ponging between Miami and Madrid. Even though I wouldnt see my dad for months, I always knew I could eventually come back to the United States for Christmas or spring break. Likewise, I knew my mom would be waiting for me at Madrids Barajas Airport upon my return. I remember there being nothing more soothing than hearing the flight attendant announcing our descent; the ability to returnto a loved one or a meaningful placeis one of the most comforting feelings we experience. On that international flight towards Bogot, it dawned on me: When was the last time an undocumented immigrant felt that?

I know. It seems like such an ordinary, superfluous questionespecially during such trying timesbut thats exactly the point: Weve deprived immigrants of the gift of being ordinary, the most human trait.

I actually recently asked Javier, an old family friend, that question while we were in the car in California. At this point, hes been in the United States for so long that he goes by Jimmy. Jimmy fled the poverty and violence of Guatemalas western highlands more than 30 years ago, at the age of 16. Hes almost 50 now, has two U.S.-born children, and is a proud Uber driver in Los Angeles. With his eyes set on the highway ahead of us, Jimmy unexpectedly cracked when his mind traveled back to Guatemala, where he left his mother, Dominga, behind. As he talked, his voice suddenly felt younger. The idea was always to come back and see her, to hug her, he tells me, but unfortunately, it didnt happen. After all these years, Jimmy is still undocumentedgoing back means possibly never being able to reenter the United States. My children are here. I dont want to abandon them the same way I abandoned my parents.

Read more from the original source:
What We Shouldnt Forget About Immigration Reform - Vogue

WASHINGTON (AP) President Joe Biden and congressional Democrats proposed a major immigration overhaul Thursday that would offer an eight-year pathway to citizenship to the estimated 11 million people living in the U.S. illegally.

The legislation reflects the broad priorities for immigration changes that Biden laid out on his first day in office, including an increase in visas, more money to process asylum applications and new technology at the southern border.

It would be a sharp reversal of Trump administration policies, and parts are likely to face opposition from a number of Republicans. Biden has acknowledged he might accept a more-piecemeal approach if separate major elements could be approved.

We have an economic and moral imperative to pass big, bold and inclusive immigration reform, said New Jersey Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez, one of the lead sponsors of the bill, in unveiling it Thursday.

Menendez said Democrats have failed in the past because they have too quickly given in to fringe voices who have refused to accept the humanity and contributions of immigrants to our country and dismiss everything, no matter how significant it is in terms of the national security, as amnesty.

Separately, enforcement guidelines released Thursday by the new administration would target immigration enforcement more directly at people in the country illegally who pose a threat. That, too, would be a reversal from the broader targeting policy of Immigration and Customs Enforcement under Trump.

The major immigration overhaul legislation would offer one of the fastest pathways to citizenship of any proposed measure in recent years, but it would do so without offering any enhanced border security, which past immigration negotiations have used as a way to win Republican votes. Without enhanced security, it faces tough odds in a closely divided Congress.

Menendez said he had been speaking to Republican colleagues in an effort toward putting the pieces of a puzzle together on a bill that would receive enough votes to pass. He acknowledged the final product is likely to change significantly. But he also suggested that elements of the proposal could be included through a parliamentary maneuver in a budget bill that would only require 51 votes.

The bill Democrats introduced Thursday would immediately provide green cards to farm workers, immigrants with temporary protected status and young people who arrived in the U.S. illegally as children. For others living in the U.S. as of Jan. 1, 2021, the plan establishes a five-year path to temporary legal status. If they pass background checks, pay taxes and fulfill other basic requirements, then, after three years, they can pursue citizenship.

The plan also would raise the current per-country caps for family and employment-based immigrant visas. It would eliminate the penalty barring those immigrants who live in the U.S. without authorization and who then leave the country from returning for three to 10 years. It also would provide resources for more judges, support staff and technology to address the backlog in processing asylum seekers.

The bill would expand transnational anti-drug task forces in Central America and enhance technology at the border. And it would set up refugee processing in Central America, to try to prevent some of the immigrant caravans that have overwhelmed border security in recent years.

The plan includes $4 billion spread over four years to try to boost economic development and tackle corruption in Latin American countries, to lessen pressure for migration to the U.S.

Democratic lawmakers, including lead sponsors California Rep. Linda Sanchez and Menendez, held a virtual press conference Thursday to unveil the bill.

Our border policy is broken, period, Sanchez said. But this bill employs a multipronged approach that will manage the border, address the root causes of migration crack down on bad actors and create safe and legal channels for those who are seeking protection.

Comprehensive immigration legislation has struggled to gain traction in Congress for decades.

Menendez was part of the bipartisan Gang of Eight senators who negotiated a 2013 bill that ultimately collapsed. Prior to that, a bill backed by President George W. Bush failed in Congress as well, after multiple attempts at compromise.

Republican immigration hardliners were already panning the bill Thursday. Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, charged in a statement that the bill rewards those who broke the law and floods the labor market at a time when millions of Americans are out of work.

President Bidens radical proposal is a nonstarter and should be rejected by Congress, he said.

Sanchez noted that Congress has tried and failed in the past, and we arent naive about the challenges that we face. But she contended that there is a broad coalition that wants to deliver on real reform.

While Biden is pushing a comprehensive bill, he suggested earlier this week he may be open to a more piecemeal approach. During a CNN town hall Tuesday night, he said that while a pathway to citizenship would be essential in any immigration bill, theres things I would deal by itself. That could leave the door open to standalone bills focused on providing a pathway to citizenship for various populations.

Menendez, too, seemed to suggest he was open to a piece-by-piece approach.

If we can get certain elements of this standing up and passed individually both in the House and the Senate, thats great, he said.

See the original post:
Democrats consider piecemeal approach to immigration reform - The Associated Press

The Week

Britain's Supreme Court ruled unanimously Friday that drivers for the ride-hailing service Uber are company "workers," not independent contractors, and are therefore entitled to the national minimum wage, paid annual leave, and other benefits. The court also agreed with lower courts that Uber drivers are on the clock when they are logged in to the app, ready to accept passengers, not as Uber had argued only when they are actually driving people to their destination. Uber has 65,000 active drivers in the U.K., The Associated Press reports, and the ruling threatens to upend its entire business model in the country. "Questions still remain about how the new classification will work, and how it affects gig economy workers who work not only for Uber, but also for other competing apps," BBC News reports. This was Uber's final appeal, after losing in three lower tribunals starting in 2016. "I think it's a massive achievement in a way that we were able to stand up against a giant," said Yaseen Aslam, president of the App Drivers & Couriers Union (ADCU) and one of the original plaintiffs in the case. Another original litigant, ADCU general secretary James Farrar, called the ruling "a win-win-win for drivers, passengers and cities," because "Uber now has the correct economic incentives not to oversupply the market with too many vehicles and too many drivers." Uber shares were down more than 3 percent in premarket trading in New York, AP notes. More stories from theweek.comHow Rush Limbaugh broke the old media and built the new one5 outrageously funny cartoons about Ted Cruz's Cancun getawayAmerican politicians hide behind the palace walls

More:
Democrats immigration reform bill would increase technology at borders, provide path to earned citizenship: Rep. Titus - Yahoo News