Mediaboss Marketing

E.S. Browning| Palm Beach Post

Santa struggled this holiday season: He was short of elves.

Our ports didnt have enough workers to unload the ships that were stuck offshore full of gifts. Trucking companies couldnt find enough drivers to deliver the goods. Stores needed shelf-stockers. Restaurants couldnt hire enough cooks.

And yet, to our south, thousands of people clamored to get into the country to do jobs like these.

Our response, year after year? We spendmillions of dollars trying to keep them out.

And it isnt easy. The border patrol, it seems, cant find enough people, either.

It all seems surreal. But our dynamic, free-market economy has dealt with labor shortages before. It has a solution, although it isnt pretty. We call it illegal immigration.

No one likes illegal immigration. We wring our hands over our failure to stop it. And then we cheerfully hire millions of illegal immigrants to cut our grass, clean hotels, cook food, stock shelves, work in chicken-processing plants and do other low-paying jobs most Americans dont want.

We think of this as a 21st-century crisis. In fact, our country has been trying and failing to deal with this kind of problem for nearly two centuries.

Opinion: Connecting dots, from immigrants to moneyed conservatives

Commentary: Civic responsibility amid mounting political violence

And: 'Great replacement' fears reek of racism

Back in the 1840s, it was Irish immigrants who did the unpleasant jobs and were unwelcome. We went on to pass laws aimed at keeping outItalians, Germans, Poles, Chinese, Japanese, Pacific Islanders, Mexicans and Jews. First came 19th Century laws aimed at banning almost all Asians. One law specifically banned Chinese women. A 1917 law imposed literacy tests.

Supporters of these laws didnt hide their goal: to protect ethnic purity.Today, many of us count these immigrantsof supposedly low ethnic standards among our treasured ancestors.

And with demand for labor exceeding population growth, our robust economy finds itself needing immigrant labor again.

There are plenty of proposals for bringing in labor in legal, humane ways. But as in 1854, anti-immigrant feeling is widespread. So we do nothing and live with an underground, black-market labor system.One could argue that this ugly system gets the job done, more or less. But is it the best we can do?

It is a survival-of-the-fittest arrangement. People in Central America save money from meager incomes to finance their trips, sometimes paying criminal gangs to help them. They face abuse and even death on their trips. If they dont get in or are deported, they often try again and again. Then they live on societys fringes, doing jobs Americans dont want, to send money to relatives back home. They attend church. And they have been shown to commit fewer violent crimes than American citizens perhaps because they are too busy working.

It is true that immigration can be disruptive. Immigrants from Europe and Asia were disruptive, too. They speak foreign languages and bring different foods, music and cultures. They have always been accused of taking jobs from Americans even during labor shortages like todays.

But our country suffers when a part of our economy is based on skirting the law and maintaining an underclass of fearful people.

We need to find a legal way to admit the resourceful, hard-working people our labor force needs. We ought to pay them fair wages, allow them better living conditions and let them stop hiding.

E.S. Browning is a retired newspaper reporter.Kevin Wagner's Civics Project column, normally in this spot, is on vacation and will return next week.

Originally posted here:
Immigration: There has to be a smarter, more humane way. - Palm Beach Post

AUSTIN (Nexstar) A string of recent deaths among Texas National Guardsmen deployed as part of Governor Greg Abbotts Operation Lone Star is stirring up questions about the mission.

The governor has repeatedly emphasized the importance of these soldiers on our southern border, meant to help respond to the surge in migrants this year.

Tuesday, a spokesperson for the governor noted, Since Governor Abbott launched Operation Lone Star in March, National Guard soldiers and DPS troopers have apprehended over 83,000 migrants, arrested over 9,200 who committed a border-related crime, including smugglers and human traffickers, seized over 200 million lethal doses of fentanyl, and erected strategic barriers to stem the flow of illegal immigration.

Back in early October, he announced more troops would be sent, adding up to 2,500 total.

Last week, Davis Winkie with the Army Times reported a jarring trend among those guardsmen.

The key stressor that all four of these soldiers had in common was, the state of Texas had either asked them to drop their life on two weeks, one week, maybe less notice, Winkie told Nexstar Monday.

Winkie said all four of those guardsmen have died by suicide since the end of October.

The most recent was 1st Lt. Charles Williams, who died last Thursday while on a holiday pass to go home and see his family. He had been leading soldiers out there in Del Rio on the border, and was actually in the same company, in the same unit, as 1st Sgt. Kenny Crutcher who died in November, Winkie explained.

While Winkie said its tough to speculate, the guardsmen deployed on Operation Lone Star have faced some tough challenges.

For somebody who hasnt had to put down their civilian life on that kind of notice, to go on a mission where you dont know how long youre going to be there. You dont know if youre going to be allowed see your family regularly, thats a really significant stressor, Winkie added.

Additionally, guardsmen in the operation have faced delays in payments and cuts to benefits.

In a statement, the Texas Military Department said it could confirm those four deaths, but did not yet confirm they were suicide, citing ongoing investigations.

We take the loss of any service member seriously and prioritize mitigating risk to loss of life in everything we do. We can confirm the loss of these four service members; however, the cause of death and circumstances surrounding each are currently under investigation, a TMD spokesperson said in part.

TMD told Winkie the same thing, but Winkie reached out to those guardsmen best to learn more.

By speaking with family members by speaking with sources with knowledge of the investigations or sources otherwise and involved with the men who died, and then also through official TMD documents that I obtained, all four members died by gunshot wounds that are believed to be self-inflicted, Winkie said.

The deaths are now renewing questions about the need for all 2,500 soldiers to be deployed at our southern border.

With most of them unable to do anything meaningful to address the immigration challenges that we have, and a real challenge with morale that has led to the suicides of four members of the guard, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Beto ORourke said this week. Theyre being asked to participate in political theater

Immigration experts also call the move political, explaining more troops are not the answer.

Our current border crisis is one that has to ultimately deal with the origins and the reasons that people are fleeing. And that is something that the administration is working on, Doris Meissner with the Migration Policy Institute said.

But, that takes time. Meanwhile, local authorities in border towns are grateful for the extra manpower.

Id rather have the state doing what theyre doing than the federal government doing nothing at all, Val Verde County Sheriff Joe Frank Martinez said last month.

But immigration experts also point to the data posted by border patrol each month, showing the number of migrant apprehensions has remained steady since the start of Operation Lone Star in the spring.

Theres no question that border enforcement is in a different phase at this point. But the way to do it is to try to manage it effectively, work together cooperatively, whats happening in Texas, really is political grandstanding, Meissner said.

The governors office said it will continue working with service leaders to ensure all troops deployed have the support they need.

Texas is beyond grateful for the brave men and women of the National Guard and DPS who are diligently and selflessly securing the border in the federal governments absence, the statement continued.

In addition to what the National Guard already offers for mental healthcare, TMD also said it has a team specifically assigned to Operation Lone Star.

There is a behavioral health team assigned to Operation Lone Star with members in each region our task force supports. The OLS behavioral health team practices proactive, face-to-face outreach through education on self-care, crisis mitigation, and resources available, a spokesperson for TMD said in a statement.

Dr. Donald McGeary, with STRONG STAR PTSD research consortium at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, said we need to make sure our troops know they have options when it comes to mental health.

The two important ingredients for stress is that something changes, and you have a response to it. In this case, the response can be pretty significant when youre called up to duty, you have plans to do other things, Dr. McGeary said.

For the National Guard, they have a network of individuals who are providing free mental health care to anyone who needs it. So if they dont know who that is, they could reach out to their NCO, if they do have a counselor, or a psychologist or mental health resources available, thats even better, Dr. McGeary explained.

He also urges those who have a friend or family member serving to reach out to them often.

Sometimes with suicide risk, it can be very difficult to talk about it, even though you feel the risk coming, you feel the risk increasing, it can be hard to talk about. But try to take a moment to talk to others about it. So when you trust someone who you know, cares about you and someone you care about, give yourself an opportunity to have it addressed, Dr. McGeary said.

Originally posted here:
String of deaths among Texas National Guardsmen deployed at southern border stirs up questions - KXAN.com

While some have called for a U.S. population of one billion and many continue to push for an ever-increasing national population without specifying an upper limit, others are recommending a gradual stabilization of Americas population.

America currently has 333 million citizens: triple the number from a century ago. The U.S. population is currently the worlds third-largest after China at 1.44 billion and India at 1.39 billion.

Although the U.S. population is expected to increase to 400 million around mid-century, Nigeria is projected to overtake it by that time. In addition, Nigeria is expected to remain third throughout the 21st century, with America being in fourth place followed closely by Pakistan.

Basically, there are two ways for America to increase its population size. One is through higher fertility rates that would result in substantially more births than deaths. The second is to increase the current levels of immigration to the U.S.

Regarding the fertility rate, in 2020, America was approximately one-half of a child below the replacement level, or, 1.64 births per woman. Although that fertility rate is a record low for America, it is similar to the levels of most developed countries and many developing countries.

Also, the U.S. fertility rate has been on a downward trend over the past 60 years and today is less than half the rate it was in 1960. Given this trend and the family size preferences of U.S. couples, Americas fertility rate is unlikely to reach the replacement level any time soon, despite calls for more American babies and fear-mongering about an imminent U.S. population collapse.

Consequently, if Americas population is to grow in the future, as many are advocating, it will need to rely on immigration. If immigration were to stop, Americas population is projected to remain basically unchanged by mid-century and nearly 10 percent smaller, or 301 million, by the close of the 21st century.

However, with a net immigration level of about 1.1 million annually per the U.S. Census Bureaus main series projection, Americas population, despite its below-replacement fertility rate, continues to increase and is expected to reach 405 million by 2060.

A higher level of net immigration to America than what is currently being assumed seems likely, especially given todays high levels of illegal migration. In the fiscal year 2021, more unauthorized migrants, nearly 1.7 million, were apprehended than in all previous years. Also, the current catch and release policy is contributing to the more than 11 million unauthorized migrants now living in the country.

For Americas population to reach close to one billion by mid-century, it would require a tenfold increase in the number of immigrants assumed in the Census Bureau projections. This would mean a net immigration flow of more than 10 million migrants each year over the coming decades.

Under that assumption, Americas population would be one billion by 2060. If that immigration continued, the population would be 1.6 billion by the close of the 21st century, making it the worlds largest population at that time. The second and third largest populations in 2100 would be India and China at 1.4 and 1.1 billion, respectively.

It is important to recognize that the continued growth of population, as some are recommending for America, is basically Ponzi demography. It is a demographic pyramid strategy for interminable population growth that benefits some people at the expense of human wellbeing and sustainability.

Many U.S. government officials, economists, business leaders and others are calling for increased population growth via greater immigration for the country. They contend that high rates of population growth are essential for Americas economic growth, the nations dynamism and continued prosperity, as well as for its geopolitical leadership and military power.

They also argue that many people around the world would like to migrate to the U.S. and should therefore have an opportunity to do so. However, the majority of Americans, approximately 62 percent, are not in favor of increased immigration. Most voters wish to maintain or decrease the current levels of U.S. immigration.

In addition, those calling for increased U.S. population growth typically ignore environmental concerns, including climate change, biodiversity loss, deforestation, congestion and pollution. Their analyses focus nearly exclusively on GDP growth, profits, taxes, labor force, politics, cultural leadership and power. In addition, they are either unable or unwilling to specify when Americas rapid population growth will stop.

Fifty years ago, the U.S. Commission on Population Growth and the American Future submitted a report to the U.S. president and Congress. That was the only time the president and Congress ever created a commission to study population growth and its impact on Americas future.

After several years of concentrated efforts, the commission concluded that, in the long run, no substantial benefits will result from further growth of the nations population, rather, the gradual stabilization of our population through voluntary means would contribute significantly to the nations ability to solve its problems.

The commission also said population growth was a major factor affecting domestic demand for resources and the deterioration of the environment. Slower population growth, including less legal immigration and stopping illegal immigration, would reduce pressures on the environment and the depletion of resources as well as gain time to find solutions to the nations problems. The conclusions of the commission continue to remain true.

In brief, slower rates of U.S. population growth, with the goal of gradually moving to population stabilization, will make it far easier and less costly for America to deal with climate change and environmental degradation, as well as other major challenges facing the nation.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, "Births, Deaths, Migrations and Other Important Population Matters."

Go here to read the rest:
For America's future population, how much is too much? | TheHill - The Hill

In a joint statement issued on Dec. 15, Amnesty International and seven other organizations called upon the Biden administration to end all expulsions and deportations of Haitians who enter the United States illegally or seek admission without proper documents. The groups want the United States to provide the Haitians with access to its asylum system.

They claim that the expelled Haitians are being returned to a humanitarian nightmare that includes widespread gang violence, an ongoing political crisis, devastation following a recent earthquake, and a COVID-19 risk in a country where vaccination rates reportedly are around 0.4 percent.

Asylum isnt the solution

The Haitians need help, but the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) does not provide asylum for aliens who are fleeing from the humanitarian nightmare the joint statement describes.

Section 1158(b)(1)(A) of the INA limits asylum eligibility to aliens who are refugees within the meaning ofsection 1101(a)(42)(A) of the INA, which provides that a refugee is a person who is outside of his own country and unwilling to return to it because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

Temporary Protected Status isnt the solution either

Temporary Protected Status (TPS) is for aliens who are already in the United States, have lived here for a specified period of time, and cant return to their own countries because their countries are experiencing an ongoing armed conflict, an environmental disaster, or extraordinary and temporary conditions that prevent them from returning in safety.

The United States recently granted TPS for 18 months to Haitians who have continuously resided in the United States since July 29, 2021, and have been continuously physically present here since August 3, 2021. TPS is not available to Haitians who cannot meet these requirements.

Moreover, TPS is what it says it is: temporary protected status. It is not a path to citizenship or even to permanent resident status. Aliens with TPS are expected to leave the United States when their temporary status expires.

But the joint statement is right that life in Haiti is a humanitarian nightmare; in fact, Vice President Kamala HarrisKamala HarrisHas Biden kept his immigration promises? Harris acknowledges 'frustration' during Charlamagne tha God interview VP dilemma: The establishment or the base? MORE has acknowledged that Haiti has experienced so much tragedy that the United States should help it.

She is right.

Haitian President Jovenel Moises assassination in July resulted in political turmoil, and a 7.2 magnitude earthquake struck the countrys southern peninsula the following month.

Even earlier, on March 24, 2021, the United Nations Security Council reported violations and abuses of international human rights, including some involving the alleged use of deadly force against protesters and reported arbitrary arrests and detentions. It called upon the Inspector General of the Haitian National Police to investigate these incidents.

The following month, the State Department issued a Level 4 Travel Advisory for Haiti. Level 4 is the State Departments highest advisory level. Travelers are advised not to visit Haiti because of kidnapping, crime, and civil unrest. Robberies and kidnappings have become a daily reality, and buses are intercepted by armed gangs controlling access to large swaths of the country.

An April report from Harvard Law School's International Human Rights Clinic and a consortium of Haitian civil society organizations describes complicity of state officials and police in gang attacks that have left hundreds of people dead.

Violent criminal gangs pose a growing challenge to state authority. More than a third of Haiti's voters now live in areas controlled by criminal gangs.

What can the United States do?

Assist Haitian police. Several days ago, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Brian A. Nichols had a meeting with Haitian officials about a request the Haitian government had made for the training of police officers, armaments necessary to face the firepower of the gangs and an intelligence service to accompany the dismantling of the gangs.

The United States will send trainers to Haiti to support the national police, and it will provide the police with armored vehicles, troop carriers, and lethal weapons to fight the gangs.

Military option. Charles T. Call, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, recommends an expanded U.N. operation with a small military component.

After a coup ousted elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide in 2004, gangs exercised considerable territorial control in Port-au-Prince. A U.N. mission launched well-planned operations which captured or killed several gang leaders and enabled weak government forces to reestablish control. The same thing can be done again in Haiti.

The U.N. also can draw on recent hybrid models of national/international missions, such as the U.N.-backedInternational Commission against Impunity in Guatemala, to work side-by-side with vetted Haitian prosecutors. A specialized, vetted prosecutorial unit could try cases in anti-corruption Haitian courts presided over by vetted judges, asoccurred in Guatemala and Honduras.

I just hope that efforts to help Haiti do not turn into a long-term project to address the root causes of illegal immigration from that country. That approach didnt work in Central America when it was tried by the Obama-Biden administration, and it isnt likely to work there now either, much less in Haiti.

The record-setting number of illegal crossings of the border with Mexico is a crisis that needs immediate attention, not long-term solutions that have little, if any chance, of working. And the same is true of the situation in Haiti.

Nolan Rappaportwas detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an executive branch immigration law expert for three years. He subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years. Followhis blogathttps://nolanrappaport.blogspot.com.

Excerpt from:
Asylum isn't the solution for Haitians' plight | TheHill - The Hill

The central and Assam governments agreed to update the NRC during the hearings in the Supreme Court in 2013, following the urging of the bench. On 17 December 2014, in a judgment authored by Justice Rohinton Nariman, the court ordered that the NRC exercise had to be completed within a time-bound manner and issued several directions for this.

On paper, this may not seem like an untoward thing to do. However, it was strange that the court would push so hard for this when it had also decided that the constitutionality of Section 6A was not clear, and it needed to be referred to a larger bench.

Even more controversially, the apex court, like it had in its Sarbananda Sonowal judgment from 2005, failed to identify any actual statistics or data on illegal immigration in Assam, which should have been the starting point for any discussion on a need to identify and deport illegal immigrants.

These discrepancies in the 2014 judgment have inevitably been part of the conversation about Justice Gogoi's involvement in the case, as those in favour of his recusal have argued that the court's approach (in the hearings as well) demonstrated a bias in favour of the narrative about illegal immigration in Assam.

See the rest here:
Ranjan Gogoi's Book Reveals Why He Should Have Recused Himself From NRC Case - The Quint