Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON U.S. Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND), penned an op-ed in the Forum emphasizing the need for merit-based immigration reform to better support rural states like North Dakota in hiring highly-skilled, foreign-trained doctors to help fill open positions in hospitals and clinics across the country after introducing the bipartisan Healthcare Workforce Resilience Act. This legislation makes a limited number of green cards available to qualified immigrant doctors and nurses to address critical healthcare workforce shortages, allotting up to 25,000 immigrant visas for nurses and up to 15,000 immigrant visas for physicians.

Additionally, this legislation requires employers to attest immigrants from overseas who receive these visas will not displace an American worker. Eligible immigrant medical professionals will need to meet licensing requirements, pay filing fees, and clear rigorous national security and criminal history background checks before they can receive recaptured green cards.

Most of the conversation around immigration to the United States gets caught up in the lawlessness of the southern border, and rightfully so.The Biden administration has turned a blind eye to the law of the land, making legal, commonsense immigration reforms all the more difficult. But real needs exist, and bipartisan solutions are available if Washington would follow the law and focus on policies designed to welcome the workforce our communities need, wrote Senator Cramer.

In North Dakota, we rely on thousands of highly-skilled immigrants, especially for our rural health care. About a quarter of the physicians in our state are foreign-trained doctors who disproportionately serve in rural areas. We still have fewer physicians per 10,000 residents than most of the country, and we have more than 15 counties without a single primary care physician. This creates a challenging environment for a patients consistent and timely access to care. However, it also provides an opportunity to connect foreign trained healthcare professionals with communities in need, through a merit-based immigration approach, continued Senator Cramer.

It is no secret our immigration system is broken, but we should advance efforts to fix the system where bipartisan support exists. With its rapid economic growth and rural landscape, North Dakota relies heavily on legal immigrants to meet the high demand for healthcare providers in our communities. They are often the reason many of us have access to the high-quality medical care we expect. It is time to do the right thing by making it easier for highly skilled immigrants to live, raise their families, and work in our country, allowing them to contribute in meaningful ways to states like North Dakota, concluded Senator Cramer.

Most of the conversation around immigration to the United States gets caught up in the lawlessness of the southern border, and rightfully so.The Biden administration has turned a blind eye to the law of the land, making legal, commonsense immigration reforms all the more difficult. But real needs exist, and bipartisan solutions are available if Washington would follow the law and focus on policies designed to welcome the workforce our communities need.

One of the most obvious signs of the value of high-skilled immigration is likely at your local medical providers office. I often talk about how globally connected North Dakotans are as a result of our energy and agricultural exports. In the same way, our technically-trained doctors and nurses in clinics across the state are also part of our global connection.

In North Dakota, we rely on thousands of highly-skilled immigrants, especially for our rural health care. About a quarter of the physicians in our state are foreign-trained doctors who disproportionately serve in rural areas. We still have fewer physicians per 10,000 residents than most of the country, and we have more than 15 counties without a single primary care physician. This creates a challenging environment for a patients consistent and timely access to care. However, it also provides an opportunity to connect foreign trained healthcare professionals with communities in need, through a merit-based immigration approach.

According to the American Hospital Association, 610,388 nurses reported their intent to leave the nursing field by 2027, and the Association of American Medical Colleges estimates the U.S. could see a shortage of up to 124,000 physicians by 2034. North Dakota and the United States as a whole simply do not have enough doctors, nurses, and medical professionals to fill the positions needed to adequately care for our population. This hits especially hard in lower population, rural states like our own which are forced to compete with larger states and health systems for a constrained supply of these critical professionals.

Last week, I joined Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., in reintroducing our bipartisan Healthcare Workforce Resilience Act. Our bill is the first step to solve healthcare workforce issues and reform our broken immigration system. Instead of allowing unused visas to go to waste, the Healthcare Workforce Resilience Act recaptures visas Congress has already authorized.

The Healthcare Workforce Resilience Act would allow up to 25,000 doctors and 15,000 nurses to come to the United States to help fill open positions in hospitals and clinics across the country. Our bill also includes a provision to ensure the United States only grants visas to foreign practitioners if we cannot fill the position with an American doctor or nurse. The Healthcare Workforce Resilience Acthas broad bipartisan support in Congress, because it recognizes quality health care simply is not possible without a strong workforce.

Allowing up to 40,000 visas for medical professionals is a win-win, proving we can find solutions to keep healthy staffing at medical facilities, while also making meaningful and productive reforms to our broken immigration system.

Similarly, I reintroduced the Equal Access to Green Cards for Legal Employment Act with Sen. John Hickenlooper, D-Colo.,to make it easier for employers to hire the right person for the job, whether they were born in New Salem or New Delhi. Existing law places arbitrary per-country caps on employment-based immigrant visas, leaving visas for high-skilled immigrants unused and creating massive backlogs. The EAGLE Act would gradually remove these caps and also raise the per-country limit on family-sponsored visas. While our economy and workforce demands have changed, the employment-based immigration system has remained the same since 1990.

Our current immigration system ties temporary visa holders to their job, leaving them in limbo and unable to change jobs while they wait for permanent residency status. It is time we allow American employers to focus on hiring immigrants based on their merits, not their birthplace. Both these bills do not authorize any new immigration. They simply use the visas already in statute for the highly-trained workforce our country needs.

It is no secret our immigration system is broken, but we should advance efforts to fix the system where bipartisan support exists. With its rapid economic growth and rural landscape, North Dakota relies heavily on legal immigrants to meet the high demand for healthcare providers in our communities. They are often the reason many of us have access to the high-quality medical care we expect.

It is time to do the right thing by making it easier for highly skilled immigrants to live, raise their families, and work in our country, allowing them to contribute in meaningful ways to states like North Dakota.

Read the original:
ICYMI: Sen. Cramer Op-Ed: Immigration Reform Promotes a Healthy ... - Kevin Cramer

In the October Ag Economists Monthly Monitor, a survey of nearly 70 ag economists from across the U.S., economists were asked if they expected to see any movement on immigration reform in 2024. Nearly 83% of respondents said no. Just over 8% said yes, with the remaining economists, or just over 8%, unsure about the outcome in 2024. (Lori Hayes)

The debate over immigration and border policies continues to be a point of contention in Washington. With a renewed push by the GOP to address illegal border crossings, and the White House emphasizing the need to allocate more than $13 billion to manage the increase of migrants into the U.S., the topic as at the forefront of policy discussion once again. However, ag economists are still skeptical immigration reform will finally see movement in Washington.

In the October Ag Economists Monthly Monitor, a survey of nearly 70 ag economists from across the U.S., economists were asked if they expected to see any movement on immigration reform in 2024. Nearly 83% of respondents said no. Just over 8% said yes, with the remaining economists, or just over 8%, unsure about the outcome in 2024.

Of the overwhelming number of economists who said they dont think Congress will move on immigration reform in 2024, the reasons included:

The biggest hurdle, according to respondents, is the fact its an election year, as well as how controversial the issue is. One economist even called it politically unpopular.

Congress has a vested interest in keeping this issue unresolved in the current partisan environment, responded an economist in the latest survey.

Another economist said, Getting anything started and passed in an election year will be tough, let alone something as confrontational as immigration.

A different economist in the October survey said immigration reform wont happen because, Too many other issues to happen first. Congress and the administration are too far apart to find an acceptable resolution. Legislators dont have the fortitude to address it.

However, one economist who thinks Congress may address immigration reform in 2024 said their response is due to the fact that Right to Shelter will be rescinded in certain major cities that have reached the breaking point.

Its evident immigration reform is a major issue for agriculture. One economist said, Immigration reform is a huge issue for the U.S. economy and MUST be addressed. However, it is so politically sensitive that very few Senators or Congressmen are willing to push the issue.

The survey also asked economists if they thought U.S. agriculture will be able to utilize the influx of immigrants at the southern border to fill the void in ag labor. While the feedback was mixed, most were not confident due to mismatched skills and what they called noise in the system. Other economists indicated that some of that labor could possibly be used, particularly for specialty crops like fruits and vegetables.

The immigration problem at the Mexican border is a humanitarian problem, as well as an immigration issue, said one economist. Many of the new immigrants entering at the Mexican border are being moved to the East or West Coast. It will be hard for ag to access this potential workforce.

As the issue continues to draw criticism and debate, economists were asked: whats the one thing that would need to happen in order for Congress to take action on immigration reform in the next couple of years? While sentiments were largely pessimistic on any action, some economists think increased pressure from labor markets could prompt Congress to take action.

One economist said cooler minds is what it would take for Congress to find compromise.

A perceived crisis where both parties can agree on a solution. In other words, a very unlikely situation, said another economist.

Another economist said, Elect smart people. While one economist in the anonymous survey said, One part would need to gain total control.

Another economist thinks the only way to find a solution is to, Separate ag labor from broader immigration discussion.

A Bipartisan Issue?

According to Farm Journal Washington correspondent Jim Wiesemeyer, Republicans are currently pushing for changes in immigration policiesaimed at deterring illegal border crossings. He says they want to address border security issues and make it more difficult for migrants to enter the U.S. without proper documentation.

At the same time, Wiesemeyer reports Democrats, including President Joe Biden, emphasize the need to allocate $13.6 billion to manage the increasing number of migrant arrivals. They argue that this funding is essential to address the current challenges at the border.

The debate over immigration is causing tensions in Congress, particularly as it relates to funding for Ukraine and other foreign aid initiatives. There is a risk that disagreements over immigration policies could lead to delays or the derailment of government spending and aid packages, reports Wiesemeyer.

He also points out that Democrats are facing pressure to compromiseon immigration, with House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) pledging to link a substantial border package to aid for Ukraine. He says Senate Republicans are also seeking to incorporate policy changes in an emergency funding discussion with some Republicans advocating for bipartisan effortsto address border security.

They are proposing changes to asylum policies, including raising the bar for credible fear claims and reinstating the Remain in Mexico policy for asylum-seekers, says Wiesemeyer.

He also reports key Democrats are opposed to Republican demands on immigration policy changes, as they doubt the possibility of reaching a workable middle ground during time-sensitive funding negotiations. But some Democratic lawmakers, such as Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), express a willingness to address border security issuesbut reject draconian policy ideas that could harm migrants. They seek more humane solutions.

Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Gary Peters (D-Mich.) urged colleagues to focus on measures that already have bipartisan support, such as increasing the number of border patrol agents and Customs and Border Protection officers, which align with President Bidens request. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) indicated a willingness to consider any bipartisan border proposal put forward by the Senate.

Read the original here:
Will Border Security Issues Force Congress To Take Action On ... - AgFax

The French Senate has amended proposed reforms to the countrys immigration system, making the language of the document tougher in areas of birthright citizenship, family reunification, and welfare benefits.

The largely conservative French Senate adopted the new immigration bill on its first reading by a vote of 210 to 115, following around a week of debate and amendments to the bill, Le Figaro reports.

Among the amendments described by Les Rpublicains Senator Franois-Nol Buffet as beefing up the text of the bill were abolishing state medical aid, introducing quotas for migrants, more powers to facilitate the expulsion of illegal immigrants, and restrictions on the ability of migrants to bring their family members to France.

Regular immigration is chosen; our choice is that of qualitative economic immigration and quality integration. And on illegal immigration, there is zero tolerance. We need to be clear, he said.

Senator Olivier Bitz, who is part of the faction allied with President Emmanuel Macron, stated that, while the Macronist faction voted for the new measures, they were still critical of some aspects, such as abolishing state medical aid for migrants, saying, This is a serious mistake in terms of public health.

In 2021, it was revealed that the French government budgeted a massive 1 billion euros for medical and healthcare costs for illegal migrants, which did not cover emergency care, as hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants benefit from state medical aid.

The programme has been criticised for years by conservative politicians, with some arguing that the state medical aid should only cover emergency care rather than 100% of migrants medical expenses.

French left-wing senators were highly critical of the immigration bill, with Communist Ian Brossat calling it tough cruel its an absolute disgrace.

Interior Minister Grald Darmanin, who is the main figure behind the immigration reform, stated that he was happy with the Senates amendments to the bill, saying, Not many people would have bet that this text, although amended, would be adopted, including with a regularisation measure. I welcome that.

Darmanin has called for immigration reform for over a year, largely focusing on the issue of deporting illegal immigrants who already have orders to leave France.

In November of last year, Darmanin proposed to cut off social benefits to those with an Obligation to Leave French Territory (OQTF), saying, The prefect will make it impossible for them to live, for example, by ensuring that they no longer receive social benefits or social housing. We are shifting gears.

The shift in policy came as many noted how few OQTFs are actually carried out, with just 18,000 forced departures in 2021 despite there being 122,000 OQTFs issued that year.

Darmanin also proposed to put all those with an OQTF on the criminal wanted person lists and to simplify the procedures for those who wish to make appeals.

Earlier this year, Darmanin stated that he wanted to see dangerous illegal immigrants deported far more swiftly, saying that France would deport them even before they would have an opportunity to file an appeal with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

But should we keep [them] with us when they can also cause death in our country? Darmanin said, referring to dangerous illegal migrants, and added, What is the role of the interior minister? To protect the population.

Following the Senate vote, the immigration bill will pass to the French National Assembly, where it may be further amended and debated as President Macrons bloc does not have a majority in the chamber.

The second-largest party in the National Assembly, the populist Rassemblement National (RN), led in the chamber by MP Marine Le Pen, is likely to support the tougher measures voted on by the French Senate, but allies of Macron, along with the Left, may oppose some of the measures.

Le Pen has previously called for a number of national referendums on immigration, which would have included votes on birthright citizenship, restrictions on family reunification, and outsourcing asylum claims overseas.

Read more from the original source:
French Senate Toughens Immigration Bill The European Conservative - The European Conservative

The University of California needs more time to study whether it can move forward with allowing the hiring of undocumented students for campus jobs, system President Michael Drake said during Thursdays meeting of the board of regents. Drakes comments were disappointing to undocumented students who hoped UC would decide this month to begin permitting the hiring.

In May, UC created a working group to consider a proposal to allow the hiring of those students and gave the committee a Nov. 30 deadline to complete a report on the issue and direct Drake on how to move forward. UC took that step after a coalition of undocumented students and their supporters, the Opportunity for All Campaign, lobbied UC to allow the hiring of undocumented students, arguing that it is legal for UC to do so.

Its possible UC could still allow the hiring of those students, but that decision wont be made by the original Nov. 30 deadline, with Drake on Thursday citing numerous legal considerations.

We will continue in the coming days and weeks to work on these issues. Our conversations to date have shown how complex and delicate this issue is, and how critical it is for the University of California to get this right. The legal considerations are numerous, and after several discussions with the stakeholders involved, weve concluded that it is in everyones best interest to study the matter further, Drake said.

We want to make sure that we are considering all possible alternatives and all possible ramifications, he added. Most importantly, we want to make sure that our undocumented students are protected in any scenario we decide to pursue.

Drakes comments werent surprising but were disappointing to undocumented students, said Jeffry Umaa Muoz, an undergraduate student at UCLA undergraduate student and one of the Opportunity for All Organizers, in a statement. The UC has the legal right and the moral obligation to fully implement Opportunity for All today, he added. Anything other than full, swift implementation is a delay tactic, and we will not accept it. We hope the Regents will work with us to reach a plan that works for us all. In the meantime, we will not stop advocating and organizing until we get our first check.

A federal statute, the Immigration Reform and Control Act, bans the hiring of undocumented immigrants without legal status. But undocumented students at UC and their supporters have cited a legal theory, developed byUCLAs Center for Immigration Law and Policy, that says the federal statute doesnt apply to UC and other state entities.

Earlier Thursday, several undocumented students and their allies spoke during the meetings public comment period and urged UC to permit the hiring of undocumented students. At the end of the public comment period, the students and their supporters shut down the meeting after crossing into a roped off area reserved for regents and chanting in support of their cause.

Read this article:
UPDATE: UC needs more time to study potential hiring of ... - EdSource

If you want to know how little the Biden administration cares about struggling American workers, please read the paragraph below, which was published in the Federal Register on March 29, 2022. That paragraph is buried 127-pages deep in a document that the federal government estimates contains 155,000 words, and that it admits would take the average reader about 10.3 hours to digest.

The 1996 Amendments and Expedited Removal. Before I get to the paragraph in question, some background is necessary.

The document in question is formally captioned Procedures for Credible Fear Screening and Consideration of Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and CAT Protection Claims by Asylum Officers, but it is informally known as the Asylum Officer Rule.

The Asylum Officer Rule overturns more than 25 years of practice and procedure by allowing U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) asylum officers (AOs) to adjudicate the asylum claims of both illegal migrants apprehended by Border Patrol agents and inadmissible aliens encountered by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers at the ports of entry who lack proper documents to be admitted to the United States.

In the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), Congress amended section 235(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to create what is known as expedited removal. The express purpose of that amendment was to speed the deportation of those aliens and to curb abuse of our generous asylum system by aliens who were simply coming to work.

Congresss expedited removal scheme in section 235(b)(1) of the INA allows CBP to quickly deport illegal aliens encountered at the borders and the ports without obtaining a removal order from an immigration judge (IJ) following removal proceedings conducted under section 240 of the INA, which is the rule for most other removable aliens.

Expedited removal, however, comes with a catch. That catch requires CBP officers and Border Patrol agents to refer aliens subject to expedited removal who express a fear of harm if returned or who ask for asylum to AOs at USCIS, for what is known as a credible fear interview.

The credible fear standard is low, defined by statute as a significant possibility, taking into account the credibility of the statements made by the alien in support of the alien's claim and such other facts as are known to the officer, that the alien could establish eligibility for asylum under section 208 of the INA.

At the end of that informal interview, the AO issues a determination on the aliens credible fear claim. Prior to the issuance of the Asylum Officer Rule, if the AO issued a positive credible fear determination, the alien would be referred to an IJ to apply for asylum in a section 240 removal proceeding, and if the AO made a negative credible fear determination, the alien could either ask for an IJ to review that decision or be removed.

Because the credible fear standard is so low, AOs made credible fear determinations in 81 percent of cases they considered between FY 2008 and FY 2019, and IJs found credible fear with respect to 2 percent more of those aliens 83 percent in total, according to DOJ statistics.

Removal hearings under section 240 of the INA are adversarial proceedings, during which an ICE attorney appears on behalf of the United States to cross-examine the alien and to offer country-conditions and impeachment evidence. ICE attorneys who disagree with an IJ asylum grant can appeal that decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).

Congress in IIRIRA also amended section 240 of the INA to require IJs to order aliens who failed to appear at removal hearings removed in absentia.

Consequently, fewer than 17 percent of the aliens subject to expedited removal during that time period who received positive credible fear determinations from AOs and IJs were granted asylum. By contrast, more than 32.5 percent of those aliens were ordered removed in absentia when they failed to appear in court.

An Applicant for Asylum Is Not Entitled to Employment Authorization. As I noted at the outset, Congress was expressly concerned in IIRIRA that aliens were abusing the asylum system simply to work in the United States.

That was part of a general concern that Congress had about the effects of large-scale immigration to the United States on the wages and working conditions of American workers both U.S. citizens and lawfully admitted immigrants. As it explained in a conference report for the bill that would later become IIRIRA:

Large increases in immigration create problems as well as opportunities for the American society and economy. The Commission on Immigration Reform noted that immigrants often are a bright spot in today's all too often bleak urban environment, and that in areas where they concentrate, immigrants frequently establish new businesses and other employment-generating activities that promote the renewal of city neighborhoods and commercial districts. On the other hand, immigration has costs as well, many related to the fact that such a preponderance of immigrants (close to 9 million since 1980) are admitted without reference to their level of education or skills. The current cohort of immigrants is far more likely to have less than a high-school education than native-born Americans. This can have the effect of flooding the labor market for unskilled work, as well as creating pockets of impoverished immigrants who will be less likely to assimilate into the broader American society. [Emphasis added; footnotes omitted.]

To address such concerns, Congress in IIRIRA also amended the asylum statute at section 208 of the INA to add the following restriction on work authorization for aliens seeking such protection:

An applicant for asylum is not entitled to employment authorization, but such authorization may be provided under regulation by the Attorney General. An applicant who is not otherwise eligible for employment authorization shall not be granted such authorization prior to 180 days after the date of filing of the application for asylum.

That provision is known as the 180-day rule.

The Asylum Officer Rule. Which brings me to the Asylum Officer Rule, which the administration published in September 2022. As noted, prior to its publication, only IJs could grant asylum, and then only at the end of a removal hearing.

The Asylum Officer Rule, however, allows the AO who made the positive credible fear determination to then grant the alien asylum, following a nonadversarial interview (the Asylum Merits Interview, or AMI) at which the alien is permitted to have an attorney but at which no ICE attorney will be present. There is also no appeal and no guarantee of review of an AO asylum grant.

To speed the process under which the alien receives work authorization under the 180-day rule, the Asylum Officer Rule eliminates the current requirement that aliens seeking asylum file a formal Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal (Form 1-589).

Instead, the AOs written record of the positive credible fear determination shall be considered a complete asylum application for purposes of ... requests for employment authorization. In other words, the rule is deliberately written to undermine Congress work restrictions on asylum applicants in the 180-day rule.

And, to speed the process under which AOs grant asylum, the Asylum Officer Rule mandates that AOs must conduct the AMI within 45 days of service of the positive credible fear determination. Currently, it takes IJs on average about four years to adjudicate asylum applications in non-detained removal proceedings.

An asylum grant comes with an automatic grant of employment authorization, and that tight AMI deadline in combination with the directive in the Asylum Officer Rule that service of the AO credible fear determination will start the clock on the 180-day employment period will flood the labor market with illegal migrants, most of whom will have only entry-level work skills.

Finally, unlike the IIRIRA amendment to section 240 of the INA that requires IJs to order aliens who fail to appear deported in absentia, the only penalty that an alien who fails to appear for the AMI will face is the possibility not even the probability that the alien will be placed into removal proceedings before an IJ.

Remember the 180-day clock for employment authorization starts as soon as those aliens receive the written credible fear determination from the AO, so if they have weak or fraudulent claims (as most do), its in their best interest not to show up, because it will just give them more time to live and work here.

The One Paragraph. The Asylum Officer Rule notes that these changes could have a significant impact on the wages of low-skilled workers in the United States, but you have to dig 127 pages into that document to find that admission, in the one paragraph I referenced at the outset:

The impact on labor earnings developed above has the potential to include both distributional effects (which are transfers) and indirect benefits to employers. The distributional impacts would be felt by asylum applicants who enter the U.S. labor force earlier than under current regulations in the form of increased compensation (wages and benefits). A portion of this compensation gain might be transferred to asylum applicants from others who are currently in the U.S. labor force or eligible to work lawfully. Alternatively, employers that need workers in the U.S. labor market may benefit from those asylum applicants who receive their employment authorizations earlier as a result of the [rule], gaining productivity and potential profits that the asylum applicants' earlier starts would provide. Companies may also benefit by not incurring opportunity costs associated with the next-best alternative to the immediate labor the asylum applicant would provide, such as having to pay existing workers to work overtime hours. To the extent that overtime pay could be reduced, some portion of this pay could be transferred from the workers to the companies. [Emphasis added.]

In other words, the same illegal migrants whom Congress was concerned about the ones who are coming here to exploit the U.S. asylum system by working will plainly be placed on a fast-track to employment under the Asylum Officer Rule, and that will reduce the wages of the next-best alternative to the immediate labor the asylum applicant would provide, i.e., struggling American workers.

But, hey, look on the bright side big businesses will benefit, because they wont have to deal with that pesky next-best alternative American labor, and theyre going to save some serious overtime money, to boot.

Here are the real-world consequences of all that bureaucratese:The minimum wage in my current home state of North Carolina is $7.25 per hour, or $14,500 per annum, eight hours per day with 50 work weeks per year. Thats just a little more than I earned in my first clerical job out of college in 1988, when I was paid a salary of $13,500 per annum.

Adjusted for inflation, my 1988 salary works out to $34,721 in today, and I can assure you that I struggled to get by on that, in a roach-infested apartment with a roommate and a lot of cheese sandwiches. That $14,500 annual hourly minimum wage in 2023 would work out to just $5,249 in 1988 dollars, meaning the local blood bank would have seen a lot of me (and my left arm).

If that 2023 minimum-wage worker could work just 20 extra hours per week for a 50-week year at time-and-a-half ($14.50 per hour), it would add an additional $14,500 per annum to his or her bank account, meaning the worker would bring home $29,000 per annum. For many, thats the difference between struggling and homeless.

The Center made these points and others in its response to this plan when it was proposed, so the Biden administration knows its Asylum Officer Rule which places illegal migrants on a fast-track to work authorization will make the plight of already struggling American workers all the worse. As this one paragraph demonstrates, however it simply doesnt care.

Read more:
Biden Admin. Admits Its 'Asylum Officer Rule' Will Further Impoverish ... - Immigration Blog