Mediaboss Marketing

A pro-immigration demonstration on Martin Luther King Day. Two-thirds of Americans say they are concerned about how unaccompanied children and separated families are treated at the border. (NDLA / Creative Commons)

The U.S. lifted its international travel ban earlier this month, which means that many people are likely to be sitting down to Thanksgiving dinner with friends and family from all over the world this holiday.Those delightful moments of re-connecting, played out in dining rooms all over the country will be brought to you in large part by the success of the COVID-19 vaccines.While we are far from seeing the end of this pandemic, we can once more, with care, gather with our loved ones to celebrate the special moments of our lives.

Id like to think that these gatherings will be both boisterous and gentle, free-flowing and forgiving, as we reinvent the ways we talk to each other across a crowded table.And because we are revisiting and rediscovering our old ways, it is a unique opportunity to change the focus and flow of many past conversations.In fact, this holiday could give us a chance to start over with a national conversation on immigration that is unifying, rather than polarizing.

Such a conversation starts with identifying shared values and employing active listening.I have foundthat many heated immigration conversations can be turned around by asking people about their own roots. What is their immigration story? What did their family experience?Do you know where they entered the U.S. or how they found a place to stay?These questions are valuable even if your friends and relatives are descended from enslaved peoples or are immigrants themselves, because all of us can get stuck in portraying new immigrants as somehow other or different from us. Probing our family origin stories creates the opportunity for noting similarities and asking questions, and sometimes providing answers on misinformation.

Many heated immigration conversations can be turned around by asking people about their own roots. What is their immigration story? What did their family experience?Do you know where they entered the U.S. or how they found a place to stay?

This is also an opportunity to bring our values as feminists to the table.The immigration system was designed with single, male immigrants in mind, during a time when men journeyed to the U.S. first and sent for their families after they had become establishedor in some cases, such as the Chinese Exclusion Act, where men were prohibited from even bringing their families to the U.S.The contributions of women as heads of households and in many low-wage, but essential jobs, is often undervalued in the immigration debateand yet finding a path forward to improve the lives of all women in the U.S. must includea conversation about immigration.

Right now, there are several excellent opportunities for finding common ground on immigration matters.The U.S. evacuation of Afghan allies and other vulnerable Afghans that began in August of this year has prompted an amazing outpouring of support for refugees.America cares about those who are oppressed and threatened, and those who have suffered greatly.

Similarly, when asked about the plight of unaccompanied children and separated families, two-thirds of Americans say they are concerned about how these vulnerable groups are treated at the border. If you can reach agreement on these vital pointsthat Americans care about those who are vulnerable and in needyou have the basis for having a meaningful conversation about Americas response to the refugee crisis.And if your partners in conversation are confused by some of the myths often recounted about refugees, this excellent interview with refugee service providers offers thoughtful, value-driven responses as well as concise information on the worldwide refugee situation that can be a big help.

If you can reach agreement on these vital pointsthat Americans care about those who are vulnerable and in needyou have the basis for having a meaningful conversation about Americas response to the refugee crisis.

Similarly,the Build Back Better Act, despite its adoption along party lines, offers terrific tools for reframing the usual immigration debate.Because Build Back Better is not a comprehensive immigration reform billin fact, only about 15 of its 2500-plus pages covers immigrationit provides some context for understanding how improving our immigration system is interconnected with a much broader goal of creating more prosperity and a stronger safety net for all, particularly for women. These immigration provisions focus primarily on legal immigration, providing USCIS with more funds to process backlogs that delay legal immigrants from obtaining permanent status or reuniting with their families, increasing fees and surcharges to pay for other immigration needs, and the recapture of thousands of visas that were never used in past years.

It also allows immigrants who were eligible for or had received visas but were blocked from entering the U.S. because of the Muslim ban or pandemic restrictions to reapply for admission.These provisions are all about restoring fairness, increasing efficiency and cleaning up backlogs.

The capstone provision is more ambitious, creating a temporary work program for millions of undocumented immigrants in the country prior to 2011. The original text, which would have created a path to citizenship for this group, was determined by the Senate parliamentarian to be outside the scope of the budget reconciliation process. Thus, despite widespread support for a path to citizenship, Build Back Better is offering a more temporary solution, but it would eliminate the threat of deportation for millions, reduce the likelihood of employers undercutting wages or abusing workers, and recognize the incredible contributions unauthorized immigrants make to the country every day. In each of these ways, it also creates a more equitable system for everyone.

In essence, Build Back Better offers breathing room for the political process to come up with better solutions in the future. There is far more that must be done, including significant reforms to our immigration enforcement system, but Senate passage of theBuild Back Better Act, with its immigration provisions intact, would give the country a chance to start over.

And that is what we have this Thanksgiving.A chance to start new traditions,an opportunity to restore our values, and a space for new, more thoughtful conversations on the things that matter most.

If you found this articlehelpful,please consider supporting our independent reporting and truth-telling for as little as $5 per month.

Up next:

View original post here:
How to Have a Thanksgiving Conversation on Immigration That's Unifying, Not Polarizing - Ms. Magazine

Editorsnote: In November,The National Interestorganized a symposium on the confluence of demographics, migration, and climate change. We asked a variety of scholars the following question: Canmigrationbe a solution to the various demographic challenges facing many nations, or is it a challenge in its own right? How should states adapt to and/or mitigate the effects of changing demographics and influxes of migrants?" The following article is one of their responses:

In 1950, the median age of what are todays most developed regions was twenty-nine years. Many were experiencing postwar baby booms, including Japan, which captured the cover of Newsweek magazine with worries over mass starvation in the face of equally massive population growth. But such population dynamics were short-lived. By 2020, the median age of those regions was forty-two and, by the middle of the next decade, it will be forty-five. This steadily upward trajectory means that, with every passing year, developed states find themselves in uncharted territory, scrambling to develop a menu of viable policy options to either forestall aging itself or its economic effects. One of the proposed solutions is significantly more open borders. Many argue that aging states must bring in more immigrants or face dire consequences. Yet what such discussions tend to disregard is that sometimes states will choose the consequences.

One reason states and societies may be hesitant to increase immigrationor actively oppose itis that immigration often hastens shifts in ethnic composition. While 76percent of those U.S.-born identify as single-race white, only 45 percent of immigrants in 2019 did. Changes or perceived changes in ethnic composition affect political behavior as we saw with anti-immigrant voters tipping the Brexit vote. With a shrinking total population and the oldest median age in the worldforty-eight yearsthe Japanese have thus far decided that the social consequences of immigration outweigh the economic consequences of population aging. The exception is the immigration of care workers as the strains of old-age care are palpable for Japanese families. Immigrants number about 2percent of Japans population, and there are significant institutional barriers to immigrants settling permanently.

Some states are reticent about the ethnic consequences of immigration but find the economic benefits outweigh the social consequences. South Korea, which in recent years has held the world record for lowest fertility rate, has tried to entice ethnic Koreans living abroad to immigrate, similar to Russia. Korean policymakers have been liberalizing beyond ethnic Korean immigrants as one of several policies designed to counter aging.

Examples such as the immigration of care workers implicatea need to analyze the impact of aging on particular sectors. In the United States, construction workers are aging; 40 percent of these workers are between the ages of forty-five and sixty-four, and 65 percent of heavy equipment operators are over forty years old. Even with some productivity gains from automation, there will soon come a day when older construction workers will have to retire. Who will wield the tools for the ambitious infrastructure plans of the Biden administration? We need a broad view of what immigration can look like, one that includes temporary, legal pathways, but partisanship has frozen U.S. immigration reform for decades.

Another issue with immigration is the age and aging of immigrants themselves. Few children migrate, and fertility rates for immigrants quickly revert to that of the domestic-born population. Immigrants who stay eventually age. In 2019 (our last year for pre-Covid-19data), over three-quarters of immigrants to the United States were of prime working ageseighteen to sixty-four years old. Thats a net positive from a labor standpoint but also means that immigration wont directly counter Americas population aging.

With fewer workers by the year, immigration seems like a natural solution to a shrinking workforce, but it is no panacea. In fact, there is no panaceajust because a country is aging doesnt mean increasing immigration isa solution.

Jennifer D. Sciubba, author of 8 Billion and Counting: How Sex, Death, and Migration Shape Our World (W. W. Norton, 2022), is an associate professor at Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee.

Image: Reuters.

Read the original:
Beyond Immigration: How Countries Contend With Aging Populations - The National Interest

Embrace diversity

On behalf of Journey study group, Central United Methodist Church:

Welcome to the world of diversity where we are all winners. The world is shrinking, and we've all become neighbors. In northern Michigan, you may have noticed signs everywhere needing workers: farmers, hospitals, restaurants, care homes, private businesses. We have jobs and no takers.

Michigan needs immigrants. Per the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

Immigrants helped in the past and are needed now. Many of us are the beneficiaries of immigrant labor and of businesses started by folks who came to begin new lives in our country. In Michigan we will soon have the opportunity to welcome refugees from a country where citizens helped save the lives of our fellow Americans, where they have been educated and held good positions in their home country.

Our votes are our voice. We have given power to our representatives to provide laws that enhance our lives and protect our future. Join us in asking our senators and representatives to pursue meaningful immigration reform now.

As Christians we are called to welcome the stranger.

Lou Ann McKimmy

Rapid City

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

View post:
Letter: McKimmy | Letters To The Editor - Traverse City Record Eagle

Joe Biden has less than a year to cement his legacy as our 46th president. By the time next years midterms are over, his party is likely to lose control of the House and perhaps the Senate. If there ever was a time to go for broke, Joe, that time is now.

If you look at the accomplishments of presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump, they took place during the first two years of their presidencies. Obama got very little done after he rescued the country from the economic abyss caused by the 2008 financial crisis and managed in 2010 to get Obamacare passed. He was held hostage in his last six years in office by a Republican-controlled Congress hellbent on making sure he never achieved another legislative victory.

For Trump, who began his one term in office with his party in control of the House and the Senate, the only significant piece of legislation he signed was the massive tax cuts given mostly to the rich and to a lesser extent the middle classes. He was pretty much a lame duck president once the Democrats took back control of the House in 2018.

Biden needs to heed the lessons of recent history, namely, that DC gridlock closely resembles driving on the 405 freeway in L.A. Its essential for him to get stuff done before next fall when his party may suffer crushing defeats and his role as president diminishes. After their parties lost in the midterms, both Obama and Trump were reduced to issuing executive orders as their only means of exercising presidential power.

I think Biden is in a unique and pivotal position because I doubt very much he will run for reelection. At 79, he appears frail and elderly. Its doubtful he will look more robust three years from now when he turns 82; far better for him to summon his remaining strength and strive to immediately accomplish as much as he can. Not having to worry about re-election should give him the courage to act boldly and decisively. Time is not on his side in many ways.

What should be his priorities? First, get signed into law the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, and then fix a broken immigration system so that a clear pathway to citizenship can be given to the estimated 10.5 to 12 million undocumented immigrants now living in the country. The voting rights act is needed to preserve the integrity of our democracy and prevent Republicans at the state level from disenfranchising millions of minority voters. Passing immigration reform would improve the lives of the many immigrants living in limbo here for years who contribute to the economy by paying taxes and yet are forced to live in the shadows for fear of deportation.

Getting both priorities through Congress will be a daunting challenge. The Democrats really dont have a mandate based on last years election results to pursue their lofty progressive agenda. Biden was elected as a Bill Clinton centrist but wants to govern like an FDR New Deal president.

Roosevelt had sizable majorities in both chambers when he took office in 1932. He pushed 15 major bills through Congress in his administrations first 100 days. Biden has a razor-thin majority in the House and more like minority status in the Senate because Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema vote like moderate Republicans. The jury is still out on whether Biden can convince both of them to waive their opposition to eliminating the filibuster. If he cant, the Democrats will be stymied in their hope of getting any more significant legislation passed.

In spite of the criticism Biden has received for the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan and the fact that inflation is spiraling out of control under his watch, his first year in office has produced bipartisan legislation of historic importance. Getting a bitterly divided Congress to approve a $1.9 trillion COVID Relief Bill and a $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act is the political equivalent of Moses parting the Red Sea.

While the money spent on economic assistance during the pandemic will be short lived and soon forgotten, the same cannot be said for the safer bridges, smoother roads, improved train travel and expanded access to broadband that urban and rural America will enjoy for generations.

Not since FDR established a federal program, the Tennessee Valley Authority, which brought electricity to rural parts of seven states in the South that were reliant upon kerosene lamps, will so many Americans directly benefit on a daily basis from government investments in improving the quality of their lives.

Even if sleepy, slow-moving, slow-talking, old Joe Biden doesnt succeed in getting his fractious party to sign on to reconciliation bills which dont require any Republican support, his two-year presidency will be remembered for what he did and not what he didnt do.

Yes, the Republicans will probably make his last two years in office miserable if they take back Congress in 2022, but they wont be able to repeal his signature legislation. Biden still has the power of the veto at his disposal which should be enough to kill any bills brought to his desk that attempt to repudiate what should serve as the crowning achievements of his presidency.

Biden can then ride off into the sunset at 82 knowing he not only was able to get Republicans to sign off on $3.1 trillion in federal spending but restored a respect for the rule of law in a country which only two weeks before he took office barely survived an insurrection incited by his predecessor.

Jay Wissot is a resident of Denver and Vail. Email him at jayhwissot@mac.com.

More:
Wissot: The two-year presidency | VailDaily.com - Vail Daily News

The House may soon vote on Democrats $1.75 trillion budget reconciliation bill, with provisions to shield undocumented immigrants living in the US from deportation and relieve long visa backlogs.

But like many of the immigration proposals from the last few decades, these new, critical immigration fixes appear unlikely to actually become law. So why is this latest round of immigration reform proposals probably doomed? Two reasons: because of the structure of the Senate and because, on immigration, identity issues have replaced policy.

The American public has never been more supportive of immigration, with a third saying that it should be increased. In 1986, the last time Congress passed a major immigration reform bill, only 7 percent of Americans supported increasing immigration levels. And narrower reforms, such as expanded protections for undocumented people already in the US, have been found to have majority support.

But despite that growth in public support, the House and Senate havent been able to reach bipartisan agreement on immigration in decades. Though comprehensive immigration reform bills passed one chamber in 2007 and 2013, they ultimately failed in the other. And while the House has passed bipartisan legislation addressing narrower immigration issues over the last couple of years, those bills have yet to gain traction in the Senate.

This has led to a Democratic insistence on trying to use the budget reconciliation process to address immigration, which would bypass the need for Republican support. So far, those efforts have failed. But Democrats havent given up on it yet.

As part of their social and climate spending package, known as the Build Back Better Act (BBB), Democrats initially sought to create a path to citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants living in the US. That plan was rejected by the Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, who is tasked with determining what can and cannot be passed via budget reconciliation.

Reconciliation allows bills to pass the Senate with a simple majority which Democrats have by one vote but for a provision to be included in a reconciliation package, it must have a more than incidental impact on the budget. A pathway to citizenship, MacDonough said, would be a tremendous and enduring policy change that dwarfs its budgetary impact. Democrats then proposed giving people who entered the US illegally prior to 2010 a pathway to green cards. MacDonough also nixed this plan.

This has led to Democrats plan C. Under the latest draft of the bill, undocumented immigrants would be given temporary protection from deportation through what is called parole for a period of five years. Those who arrived in the US prior to 2011 numbering an estimated 7 million could apply for five-year, renewable employment authorization.

The bill would also recover millions of green cards that went unused in the years since 1992. Under current law, any allotted green cards not issued by the end of the year become unavailable for the following year. In 2021, the US failed to issue some 80,000 green cards due to processing delays, and those cards have now gone to waste.

The bill also allows some people who have been waiting to be issued a green card for at least two years to pay additional fees to bypass certain annual and per-country limitations and become permanent residents years, if not decades, sooner than they would have otherwise. And the bill preserves green cards for Diversity Visa winners from countries with low levels of immigration to the US who were prevented from entering the country on account of Trump-era travel bans and the pandemic.

Those provisions, though short of desperately needed structural reform to the immigration system, would provide long-awaited assurance for many undocumented immigrants who have put down roots in the US and more opportunities for legal immigration at a time when the country could use more foreign workers. The provisions are also broadly popular: A recent poll from Data for Progress found that 75 percent of voters, including a majority of Republicans, back them.

Nevertheless, they may be on the chopping block.

In the House, Reps. Jesus Chuy Garcia, Adriano Espaillat, and Lou Correa have pushed for immigration reforms to be included in the reconciliation package. But even if they are ultimately successful, the provisions face two significant obstacles in the Senate: key moderates and the parliamentarian.

Moderate Sen. Kyrsten Sinema announced last week that she supported the current provisions, but there is no word yet from Sen. Joe Manchin, who has expressed skepticism about addressing immigration in the bill. As Senate Democrats need every vote in their caucus, should Manchin refuse to back the provisions, theyd be effectively dead.

MacDonough has also yet to weigh in on the latest plan. But given that she twice rejected Democrats previous immigration proposals, she may do so again. Explaining why she rejected Democrats path to citizenship proposal in September, MacDonough wrote that the impact of the legislation far outweighed its budgetary consequences, making it inappropriate to include in a reconciliation bill.

It is by any standard a broad, new immigration policy, she said. The reasons that people risk their lives to come to this country to escape religious and political persecution, famine, war, unspeakable violence, and lack of opportunity in their home countries cannot be measured in federal dollars.

She also asserted that, if she were to allow Democrats to pass the measure through reconciliation, that might be used as a precedent to justify revoking any immigrants legal status in future reconciliation bills.

Proponents of including immigration in reconciliation have asserted that MacDonough might take a different tack when it comes to plan C, in part because it doesnt create any new, permanent legal protections that werent previously authorized by Congress. But her September opinion suggests that she opposes any use of reconciliation that has far-reaching consequences for immigrants.

No one can be categorically sure about what shes going to do. But theres enough in her opinion to suggest that she will think this was too big a reach in reconciliation, said Muzaffar Chishti, a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank.

Despite calls to overrule or even fire the parliamentarian, Democrats have made it clear they plan to abide by her ruling. As Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez said in a September press call, The parliamentarian is the final word of what is and not permitted under the rules.

These barriers mean immigration reform seems to be proving elusive once again. Experts say thats because immigration has shifted from a matter of policy to a matter of identity, and that as this shift was happening, the way Congress functions changed drastically.

Chishti said that the immigration debate previously used to be principally focused on ideas: Is immigration good for the country or not? What kind of immigration is good for the country high-skilled, low-skilled? Do we need more finance people or more nurses?

And there used to be immigration proponents and skeptics in both parties. For instance, labor unions used to advocate for restrictionist immigration policies, though that shifted in the 2000s. Business-minded Republicans recognized the economic benefits of immigration. Now, the debate is more tied up in identity. It has also grown in electoral importance, with voters ranking it the third most important issue facing the country after the coronavirus and the economy in a Harvard CAPS-Harris poll earlier this year.

Immigration is all about culture and race. It is about peoples perception of how immigration is changing our country, Chishti said. Its much more emotional.

What has also changed is Congresss reliance on the filibuster. During the era in which the 1986 bill was passed, you could count on one hand the number of times the filibuster was invoked, Chishti said. Now, if a majority in the Senate doesnt support legislation, it doesnt even get considered.

That makes it hard, but perhaps not impossible, to build consensus around immigration.

Should their efforts to include immigration in the reconciliation bill fail, Democrats might not have another chance to pursue their policy priorities until after next years midterms and thats assuming they maintain control of both chambers of Congress, a scenario thats very much in doubt. A Republican Congress may not be interested in immigration reform at all, especially if they intend to use immigration as an electoral weapon against the Biden administration and the Democratic party.

Regardless of who controls Congress in 2023, there might be room for compromise on narrower reforms to the legal immigration system that relate to the economy, according to Theresa Cardinal Brown, managing director of immigration and cross-border policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center.

A Bipartisan Policy Center-Morning Consult poll conducted in May found that, across the political spectrum, people were more likely to be willing to compromise on the issues of providing visas for immigrants supporting the US economy where companies cannot find US workers and providing visas for immigrants investing in research and innovation for future growth of the US economy.

While those issues dont represent the top priorities of either party on immigration, addressing them might have important corollary impacts. Creating new legal pathways for foreign workers might mitigate unauthorized immigration at the southern border and also open opportunities for undocumented immigrants already living in the US to get legal status.

If we legalize everybody in the country tomorrow, we still have the same system in place that made them become undocumented, Cardinal Brown said. What do we do with the next person? Unless we fix our legal immigration system, well continue to be in that position.

View post:
Immigration fixes may not survive in Democrats budget reconciliation bill - Vox.com