Mediaboss Marketing

It seems that the anticipated humanitarian crisis of thousands of migrants streaming across the border, which many predicted with the end of the Title 42 program, has been avoided.

Still, something like 12 million undocumented people currently live in the United States, and we are probably just one migrant caravan away from having scores of families forced to live in squalor in border cities and perhaps being subject to violence at the hands of border agents.

Making matters worse, no recently proposed legislation concerning immigration has much chance of becoming law.

It's the design of the Farm Bill that we should focus on. Its form, not its content.

For instance, the 2021 US Citizenship Act, which Biden championed early in his term and that would have created a pathway to citizenship for undocumented people, ran aground quickly last term due to GOP opposition. Now, Republicans have their own version of revamping our immigration system with the Secure the Border Act. This bill, which calls for hiring more border agents, as well as championing some Trump-era initiatives like building a physical border wall, has no path out of the Democrat-controlled Senate.

So, is there any hope of getting beyond our seemingly never-ending policy quagmire that is immigration reform?

The Farm Bill is where our leaders should turn.

The point is not to add some provision about immigration to this omnibus piece of legislation that governs most facets of our agricultural system.

Instead, it's the design of the Farm Bill that we should focus on. Its form, not its content.

By form, what's key is that the Farm Bill comes up for debate every five years. The expiration date is even written into the law.

The legislations design poses quite the task, as the Farm Bill sets the terms for most of the critical elements of the U.S. food system, from commodity prices and conservation policy to international trade and farm credit.

But that's the bill's geniuswith such serious issues to debate, it makes sense to revisit them every now and again. And here's the best partif one party misses something, then they can try again next time.

That much was behind the bill's creation. Before becoming law in 1933, for most of the 1920s, politicians fought over how to address the economic crisis ravaging farmers. While farmers did well during World War I, they struggled once the conflict was over. In response, some legislators wanted protectionist policies, others believed promoting exports was the answer. They couldn't find middle ground and our nations food producers suffered for years.

So, what happened? When FDR became president, farmer groups and politicians created an omnibus billthat contained sections dealing with the issues that were the subject of debate years before and that required periodic renewal. The bill itself has come to include new sections from time to time, such as rural development and food assistance in the 1970s.

Agriculture aside, doesn't such a way of addressing complicated policy matters, such as migration, make sense?

Think about itwho could have foretold when early in Biden's term, when he sent Vice President Kamala Harris to Central America to search out ways to keep people from fleeing poverty, that Cubans and Venezuelans would eventually join the exodus of people? Or that Russia would invade Ukraine, sending millions seeking safe haven abroad?

Furthermore, historically, we see that migrants come to the U.S. in waves. Such moments are related to all kinds of unexpected events, including wars, famines, and natural disasters.

Comprehensive immigration reform has evaded our lawmakers for decades. So, it would make sense to take some of the pressure off of them and at least create a framework that they can work with.

There is no crystal ball that we can peer into and see where in the works some disaster will take place. The best we can do as a country is to craft a bill that provides parameters within which our legislators can debate every five years or so. Furthermore, all the major issues currently raging now could be foundborder security, temporary protected status for people who are temporarily displaced, visas for students and workers, and so on.

A majority of Americans agree that something has to be done about immigration. Our parties also agreethis much is seen in how regularly their policy proposals come up in the news.

So, why not give them a space to hash out their differences, not as a one-shot game, but something they can come back to every now and again?

Let's also not forget the migrants in this discussion. Now we are talking about Title 42 and Venezuelans, but in a year or two, it will be some other policy and another group of people. What is certain is that for quite some time, people will want to come to the US to work and live.

Comprehensive immigration reform has evaded our lawmakers for decades. So, it would make sense to take some of the pressure off of them and at least create a framework that they can work with. Both parties could also take credit for promoting it. And who knows, maybe they will compromise once in a while. They do so already with Farm Bill. Maybe the same could happen with immigration.

Go here to read the rest:
Immigration Reform is Possible the Farm Bill Shows How - Common Dreams

What is included in my trial?

During your trial you will have complete digital access to FT.com with everything in both of our Standard Digital and Premium Digital packages.

Standard Digital includes access to a wealth of global news, analysis and expert opinion. Premium Digital includes access to our premier business column, Lex, as well as 15 curated newsletters covering key business themes with original, in-depth reporting. For a full comparison of Standard and Premium Digital, click here.

Change the plan you will roll onto at any time during your trial by visiting the Settings & Account section.

If you do nothing, you will be auto-enrolled in our premium digital monthly subscription plan and retain complete access for $69 per month.

For cost savings, you can change your plan at any time online in the Settings & Account section. If youd like to retain your premium access and save 20%, you can opt to pay annually at the end of the trial.

You may also opt to downgrade to Standard Digital, a robust journalistic offering that fulfils many users needs. Compare Standard and Premium Digital here.

Any changes made can be done at any time and will become effective at the end of the trial period, allowing you to retain full access for 4 weeks, even if you downgrade or cancel.

You may change or cancel your subscription or trial at any time online. Simply log into Settings & Account and select "Cancel" on the right-hand side.

You can still enjoy your subscription until the end of your current billing period.

We support credit card, debit card and PayPal payments.

More:
US executives call for immigration reform to staff manufacturing boom - Financial Times

For nearly a quarter century, as successive waves of migrants have tried to enter and work in the United States, presidents have appealed to Congress to address gaps in an immigration system nearly everyone agrees is broken.

Yet year after year, congressional efforts to strike a wide-ranging bipartisan deal one that would strengthen border security measures while expanding avenues for people to immigrate to the United States in an orderly and lawful way have fractured under the strain of political forces.

Immigration has proved to be a potent political messaging tool, particularly for Republicans, who have rallied voters behind campaigns to close the border with Mexico and denounced anything other than stringent security proposals as amnesty. And Democrats have long resisted border security initiatives without measures to grant legal status to millions of undocumented immigrants residing in the United States and to expand immigration in the future.

While many lawmakers have tried to bridge the gap, not once in the 21st century has Congress managed to send a comprehensive immigration bill to the presidents desk.

The legacy of that inaction is seen in factories and farms, where undocumented migrants work grueling jobs for low wages; in the skyrocketing backlog of asylum cases that have yet to appear before an immigration judge; in the enrichment of cartels trafficking migrants and drugs to the U.S.-Mexico border; and in the uncertainty at the border after the expiration this week of pandemic-era restrictions on entry.

As lawmakers try to tackle immigration yet again, here is a look at how and why previous efforts in Congress failed.

On May 25, 2006, the Republican-led Senate passed the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 by a vote of 62 to 36. Twenty-three Republicans including Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the current minority leader supported the bill, along with all but four Democrats and one independent. The Republican-led House never took it up.

What was proposed: The bill was based on a compromise struck by Senators John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts. Their framework coupled border security measures that Republicans were demanding such as fencing, radar and aerial surveillance tools and an influx of personnel with provisions championed by Democrats offering millions of undocumented immigrants living in the United States a way to earn citizenship and the creation of a guest worker program.

Why it failed: Despite opposition from some top Republicans, the bill drew enough backing to pass the Senate after an aggressive push by President George W. Bush, who had campaigned on overhauling the immigration system and dedicated a prime-time Oval Office address to promoting the bill the week before the vote. It also had the backing of big business groups and some powerful labor unions.

But the more conservative House, which in late 2005 had passed a bill placing strict limits on immigration and criminalizing unlawful entry prompting widespread national protests never took it up, effectively killing it. Republicans instead brought up a measure dealing with only border security, called the Secure Fence Act, which passed both the House and Senate with veto-proof majorities. Mr. Bush signed it into law two weeks before the 2006 midterm elections.

After congressional Republicans suffered punishing defeats in the 2006 midterms, new Democratic majorities in the Senate and House tried to tackle immigration again. But the new bill failed to clear a series of procedural hurdles in the Senate in June 2007 and never received a final vote in either chamber.

What was proposed: The 2007 bill adopted the approach of the previous years proposal, but with a trigger conditioning legal status for undocumented immigrants on first meeting a series of border security benchmarks. The bill also proposed granting legal status based on a points system that scored immigrants according to job skills, education level, family ties and English-language proficiency.

Why it failed: The coalition of senators that worked out the legislation, which came to be known as the Gang of 12, represented the broadest bipartisan coalition yet to join forces on an immigration compromise. But the bill encountered dogged opposition from both parties and ultimately collapsed.

Senator Jeff Sessions, the Alabama Republican who would go on to carry out a zero-tolerance policy for unlawful border crossings as President Donald J. Trumps attorney general, led a conservative revolt against the bill, denouncing it as amnesty. At the same time, pro-labor Democrats objected to the expanded temporary guest-worker programs, while others in the party panned the points system for prioritizing job skills over family ties.

In December 2010, Democratic congressional leaders, poised to lose control of the House, held votes on the DREAM Act: legislation that aimed to give undocumented migrants brought to the country as children, often referred to as Dreamers, an opportunity to gain legal status. The House passed the bill by a vote of 216 to 198, with eight Republicans in favor and 38 Democrats opposed. Ten days later, the Democrat-led Senate fell five votes short of breaking a filibuster blocking it from a vote.

What was proposed: The legislation sought to enable Dreamers to become legal residents and potentially U.S. citizens, provided they met certain conditions. Eligible migrants would have to have enrolled in college or served in the military for at least two years, pass a criminal-background check and be under 30 years of age. The legislation, first introduced in 2001, had been a component of both the 2006 and 2007 comprehensive immigration bills.

Why it failed: Conservative Republicans in the Senate campaigned against the bill as a grant of amnesty, persuading all but three of their colleagues to oppose it. But Democrats also failed to rally around their partys legislation. Five moderate Democrats refused to back the bill because it did not include a broader immigration plan the five votes they needed to clear the Senates 60-vote procedural hurdle and allow it to advance.

After the 2012 presidential election and a Republican autopsy that concluded the party had to shift its hard-line stance on immigration, momentum built for a compromise bill. On June 27, 2013, the Senate, voting 68 to 32, passed a compromise immigration bill addressing both border security and expanded immigration pathways, with 14 Republicans on board. But the G.O.P.-led House never acted on it.

What was proposed: A Gang of Eight group of senators four Democrats and four Republicans revived the idea of pairing border security measures with expanded immigration avenues, subject to meeting trigger thresholds on border security. The bill called for universal adoption of the employment eligibility system, known as E-Verify, to make it more difficult to hire undocumented workers and put most undocumented immigrants in the country on a 13-year pathway to citizenship. It would have awarded visas based on a points system, with about 50 percent based on job skills, and included temporary guest worker programs.

Why it failed: The bill easily passed the Senate but was effectively dead on arrival in the increasingly right-wing House. Speaker John Boehner, Republican of Ohio, repeatedly refused to give it a vote, saying he would not bring up an immigration bill that a majority of Republicans did not support.

After Mr. Trump ended an Obama-era program that extended deportation reprieves and work permits to undocumented immigrants who had been brought to the United States as children, pressure mounted for Congress to codify new protections for them.

But Mr. Trump said any such bill would have to include an end to decades of family-based migration policies, the construction of a border wall and a vast crackdown on other undocumented immigrants. House Republicans tried to pass an immigration overhaul they pitched as a compromise between their own moderates and conservatives. But all House Democrats and about half of House Republicans opposed it, and the measure failed in a 121-to-301 vote on June 27, 2018.

What was proposed: At its core, the Republican bill envisioned authorizing stepped-up border security measures, like Mr. Trumps wall, alongside measures to give Dreamers a pathway to citizenship. But the legislation also included conservative measures to limit avenues for asylum seekers and criminalize fraudulent claims, as well as make it easier to both detain migrant children and send unaccompanied minors back to their countries of origin.

Why it failed: Faced with a revolt by Republican moderates who had joined forces with Democrats to try to force a vote on legislation to protect the Dreamers, Speaker Paul D. Ryan sought to put forth an overhaul that could please both the conservatives in his ranks and his more mainstream members. But the measure faced brisk headwinds from the start.

Democrats vocally opposed the bill, which Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, then the minority leader, called a cruel codification of President Trumps anti-immigrant agenda. Republicans were still divided. And the legislation lost critical momentum after last-minute waffling by Mr. Trump, who tweeted less than a week before the vote that Republican leaders should stop wasting their time on immigration until the party could win more Senate seats.

By the morning of the vote, Mr. Trump was back to championing the legislation, but it was too late to persuade his fractured conference to support it.

Go here to see the original:
Before Title 42, Congress Failed to Overhaul Immigration Policy - The New York Times

Heres a glance at some of the new laws that came out of the 2023 legislative session.

Protesters gather at the New College of Florida campus inSarasotaon May 15, moments after Gov. Ron DeSantis signed three higher education bills that were approved during the 2023 legislative session.

After 60 days of debate, protests and controversy, the 2023 Florida legislative session has ended. Hundreds of bills passed the House and Senate, including one approving a $117 billion budget for the 2023-2024 fiscal year.

Below is a look at some standout bills:

Public institutions of higher education can no longer spend tax dollars on diversity, equity, and inclusion programs or initiatives. The law, HB 999/SB266, also limits the teaching of race in those settings.

On Monday, DeSantis visited New College of Florida to sign the bill into law.

DEI is better viewed as standing for discrimination, exclusion, and indoctrination, DeSantis said. And that has no place in our public institutions.

DeSantis also signed HB 931, which prohibits higher education institutions from requiring students, faculty, and staff members from signing diversity statements, and SB 240, which expands access to workforce education, or trade programs, to middle and high school students. (See page 3 for more on this law.)

In an effort to crack down on immigrants entering the country illegally, DeSantis signed into law a bill that requires private employers to use a government system to verify the eligibility of newly hired employees and suspends licenses of employers who knowingly employ undocumented immigrants. Additionally, the law makes it a criminal offense to transport undocumented people into Florida and makes it easier for the governor to expel them from Florida.

Employers who violate the law can be fined up to $1,000 a day and have their licenses suspended until they come back into compliance.

Additionally, hospitals are required to ask patients if they are in the country legally.

The Florida House version of the bill was sponsored by Rep. Kiyan Michael (R-Jacksonville) whose son Brandon died in a 2007 car accident after being hit by an immigrant who had been deported twice previously.

Gov. Ron DeSantis holds up legislation he signed during a bill-signing event at the Cambridge Christian School in Tampa.

Diapers and incontinence products including pads, liners, and undergarments can no longer be taxed.

Sponsor Rep. Anna Eskamani (DOrlando), who won bipartisan support for the bill, said the tax elimination could save Floridians an estimated $100 million.

This is important because we need to ensure that for our families, regardless of where they are in life, whether theyre newborns or whether theyre aging or living with a disability, that they have access to these essential goods without having to pay tax, said Eskamani.

Floridians now can carry concealed weapons without a permit, thanks to the passing of bill HB 543. Also known as constitutional carry, DeSantis last year said the law was necessary to protect Second Amenment rights.

At that time, he criticized then Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Secretary Nikki Fried for the lack of permits and accused her of not supporting Second Amendment rights. Fried called DeSantiss comments absurd political pandering.

Abortions after six weeks of pregnancy now are contingent on a ruling by the Florida Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on a relate case about the privacy cause in the Constitution.

Meanwhile, a 15-week ban passed last year by the Legislature remains in effect. And a coalition of groups including the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, Florida Rising and Womens Voices of Southwest Florida kicked off a drive earlier this month in support of passing a constitutional amendment next year to protect abortion rights in the state.

Legislators approved the expansion of school vouchers to all Florida K-12 students. The tax-funded vouchers can be utilized at private schools. Previous income requirements in current voucher programs will sunset.

The state Legislature passed a number of bills targeting the LGBTQ+ community, most notably banning gender affirming care for minors. Other laws restrict pronoun use in schools and requires people to use the bathroom corresponding with their sex in some cases.

The bills are expansion of last years Dont Say Gay legislation that banned teaching sexual orientation and gender identity in kindergarten through third grade. The law sparked push back from opponents who countered that the law punished marginalized people.

It also tipped off a battle between DeSantis and the Walt Disney Company that resulted in the former dismantling the special government district that runs the theme park resorts municipal-like services via legislation and setting up a new governing board appointed by the governor.

Democrats opposed the bills and LGBTQ+ rallies were held at the Capitol during the session that ended two weeks ago, but Republicans have a super majority in both chambers and the bills easily moved through the legislative process.

Reports from WUSF Public Media and News Service of Florida were used in compiling this article.

See the article here:
DEI funding cuts, immigration reform and more | News | flcourier.com - Florida Courier

A viral video shows a reportedly abandoned Florida jobsite. Local experts say immigrants who are not authorized to work in the U.S. have fled the state out of fear of deportation.

Theyre reportedly moving in response to a new law signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis last week.

Anecdotally, things have already gotten tougher in Florida in the last week, Madelin Zavodny, labor economist and professor at the University of North Florida, told Construction Dive. Theres a lot of fear among the unauthorized immigrant population about what the law means for them, and Im sure their employers are getting nervous as well.

State Bill 1718 will require private companies with more than 25 employees to use E-Verify to ensure workers immigration status, to prevent foreign-born individuals who are not authorized to work in the U.S. from filling jobs and using state resources.

Though proponents say it will contribute to national security, others indicate a tough road ahead for employers and workers alike, especially in construction. In 2020, there were an estimated 1.4 million foreign-born, non-citizen,Hispanic laborers in the U.S., according to CPWR the Center for Construction Research and Training.

For employers in Florida the law brings unpredictability at a time of high labor demand and a shortage of workers.

Theres great uncertainty as we sit here today, said Mark Neuberger, a Florida-based labor and employment attorney at Foley & Lardner LLP. It could all settle down or it could be disastrous.

Complicating the matter is the May 11 expiration of Title 42, a COVID-19-era federal policy that severely limited the ability for immigrants to seek asylum for three years.

Governors and state legislatures are taking matters into their own hands because of this influx, they have to find a way to address it. Theyre being failed by the federal government in not addressing this.

Peter Comstock

Senior Director of Legislative Affairs, ABC

Now that it has lapsed, immigration hawks have voiced concern that it will open the floodgates to even more illegal entries at the border, though that expected wave has yet to materialize. Employer groups have advocated for immigration reform, seeking to protect both immigrant workers and the builders who want to legally employ them.

E-Verify is an online federal system that allows employers to confirm eligibility of employees to work in the U.S. On July 1, Florida will join nine other states that have E-Verify requirement laws for private employers:

Employers that dont comply with the new Florida law face fines of $1,000 a day.

Peter Comstock, senior director of legislative affairs for Associated Builders and Contractors, said the advice to ABC members is simple: Be in compliance with the law.

But compliance can be a corrective action or balancing on a tightrope. Some companies may trim their workforce and walk along the knifes edge of staffing 24 employees in order to dodge the new law, suggested Hector Sandoval, assistant professor of economics at the University of Florida.

Mark Neuberger

Permission granted by Foley & Lardner LLP

Floridas E-Verify law is forward looking, meaning immigrants currently employed under the current I-9 system would be grandfathered in, and their employers would be technically compliant, according to Neuberger, the attorney.

Come July, Florida will mandate employers use E-Verify along with the existing I-9 forms, which will still be used as part of the process of confirming the validity of an employees eligibility status. As it stands now, the I-9 form alone is a system that is easier to circumvent for unauthorized workers, who can get documentation like drivers licenses in some states, said Neuberger.

Using just an I-9 also doesnt require employers to keep copies of their workers documents, Neuberger said. But E-Verify does.

All you have is the employers verification that they looked at [the documents], he said of the I-9 system.

In the long-term, experts like Neuberger said the law creates uncertainty, and could even become disastrous.

Sandoval emphasized how much southern Florida depends on immigrant labor. He pointed to the Spanish-speaking construction workers outside his office window who are currently building projects on the Gainesville, Florida, campus.

If we get hit with some hurricanes this year, think about who does a lot of the rebuilding. We rely on immigrant labor a lot in general.

Madeline Zavodny

Labor Economist and Professor, University of North Florida

Sandoval, along with several other sources, told Construction Dive he had heard of workers fleeing Florida, leaving jobsites empty. Neuberger said workers reportedly traveled to other construction hot spots like New York City.

The new law will also increase human trafficking and smuggling penalties for people, including U.S. citizens, raising it up to a $10,000 fine and 15 years in prison for transporting five or more undocumented people or an undocumented minor into the state of Florida.

This has raised concerns, Vox reported, as some workers regularly travel from state to state for jobs. In addition, the law would apply to U.S. citizens driving family members who are not authorized to be in the U.S.

DeSantis said the law pushes back against the Biden border crisis, charging that the federal government has abandoned its national security duties.

The legislation I signed today gives Florida the most ambitious anti-illegal immigration laws in the country, fighting back against reckless federal government policies and ensuring the Florida taxpayers are not footing the bill for illegal immigration, DeSantis said during the bill's signing.

Madeline Zavodny

Permission granted by Madeline Zavodny

Despite the political wrangling, Zavodny said that immigrants fill vital jobs that benefit most Americans. From construction to agriculture to custodial services, immigrants come to the U.S. and perform work the country needs.

Most immigrants are not competing directly with U.S. citizens for work, Zavodny said. Forcing their absence from the workorce could further contribute to the potential disaster she sees ahead.

If we get hit with some hurricanes this year, think about who does a lot of the rebuilding, Zavodny said. We rely on immigrant labor a lot in general.

But the biggest key to uncertainty is enforcement, Neuberger said, which is already a challenge for current laws. A state government led by DeSantis, whose name is consistently in the mix for a run at the White House, however, may apply the law to the fullest extent.

Title 42s expiration signifies a failure on the hands of the federal government, Comstock said.

The end of the policy created a wealth of uncertainty and confusion as to how the thousands of people crossing the border in places like Texas and Arizona could secure asylum from the U.S., but didnt result in a massive increase in immigrants crossing the border as some had predicted, according to NPR.

Without a more robust immigration system from the federal government, Comstock said, more states are likely to adopt laws, perhaps even E-Verify mandates, on their own.

Peter Comstock

Permission granted by Associated Builders and Contractors

Governors and state legislatures are taking matters into their own hands because of this influx, they have to find a way to address it, Comstock said. Theyre being failed by the federal government in not addressing this.

Brian Turmail, vice president of public affairs and strategic initiatives for the Associated General Contractors of America, said the country has allowed too few legal entrants to the country while some employers take advantage of cheaper, unauthorized immigrant labor.

We need tighter border security so we dont have so many undocumented workers in the country who are likely to be exploited by unscrupulous contractors, Turmail said. And we need a path to legal status not necessarily citizenship for those undocumented workers who are currently here and already engaged in our economy.

Contractors and other industry leaders may have to wait a bit longer for any type of federal guidance on immigration. The House of Representatives passed an immigration reform bill on May 11, which would restart border wall construction and restrict asylum, according to Roll Call. Nonetheless, the bill received no support from Democrats, and likely wont make it through the Senate nor receive approval from President Joe Biden.

Zavodny said she hopes the process for allowing asylum seekers to work is expedited.

A lot of them are young men who will work in construction very happily, she said.

Overall, she said improving the legal immigration process to permit more workers to find employment in the U.S. could have generationally beneficial impacts.

For most of us, its great. Over time and generations, its just good to have more workers, she said.

CORRECTION: This story has been updated to more accurately explain the difference and overlap between the I-9 and E-Verify systems.

Excerpt from:
Contractors face uncertainty over new Florida immigration law - Construction Dive