Mediaboss Marketing

Jean Nsengiyunva, who escaped the Democratic Republic of the Congo as a child, has been trying for three years to gain refugee admittance for his wife and 3-year-old daughter. (IBJ photo/Eric Learned)

Gov. Eric Holcomb is giving the green light for federal officials to continue placing refugees in Indiana, following in the footsteps of a growing group of both Democratic and Republican governors who are opting in to the federal program.

The move comes after President Donald Trump issued an executive order in September that, for the first time, required states and local government to provide written consent to continue to receive even a handful of the 26million refugees worldwide.

Its part of the Trump administrations larger effort to reduce refugee resettlement in the United States.

Varga

And even though the state has allowed refugees to resettle here for years, Holcombs decision was not considered a slam dunkhes a Republican in Vice President Mike Pences home state at a time immigration (which is different but related to refugee resettlement) is especially controversial. While governor, Pence tried to block federal officials from placing Syrian refugees in Indiana.

Holcomb could have effectively vetoed refugees from coming to the state, said Cole Varga, executive director of Exodus Refugee Immigration Inc., a group that helps bring refugees to Indiana and receives federal funding for its programs. Exodus is affiliated with Church World Service, which is one of nine national organizations that work directly with the federal government to settle refugees in the United States.

The initial deadline for submitting that consent was Dec. 2590 days after the executive order was issuedbut Varga said guidance from the State Department has indicated the deadline is now Jan. 21.

Holcomb sent a letter on Dec. 13 offering his consent.

Our long tradition of welcoming and helping to resettle refugees with support from our federal partners, shows the world the compassion of Hoosiers and our willingness to give others the ability to grow and prosper in the great state of Indiana, Holcomb wrote.

He is one of eight Republican governors who have given consent or said they will do so. Fifteen Democratic governors have taken similar action.

Yang

On Dec. 17, Indianapolis Mayor Joe Hogsett sent a letter with his consent, which was also needed for refugees to be allowed to continue coming to Marion County.

In other parts of the state, the responsibility is on county commissioners to offer consent. Varga said Exodus and the two other organizations in Indiana that help refugees once they arriveCatholic Charities of Fort Wayne and Catholic Charities Indianapolisare working to secure letters from other local governments.

National organizations have also gotten involvedBaltimore-based World Relief and Washington, D.C.-based Evangelical Immigration Table this month sent letters to 15 governors, including Holcomb, urging their support.

Jenny Yang, vice president of advocacy and policy at World Relief, said her group targeted governors they believed might be on the fence about what to do and those in states that welcome large numbers of refugees.

Indiana has welcomed more than 11,600 refugees since 2011, and is home to the most Burmese refugees in this country.

Indiana took in nearly 1,900 refugees in 2016, just before Trump took office. It took in 865 last year and has placed just 116 this year. The steep drop has been the direct result of Trumps efforts to cut back on the program.

Yang said she wasnt necessarily surprised by Holcombs decision to continue to take in refugees, but shes grateful he took that step.

We wanted to make sure he was aware of how many churches and church leaders wanted to welcome refugees, she said.

Its complicated

Downs

Andy Downs, director of the Mike Downs Center for Indiana Politics at Purdue University Fort Wayne, said Indiana Republicans have a nuanced relationship with refugee policies.

I think that a good number of conservative individuals understand and believe that they should help refugees, he said. But were also fearful about our safety.

Immigration reform has been a top priority for Republicans as the Trump administration has pursued some controversial policies, like building a wall along the U.S. and Mexico border to prevent individuals from crossing it illegally.

Refugees, on the other hand, are individuals fleeing persecution for race, religion, nationality, political opinion or social group.

Holcomb stressed that point in his letter of support to Exodus.

These are NOT illegal or unlawful immigrants but individuals who have gone through all the proper channels, were persecuted for their religious or political beliefs in their homeland and have sought and been granted refugee status in our nation of immigrants, Holcomb wrote.

Downs said Holcomb can also make a compelling political argument for opting in Indiana, because he would not have wanted to be one of the only governors that didnt do so.

Part of the beauty here is, this is a federal program, Downs said. If something goes wrong, hell be able to point at the feds.

That doesnt mean he wont suffer at least a little political consequence from the far-right side of the Indiana Republican Party.

But thats a fraction of the party, and hed only have to worry about that in the primary, Downs said.

Republican Brian Roth has announced plans to challenge Holcomb in 2020, but Roth has to gather 4,500 signatures500 from each of the states congressional districtsto even get on the ballot. Even if Roth meets that threshold, Holcomb is expected to easily survive the primary.

Downs said an issue like this could change the minds of some voters, but its likely most Republicans approve of Holcombs decisions on other topics, like spending or taxes.

It could be that someone says, Yeah, he got that wrong, but he got tax policy right, Downs said. Its just hard to imagine it being enough to energize anyone.

Struggle for families

Jean Nsengiyunva has been trying for three years to get his wife and daughter to Indianapolis. Without the written consent from Holcomb and Hogsett, that process would have essentially been stopped for the foreseeable future.

Nsengiyunvas family fled the Democratic Republic of the Congo when he was 6 years old. He spent the next 20 years in a United Nations refugee camp in Uganda waiting to come to the United States and considered the camp home.

We had lost hope of coming to the USA, Nsengiyunva said.

Varga said refugees in the camps are often uncertain when theyll be selected, but those who are the most vulnerable or who already have family members or other connections to the United States are usually priorities.

Its kind of like a lottery system, Varga said. Certain people get picked and certain people dont.

In 2014, Nsengiyunva finally started the interview process to come to the United States after 18 years in Uganda. It took two years to complete all the necessary paperwork, interviews, and background and medical checks, but in 2016, he made it to Indianapolisa place he had never heard of before.

During that two-year period, Nsengiyunva met his future wife. He tried to add her to his case, but that would have essentially restarted the process. The couple made the decision that Nsengiyunva should go without her, believing it wouldnt take as long for her to get through the system.

The federal government limits the number of people who can come into the country through the refugee process, and that number can change annually.

In 2016, the United States admitted nearly 85,000 refugees. President Barack Obama set a limit of 110,000 refugees in 2017.

Trump has since significantly slashed the program. For fiscal 2020, Trump has set a limit of 18,000 refugeesan all-time low for the program. That greatly narrows the chances that Nsengiyunva will be able to bring his family here.

We didnt know things were going to change, he said.

American support

Critics of Trumps executive order have argued its another way his administration is trying to limit access to the United States for people from other countries. But the White House says the order makes sure refugees arent being placed in communities that would be unwelcoming.

The months following the executive order have been full of uncertainty for the organizations, like Exodus, that work to place refugees. Varga said that detailssuch as how to actually submit consent letters, who has the authority to issue the consent at the local-government level, and who is responsible for getting these letters to the State Departmenthave all changed at least once.

In addition, a federal lawsuit challenging the executive order is pending, and a judge could rule before the Jan. 21 deadline to at least temporarily block it from taking effect.

Yang said Holcombs decision helps send a strong message to the Trump administration that, regardless of what party youre from or political spectrum youre on, this is something most Americans support.

Varga said accepting refugees helps Indiana prove its Hoosier hospitality mantra.

It just makes sense to welcome, to open our doors to people, he said. Were helping make Indianapolis more diverse and interesting, in addition to helping people.

Varga also said refugees are helping with the states workforce shortage, because theyre filling jobs and contributing to the economy.

Nsengiyunva works full time at a Nike warehouse in Lebanon, and lives in an apartment with his mother, father and brother, who joined him here shortly after he moved in 2016.

The New American Economy Research Fund estimated that Indiana would have lost $4.6million annually in economic impact by not welcoming refugees.

Holcomb also referenced how refugees help the states economy in his letter of support.

Developing a 21st century skilled and ready workforce is a high priority of our administration and we will welcome those who are ready to participate fully in our economy, showing civility and compassion to those who have suffered persecution, Holcomb wrote.

Nsengiyunva is still hopeful that his wife and 3-year-old daughter can move here soon. His wife has started the interview process, but the limit of 18,000 refugees nationally could push back her timeline.

Im just waiting now, he said.

See more here:
Holcomb opts in to accepting refugees - Indianapolis Business Journal

Washington was abuzz over the weekend over the decision of Rep. Jeff Van Drew to leave the Democratic Party and join the Republicans, precipitated by the Democratic House's impeachment of President Donald Trump. This was a historic move, and one likely not as knee-jerk (or single issue) as the press has been reporting.

In a November 27, 2019, post captioned "What Do Voters Really Think About Immigration? Interesting takeaways from a report apparently prepared for Democratic group", I wrote about a poll that had been purportedly commissioned by a group called "House Majority Forward", which I noted describes itself as "a progressive, non-profit organization committed to promoting economic growth and opportunity, social justice, environmental stewardship, and democracy in the United States of America."

I explained by way of background:

[T]he report purportedly covers the results of research on "two groups of White non-college voters", both male and female, from two congressional districts in New Jersey, NJ-02 (which covers the southern part of the state, currently represented in Congress by Rep. Jefferson Van Drew (D-N.J.)), and NJ-03 (in the middle of the state and cutting it in two, currently represented by Rep. Andy Kim (D-N.J.)).

Kim defeated incumbent Republican Rep. Tom MacArthur by fewer than 4,000 votes in the 2018 election, while a well-financed Van Drew defeated Republican Seth Grossman by fewer than 20,000 votes in 2018 (there were four other contenders), in a race for the seat that had previously been held by Republican Rep. Frank LoBiondo.

I noted that there was an interesting takeaway in the "Overview" section of the report:

Most of the respondents across all of the groups said they side with Trump on immigration. Almost to a person, immigration was described as a matter of bringing "control" to our borders and immigration system (the treatment of children at the border barely came up during the groups).

In fact, among the males surveyed, national security and immigration were more important than abortion rights and government spending, and the respondents did not mention impeachment or Syria until they were asked.

Logically, Van Drew had to have known of this report (not that I think he reads my column, but it focused on his district and the report received attention but not a lot elsewhere). Long story short, if that report is accurate, his constituents plainly supported the administration on immigration, but were not that interested in impeachment, positions directly at odds with Democratic party leadership.

Switching parties is not as common as one would think. Rep. Justin Amash (Mich.-3) switched from Republican to independent in July, but that was largely because he is a libertarian and believed that the GOP was no longer a party of "limited government, economic freedom and individual liberty", and because he was fed up with the two-party system, which he views as "an existential threat to American principles and institutions". It is doubtful that he would find a home in the current Democratic party he has voted with the president's positions more often in the current 116th Congress (81.1 percent of the time) than he did in the last Congress (54.2 percent) but he did vote to proceed with impeachment. He is more of a man without a party than a man in the wrong one.

Rep. Parker Griffith (Ala.-5) opted to leave the Democratic Party and become a Republican almost a decade ago out of frustration with then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House leadership. His switch was a bellwether for GOP successes in the 112th Congress (2011-2013), when the party won back control of the lower chamber. It didn't help Griffith much, though he lost to Republican Mo Brooks in the ensuing primary, and then lost to him again in the next one.

Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.) switched from Republican to Democrat in 2009, all but giving the Democrats a supermajority in President Barack Obama's first term. It did not help him or the Democrats in the long-run, either: Specter lost the 2010 primary in a landslide to Rep. Joe Sestak, who lost the general election to Republican Pat Toomey.

Notably, as CNN reported at the time: "Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele ripped Specter, calling him a Republican in name only who was out of step with the rest of the party because of his 'left-wing voting record.'" I worked with his staff on legislation, and would have been a bit more charitable, but Steele was not entirely wrong.

Sen. Richard Shelby (Ala.) switched from Democrat to Republican in 1994, reflecting a trend in the South toward the GOP, as did Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell (Colo.) in 1995 following the defeat of a balanced-budget amendment that he supported and Democrats opposed. Sen. Jim Jeffords (Vt.) switched from Republican to independent, caucusing with the Democrats and giving them control of the Senate in 2001. Jeffords' defection reflected a rift between moderates and conservatives in the GOP, and shifting allegiances in the Green Mountain State.

It is difficult to view Van Drew's switch as anything other than a rejection of the Democratic party's positions on many issues, including immigration. I gave plenty of caveats about the validity of the House Majority Forward survey in my November post, but one particular finding resounded with me: "When asked what Congress should try to work with Trump to achieve, immigration was the dominant response and as we heard in the beginning of the conversation, that would mean controlling immigration."

There are real problems at the border that the president has identified on numerous occasions, but Democrats in power and their supporters in the media seemed to be oblivious to them until they were undeniable. Even then, their responses were largely just a rehash of the positions they had taken before, and an effort to deflect blame on to the president.

For example, Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) blamed President Trump's "'refusal to move forward' on comprehensive immigration reform as 'contributing to that humanitarian crisis'", while at the same time asserting that "'there's a lot we could do jointly and should do jointly' in Congress ... to address the border situation." Of course, no such legislation has been forthcoming, despite the president's stated willingness to reach a deal.

There is a saying on Capitol Hill: "When you stop representing your constituents, soon you will stop representing your constituents." Jeff Van Drew has learned this lesson. Immigration propelled Donald Trump to the White House. For the sake of the now 30 Democratic House members in seats the president won in the 2016 election, and her own speakership, Nancy Pelosi should learn this lesson on immigration as well.

Link:
Rep. Van Drew Joins the GOP - Immigration Blog

Rep. Tom Reed applauded the passage of the Bipartisan and Problem Solvers Caucus endorsed Farm Workforce Modernization Act of 2019 to help struggling farmers in New York gain access to much needed farm workers.

I hear it every time I step on family farms in Upstate New York when is Washington going to do something about access for farm labor?' Reed said. This common sense bipartisan compromise is a step in the right direction for this decades old problem, and will deliver relief to the farmers we care about across the nation to give them fair access to workers they need to prosper. I am proud the Problem Solvers Caucus could get behind this bill as we pushed it over the finish line in the House and onto the Senate.

However, this is just the start of immigration reform. We must secure our southern border and continue to fight to ensure a merit-based system is fully implemented such as the one proposed by President Trump this spring, concluded Reed.

The bill takes a two-pronged approach to meet year-round labor needs: creating a new, capped program for employers seeking to bring in temporary workers for year-round needs; and builds off current law dedicating an additional 40,000 employment-based green cards per year for agricultural workers. It also includes mandatory e-verify, new investments in farmworker housing, H-2A wage reform, and streamlined recruiting.

Access to a reliable workforce is a critical issue for Upstate New York dairy farmers like me, said family farmer David White from Clymer. I milk my cows 365 days a year. Current agricultural visa programs are seasonal and therefore dont provide a solution to dairys unique challenges. I commend Congressman Tom Reed for his work to support and pass the bipartisan Farm Workforce Modernization Act to address this critical issue for our Upstate economy.

New York Farm Bureau appreciates Rep. Reeds leadership in cosponsoring the bipartisan Farm Workforce Modernization Act. Farms in his district and across the state need access to reliable labor in order to produce the food we need and to support our rural economy. This legislation would especially support dairy farmers who have long been without access to the agricultural visa program, said David Fisher, New York Farm Bureau President.

We applaud House passage today of the bipartisan Farm Workforce Modernization Act, which takes significant strides to make badly needed improvements to agriculture immigration policy that address dairys unique workforce challenges, said Jim Mulhern, President and CEO of the National Milk Producers Federation. Congressman Reed has been a vocal champion on this issue for Upstate New York dairy farmers and we thank him for cosponsoring this bipartisan bill and working to build momentum for this win in the House.

A resounding Thank You to all who have helped to call attention to Fredonia in the Small Business Revolution! ...

LAKEWOOD The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation recently issued bid invitations for a ...

OLEAN Tina Hastings, executive director of the Tri County Arts Council, recently announced that she will be ...

By TODD TRANUMPresident and CEO of the Chautauqua County Chamber of Commerce & Executive Director of the ...

Original post:
Reed applauds passage of bill to help NY farmers with access to workers | News, Sports, Jobs - Evening Observer

In my last post, I discussed most of the top-line findings from the recent "U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ICE] Fiscal Year 2019 Enforcement and Removal Operations [ERO] Report". Long-story short: ICE's ability to perform interior enforcement in FY 2019 was significantly impeded by its need to respond to the massive influx of aliens encountered by U.S. Customs and Border Protection at the Southwest border, and by an increase in sanctuary policies. I omitted the report's findings about so-called "alternatives to detention" (ATD). Basically, they don't work.

The section of the report relating to ATD begins by explaining what it is: "ICE's [ATD] program uses technology and case management to monitor aliens' court appearances and compliance with release conditions while their removal proceedings are pending on the non-detained immigration court docket."

The Center has previously explained the limitations of the program:

ATD is, on a daily basis, cheaper than detention, but because ATD participants are placed into the "non-detained" docket of the immigration courts (as opposed to the significantly faster hearings that aliens receive on the detained docket), those savings may be wiped out over the course of two, three, or four years on the program while aliens await the docketing and conclusion of their cases.

...

Long-term data do not conclusively establish the value of the programs in actually ensuring removal from the United States of ATD participants once they have been ordered removed. [Emphasis added.]

The report echoes the highlighted excerpt, above: "ATD is not a substitute for detention, but instead complements immigration enforcement efforts by offering increased supervision for a small subset of eligible aliens who are not currently in ICE detention."

That doesn't sound so bad at first blush, but note the introductory statement that "ATD is not a substitute for detention." That is simply a subtle reiteration of what most objective observers have known for some time. Detention ensures that an alien who is ordered removed is actually removed, without ERO having to go out and arrest the alien. ATD (which is essentially a monitoring program as the first excerpt above makes clear) does not.

In particular, ATD does little to prevent aliens from absconding, let alone to ensure that an alien shows up for removal, as the report explains when it later modifies the complementary nature of ATD: "[W]hile ATD can complement other immigration enforcement efforts when used appropriately on a vetted and monitored population of participants, the program was not designed to facilitate ERO's mission of removing aliens with final orders." (Emphasis added.)

I am not sure what "other immigration enforcement efforts" ERO is referencing here, but frankly, "removing aliens with final orders" is the ultimate one, both temporally and in order of precedence. As Barbara Jordan, then-chairwoman of the Clinton-era Commission on Immigration Reform, explained more than two decades ago: "The top priorities for detention and removal, of course, are criminal aliens. But for the system to be credible, people actually have to be deported at the end of the process." (Emphasis added.) ICE can do all the enforcement it wants, but if aliens under a final order of removal are not ultimately removed, the whole system is a sham.

And, as noted, ATD is ineffective at preventing aliens from absconding. The most damning extrinsic proof of this is found in CNN's reporting on the April 16, 2019, "Final Emergency Interim Report" from the Homeland Security Advisory Council's bipartisan CBP Families and Children Care Panel, which I referenced in my last post.

As CNN explained, the panel recommended that: "DHS ... should be given discretion to detain a close relative with a non-parent family member when this is in the best interest of the child."

The outlet then asked Karen Tandy, the chairwoman of that panel, whether "the council considered alternatives to detention, rather than changes to the law." Tandy responded that the group "'spent a lot of time on it' but found it impractical," explaining: "In common parlance, we're talking about ankle bracelets, and we found at bus station [sic], there are overflowing bins of ankle bracelets that have been cut off."

The report reinforced Tandy's findings, noting that ATD was particularly ineffective when used to monitor released family units, which constituted 64.5 percent of all aliens apprehended by the Border Patrol along the Southwest border in FY 2019.

As the report explains:

While ERO has expanded its use of ATD from approximately 23,000 participants in FY 2014 to 96,000 as of the end of FY 2019, this expansion has come with a number of challenges, including high levels of absconders among recently enrolled family units. In FY 2019, the absconder rate for family units was 26.9 percent, more than double the 12.3 percent absconder rate for non-family unit participants, demonstrating the growing challenges such enrollments create for immigration enforcement. [Emphasis added.]

In this context, the absconder rate was determined by examining "the overall number of aliens who concluded the ATD program in a given time period ('overall terminations'), and the number of those terminations which occurred due to a participant absconding." In other words, when it came to family units, more than a quarter "terminat[ed]" the ATD program by disappearing.

Given the large size of this population as a whole, that is a significant failure of the monitoring program, providing support for the CBP Families and Children Care Panel's conclusion that Congress should give DHS "discretion to detain a close relative with a non-parent family member when this is in the best interest of the child."

Of course, this Congress (and in particular the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives) has no plans to do any such thing. In fact, as my former colleague Matt Sussis noted in February, the latest government funding bill actually increases funding for ATD while restricting detention. In particular, he reported that "the bill expands the ATD programs to 100,000 participants from 82,000, including over $40 million for 'family case management' to keep tabs on aliens who don't immediately abscond (as many do), but does not include money to actually find and remove those who do abscond." One would almost think that they set up the plan to fail.

And, almost as if following up on Sussis' statements, the report makes clear:

ERO lacks sufficient resources to keep all current [ATD] participants enrolled through the pendency of their proceedings, or to locate and arrest the significant number of participants who abscond, problems which will only be exacerbated by enrolling greater numbers of participants without the addition of enforcement resources. While ERO has continued to expand the use of ATD to monitor the non-detained population in FY 2019, the program will need to be further resourced in order to appropriately monitor participants, including through the addition of officers who can locate, arrest, and remove those who fail to adhere to conditions of enrollment.

It concludes with the obvious: "Finally, while additional resources would improve the efficacy of ATD at current levels of enrollment, ERO notes that the program is not a viable solution for addressing the magnitude of cases on the non-detained docket, which surpassed 3.2 million in FY 2019."

Put another way, ATD is ineffective and underfunded, not unlike the Woody Allen joke in Annie Hall about the resort where the food is terrible and the portions are too small. Given this, the arbitrary restrictions that courts have placed on ICE detention of family units, and the limited detention space and resources that are available to ERO, it is no wonder that ICE reports there were 595,430 fugitive aliens at the end of FY 2019.

I would have been more blunt and direct than ICE was about the failures and limitations of ATD, but then the agency will have to ask Congress for additional funding and therefore must be circumspect in its analysis, lestit perturb the appropriators who hold its purse strings. Respectfully, however, it is the American people who should be disturbed by findings in the agency's report.

The rest is here:
ICE Report: 'Alternatives to Detention' Don't Work - Immigration Blog

Michael Bloomberg entered the crowded 2020 Democratic primary race last month, reversing a decision he made earlier this year not to seek the presidency. Bloomberg served three terms as mayor of New York from 2002 to 2013, earning a reputation for being fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

Before entering public service, Bloomberg worked on Wall Street and founded Bloomberg LP, a financial services company that helped him amass an eye-popping personal fortune of $55.5 billion. A major philanthropist and climate change and gun control activist, Bloomberg is the eighth-richest person in the world.

Heres where Bloomberg stands on key issues in the 2020 presidential election.

Bloomberg raised property, income and sales taxes as mayor, turning the multi billion-dollar deficit he inherited after taking office in 2002 into a surplus by the time he stepped down in 2014. He boosted tourism, an important part of the New York economy, and rezoned large swaths of the city, paving the way for a major real estate boom. On his campaign website, Bloomberg claims his reforms created 400,000 new jobs in New York.

At the same time, Bloomberg drew heavy criticism for cutting spending, privatizing some city services, and failing to resolve labor disputes with unions seeking pay hikes. He once backed a plan to raise New York States minimum wage, but also vetoed city legislation aimed at raising wages for some workers with city contracts, angering critics who argued that Bloomberg was a billionaire technocrat disconnected from ordinary New Yorkers.

The former mayor has not yet released a detailed economic plan since launching his presidential run. His campaign website touts his economic record as mayor and says as president he would strengthen the middle class through policies that open the door of opportunity to every American. In a campaign ad, Bloomberg promised the wealthy will pay more in taxes, a position shared by several 2020 rivals, including progressive Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

In January Bloomberg criticized the Medicare-for-All proposal backed by several 2020 Democrats, saying the country could never afford that. Bloomberg told reporters at the time that the plan would cost trillions of dollars and bankrupt the U.S. According to his campaign website, Bloomberg supports expanding the Affordable Care Act and the existing Medicare program in order to achieve universal health care. The campaign has not released a detailed health care plan.

As mayor, Bloomberg banned smoking in bars and restaurants an initiative that his mayoral administration said helped prevent thousands of premature deaths. Bloomberg also banned large sugary drinks, though the move was struck down by the courts. Bloomberg also reduced childhood obesity in New York, by expanding healthy food standards for schools, requiring restaurants to post calorie counts on menus, and other measures. He also increased life expectancy among New Yorkers by three years, according to his campaign website.

During his tenure as mayor, Bloomberg reduced New York Citys carbon footprint by banning the dirtiest kinds of residential heating oil. Bloomberg also took other steps to promote energy efficiency and improve air quality, including retrofitting buildings, creating new park space and introducing a citywide bike-sharing program.

Bloomberg stepped up his focus on climate change after stepping down as mayor. In 2014, he was named the United Nations special envoy for cities and climate change. In 2018, Bloomberg was appointed as the U.N. special envoy for climate change. Bloomberg has also launched several climate change initiatives and spent heavily to promote action on the issue.

In 2017, Bloomberg pledged $64 million to help fund the Sierra Clubs Beyond Coal campaign to reduce pollution from coal-fired power plants. Earlier this year, Bloomberg said he would spend $500 million on an initiative run by his philanthropic organization aimed at creating a carbon-free U.S. economy.

Bloomberg has criticized Trumps record on climate change, including the presidents decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Climate accord. Bloomberg has also criticized the Green New Deal, arguing the ambitious climate change plan could never pass Congress.

Bloomberg was a strong advocate for immigrants as mayor of New York. He supported initiatives to provide immigrants with legal aid in immigration cases and help in starting small businesses. Bloomberg also took steps to shield undocumented immigrants from deportation, including signing legislation that limited New York Citys cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

As mayor, Bloomberg expanded the use of foreign language translation in city services to helpnon-native English speakers, and frequently delivered public remarks in Spanish in a symbolic gesture to the citys large Hispanic population. He drew national attention in 2010 for a speech defending a controversial mosque project in Manhattan, known as the Ground Zero Mosque, in which he spoke out against religious intolerance and attacks on immigrants.

Bloomberg called for national immigration reform as mayor and has backed the cause since leaving office. He criticized President Donald Trumps immigration policies at a campaign stop shortly after launching his 2020 bid, saying the country needed more immigrants rather than less and calling the Trump administrations family separation policy a disgrace.

As mayor Bloomberg helped form the Mayors Against Illegal Guns group to push for gun safety measures. In 2014, Bloomberg launched Everytown for Gun Safety, a nonpartisan organization thats now one of the countrys leading gun control groups. Bloomberg pledged to spend $50 million to fund the group.

Bloomberg has made gun control a key issue in his 2020 presidential election. His campaign released a sweeping gun control plan earlier this month that would strengthen the federal background check system, ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and provide more funding for law enforcement related to gun violence. The proposal also calls for a federal red flag law that would allow judges to remove guns from people deemed a danger to themselves or others.

Critics contend that Bloombergs push for safer gun control measures in cities is part of a mixed record on law enforcement and policing. As mayor Bloomberg supported a stop-and-frisk policing policy that advocates say unfairly targeted minorities. Bloomberg said last month that he was wrong on the issue and apologized.

Bloomberg does not have a lengthy foreign policy record. He has supported international free trade, and the United States relationship with Israel. In 2004, he appeared to signal support for the Iraq War in an appearance in New York alongside then-First Lady Laura Bush.

Since leaving office Bloomberg has elevated his role on the global stage through high-profile assignments for the U.N. and World Health Organization. Most of his international work has focused on combating climate change.

See original here:
What does Michael Bloomberg believe? Where the candidate stands on 6 issues - PBS NewsHour