Mediaboss Marketing

Joe Biden has made overtures to Bernie Sanders and progressive groups that had backed the Vermont senator. Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images hide caption

Joe Biden has made overtures to Bernie Sanders and progressive groups that had backed the Vermont senator.

A day after Bernie Sanders dropped out of the presidential race, Joe Biden, now the presumptive Democratic nominee, made an overture to progressives.

On Thursday he rolled out two new policy proposals:

"Senator Sanders and his supporters can take pride in their work in laying the groundwork for these ideas, and I'm proud to adopt them as part of my campaign at this critical moment in responding to the coronavirus crisis," Biden said in a statement announcing his plans. And the day before, when Sanders suspended his campaign, Biden put out a 700-word statement praising the Vermont senator as a "powerful voice" whose movement "changed the dialogue in America."

Biden and Sanders appear to have a genuine affection for one another, something that wasn't the case with Sanders and Hillary Clinton in 2016. And Sanders insisted from the outset of his 2020 candidacy that he would do whatever was needed to assist the eventual Democratic nominee to defeat President Trump.

But the question has long been whether Sanders' most ardent progressive supporters, some of whom have been leery of Biden's record, will follow him.

"The Biden campaign really did the least outreach of any of the major front-runners to Sunrise Movement throughout the election cycle," said Evan Weber, one of the co-founders of the youth-led climate-focused organization.

The group endorsed Sanders during the primary. But a couple of weeks ago, as it became clear that the former vice president would likely be the nominee, Weber said Biden's campaign tried to restart the relationship.

"They reached out to learn what they could do more to improve their proposals and record on [the] climate crisis," he said. "And also I think [they have] a broader interest in engaging young people."

Despite those conversations, the Sunrise Movement was one of eight youth-led progressive groups to sign an open letter to Biden that was published Wednesday. In it, they reminded Biden that even though he is now the presumptive nominee, he had struggled to win votes from young people.

"Messaging around a 'return to normalcy' does not and has not earned the support and trust of voters from our generation," the organizations wrote. "For so many young people, going back to the way things were 'before Trump' isn't a motivating enough reason to cast a ballot in November."

Collectively, the groups asked for concessions on both policy and personnel, and they outlined a list of aggressive demands, such as adopting a wealth tax, supporting "Medicare for All," eliminating the filibuster and expanding the Supreme Court.

In response, Biden's policy director, Stef Feldman, said in a statement: "Vice President Biden and our campaign have been engaging with progressive leaders. We are continuously considering additional policies that build on his existing policies and further the bold goals driving Vice President Biden's campaign."

Behind the scenes, Feldman and Biden advisers Cristobal Alex and Symone Sanders have been reaching out to progressive organizations individually to talk.

"Some of those conversations are policy-first conversations," Sanders said. "But some of those conversations are also political conversations. Then we move to policy. ... We come to the conversation saying, 'Where do we agree?' And after we're aligned on where we agree, how can we expand upon that agreement?"

Sanders says that agreement might result in specific policy plans, but it also might mean discussing ways they can collectively take on Trump in November.

Still, despite the goodwill gestures the Biden campaign is offering, some progressives are frustrated. Some organizations said the Biden campaign hasn't tried to reach out to them.

"We have obviously not touched base with everyone we need to talk to," Sanders acknowledged on Thursday.

But multiple groups, including a few that have now been in touch with Biden's team, spoke of trying to engage with his campaign during the primary only to be ignored.

As much as these activists want their policy ideas accepted, it seems at least some of them simply want to be heard.

Bernie Sanders told Stephen Colbert on The Late Show on Wednesday that he knows Biden is "not gonna adopt" his platform, but if the former vice president can indicate that he's willing to listen, Sanders thinks his supporters will come around.

In that same interview, Sanders also suggested Biden can and will move on a range of policy issues that matter to Sanders' voters, such as tuition-free college, climate change, raising the minimum wage, criminal justice reform and immigration reform.

Notably, Sanders did not mention his signature issue: Medicare for All.

But for some of his supporters, health care is the most important issue, especially at this moment.

"I believe it's important to see movement on Medicare for All," said Ana Maria Archila, co-executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy Action, an umbrella group of a number of progressive organizations that had endorsed Sanders during the primary. "It is kind of unimaginable that someone who is running as the Democratic nominee could still defend the idea of private health insurance in a moment like this," she added, referring to record levels of unemployment during the coronavirus crisis.

Her organization has not spoken directly with the Biden campaign, but she said his team has reached out to some groups in their network, specifically Latino groups.

Of all issues, health care is likely the most difficult for Biden to move on, but Yvette Simpson, CEO of Democracy for America, feels it would be the most meaningful. Her organization also backed Sanders in the primary.

Simpson worries that if Biden can't show any additional policy changes on health care, it'll be challenging to motivate progressive voters to support him.

Two other important issues, she said, are climate change and income inequality. And on those, she thinks there could be some room for change.

"Despite the fact that I'm very, very hard on Biden, I think we have seen him shift over the decade, so I'm cautiously optimistic about his potential to shift," Simpson said. "We know him to be someone who is willing to listen, we've seen this shift on the [1990s] crime bill and his acknowledgement of his failures there."

DFA issued a statement Wednesday saying that is a "100% committed to doing everything" it can to ensure Biden defeats Trump.

That means it'll be using its organizing muscle money and people to turn out voters for Biden in November. "That'll be easier to do if he has some actual issues we can get people excited about," Simpson added with a laugh.

See the original post:
Biden Is Trying To Win Progressives That Had Backed Sanders - NPR

Editors note: The Salt Lake Tribune is providing readers free access to critical local stories about the coronavirus during this time of heightened concern. See more coverage here. To support journalism like this, please consider donating or become a subscriber.

Utahn Ciriac Alvarez was brought from Mexico at age 5 by her parents without papers. She was among dreamers who warned Friday that Trump administration efforts to deport them and others could deprive the nation of many of its front-lines fighters against the coronavirus.

People will start losing their workers permits later this year affecting dreamers who are doctors, nurses, pharmacists, technicians, farm workers, grocery workers and others, Alvarez said in a call for national reporters set up by Americas Voice, an immigration reform group.

Alvarez and others said dreamers are at risk for two reasons. Immigration offices have been closed and have not allowed dreamers to file papers needed to keep work permits current. And the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on a Trump request to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, and seemed to side with the administration in oral arguments.

An unusual filing with the Supreme Court on Friday by Yale Law School like the national press call urged the court to take a new look at the case because of the coronavirus outbreak. Termination of DACA during this national emergency would be catastrophic, it said.

Alvarez, a policy analyst for Voices for Utahs Children, added, DACA recipients are facing so much uncertainty right now with the [virus] crisis and with the decision of the Supreme Court ruling looming over us including that many fear taking advantage of food or other aid because it may hurt their immigration status by considering them a public charge.

Denisse Rojas, co-founder of Pre-Health Dreamers, a group for DACA students studying to work in the health industry, said the Center for American Progress estimates the county has 27,000 undocumented health care workers who are working with permission through DACA.

These individuals are on the frontlines of providing care to people, she said. Its so disheartening that their ability to work and my own ability to practice as a physician is in jeopardy and will be ripped away if the Supreme Court decides to end the DACA program.

Besides the health industry workers, Ur Jaddou, director of DHS Watch, said many more DACA recipients work in other jobs needed during the pandemic from farm workers to truckers, meat processors and grocery store workers.

They also need immigration protection so they can go on working for all of us without the fear of falling out of status, threat of deportation or financial ruin, she said.

Some groups on the national call for reporters also criticized rhetoric by President Donald Trump including referring to COVID-19 as the Chinese flu saying that is making life unfairly difficult for many Asian immigrants.

Chinese Americans and Asian Americans are being blamed for the virus or presumed to be carriers. We know that this sort of stereotyping and scapegoating it wrong, said Marita Etcubaez, director of strategic initiatives for Asian Americans Advancing Justice. Its also dangerous.

She said Asian immigrants have been assaulted, attacked, spit on and verbally abused.

So her group proclaimed that calling COVID-19 the Chinese virus, particularly as we hear it coming from our elected officials including the president is racist and its fueling hate against our communities.

See the article here:
Undocumented 'dreamers' say they are needed as front-line fighters against coronavirus - Salt Lake Tribune

A little-noticed immigration decision at the Supreme Court Monday could give a boost to foreign nationals challenging deportation orders long after their removal from the United States.

The case involves an immigrant, Pedro Pablo Guerrero-Lasprilla, who was deported in 1998 in connection with the seizure of 50 kilograms of cocaine. The Supreme Court ruled seven to two on Monday that Guerrero-Lasprillacan fight his deportation in federal court, giving him a chance at returning to the United States.

"Practically speaking, the Supreme Court may have opened the door for thousands of aliens, many removed from the U.S. years ago, to request review of their deportation orders. If that happens, the operations of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, already struggling under a backlog of a million cases, may collapse and come to a screeching halt," Matt O'Brien, director of research at the Federation for American Immigration Reform and a former assistant chief counsel with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, told theWashington Free Beacon.

The ruling was a rare setback for the Trump administration, which has generally fared well before the Supreme Court on criminal immigration issues. It may take years to appreciate the scope of the decision, as it's not clear how many migrants might benefit. Two other cases the Supreme Court is considering this term similarly explore when federal courts have power to consider immigration issues. In ruling for Guerrero-Lasprilla on Monday, the justices may be signaling more defeats to come for the Trump administration, and an expanded role for judges in deportations.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) is at the center of Monday's case. Congress wanted to make the deportation of immigrants who commit crimes easy and straightforward. To that end, the INA dictates that immigrants convicted of violent crimes or drug offenses cannot challenge their deportation in federal court.

Congress adopted that rule, called the "criminal-alien bar," because it wanted expert immigration authorities in the executive branch, not federal courts, to make final judgments about deportation, OBrien told theFree Beacon.

There are two exceptions to the criminal-alien bar. One provides that immigrants can fight a deportation order in court if their case involves a "question of law." The issue in Mondays case was a technical onewhether the application of law to undisputed facts counts as a "question of law."

A seven-justice majority led by Justice Stephen Breyer said the answer is yes, citing a background rule that "executive determinations generally are subject to judicial review." In doing so, the Court may have greatly expanded the number of immigrants who can fight their deportations before a judge.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, warning that the Court's decision gives judges far more leeway to review deportation orders than Congress intended.

"The majority effectively nullifies a jurisdiction-stripping statute, expanding the scope of judicial review well past the boundaries set by Congress," Thomas wrote. Justice Samuel Alito joined Thomas's dissent.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh joined Breyers opinion for the Court.

More disconcerting, O'Brien said, is a second issue the ruling did not broach: when an immigrant's ability to challenge his deportation in federal court expires.

"Some deported aliens may retain the possibility of contesting their removal ordersdecadesinto the future," O'Brien told theFree Beacon. "And that possibility undermines the effectiveness of deportation as a method for preserving our national sovereignty and border security."

The case of another immigrantRuben Ovalleswas decided with Guerrero-Lasprilla's. In 2003, Ovalles pleaded guilty to attempted possession of heroin. Thereafter, immigration authorities deported him to the Dominican Republic in 2004, where he remains today.

Guerrero-Lasprilla is a native Colombian who became a lawful permanent resident in the United States in 1986. A jury convicted him of possession with intent to distribute more than 50 kilograms of cocaine base worth over $1 million in 1988.

Following a 10-year prison sentence, he was deported to Colombia in 1998, where he still lives as of this writing.

The case is No. 18-776Guerrero-Lasprillav.Barr.

Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr by Washington Free Beacon on Scribd

Kevin Daley covers the Supreme Court for the Washington Free Beacon. He has covered the Supreme Court since 2016. His email is daley@freebeacon.com.

View post:
Supreme Court Will Allow Review of Decades-Old Deportations - Washington Free Beacon

An immigration reform activist and former immigration judge sees no need shut down immigration courts amid the coronavirus crisis.

While many daily activities have grinded to a halt in an effort to reduce the spread of the coronavirus, the Trump administration is resisting pleas from immigration judges and attorneys to stop in-person hearings and shutter all immigration courts. They say the most pressing hearings can be done by phone so immigrants are not stuck in detention indefinitely.

Immigration attorneys and judges have taken to wearing swim goggles or masks in court, and while immigration courts in places like New York, New Jersey, and Colorado have been temporarily shut down in the past week, most of the 68 U.S. immigration courts are still holding hearings.

"Keeping those courts open and having those cases proceed is important so we can get those decisions made as quickly as possible," submits Art Arthur, a resident fellow in law and policy at the Center for Immigration Studies. "From a legal perspective and from a logistical perspective, it actually makes sense to have those courts open."

Arthur speaks on this from experience.

"I was a judge in a detain court, so I probably have more experience on this than most people. With due respect to my colleagues who are still on the bench, nobody really came that close to me or was allowed to come that close," he accounts. "With respect to concerns by government attorneys or private attorneys, there's not a lot of close contact in immigration courts, so those are logistical issues to be worked out but not a reason to close down the courts per se."

Arthur says he considers the immigration courts a critical activity that should remain open with appropriate safeguards, as it is a critical activity.

Here is the original post:
Safeguards suggested to keep courts moving - OneNewsNow

Donald Trump has vanquished the Chinese Virus. No, not COVID-19the actual disease that continues to spread unchecked in the United States and around the worldjust the racist term he invented to cast blame on one of his favorite bogeymen: China. Apparently, the presidents change of heart comes because hes shocked shocked! to learn, It seems there could be a little nasty language toward the Asian Americans in our country. Or so he said at Mondays White House briefing on the virus. On Sunday, however, he had no hesitation to call COVID-19 the Chinese Virus; and on Friday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo used the ugly term standing from the same podium along with the president. Others in the administration have found even more colorful ways to describe the disease. Whats next, calling it the Yellow Peril?

Is this merely another example of Trump dog-whistling to white nationalists in an election year, or is there something even more insidious going on? Stephen Miller, the presidents immigration henchman, helped write his disastrous Oval Office address on the disease, describing the pandemic as a foreign virus. Miller wasnt being sloppy, he meant to plant the seed that this disease was alien. Associating a specific disease with a particular ethnic group has worked in the past to raise fears about immigrants and helped spur calls to cut off immigration from various countries, not just for a medically prudent short term in a pandemic, but permanently.

A virulent smallpox epidemic in San Francisco in 1875-76 led health authorities to order fumigation of all Chinese immigrants homes. It did little to stop the spread of smallpox, which infected 1,646 whites in the city and killed more than 400. The citys top health officer attributed the disease to the 30,000 Chinese laborers living in San Francisco at the time, whom he blamed, with no evidence, for concealing their cases of smallpox. The scare exacerbated calls to bar all Chinese laborers from entering the U.S., which culminated in the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. The law barred Chinese from immigrating until 1943, but it was the 1965 Immigration Act that led to large-scale immigration from China. By 2013, China had replaced Mexico as the country sending the most immigrants to the U.S.

And Asians werent the only immigrant scapegoats for disease. In the early 20th century, during the huge influx of Southern and Eastern Europeans, New Yorkers dubbed tuberculosis the Jewish disease and accused Italians of bringing in cholera. The common stereotype associating infectious diseases with new immigrants led to much more aggressive inspections of newcomers, with the federal government taking over responsibility from the individual states in 1890.

In 1892, the federal government opened Ellis Island, the largest immigrant inspection station, and others followed at Angel Island near San Francisco, at the port of Galveston, Texas, and elsewhere. Between 1902 and its closure in 1951, the Ellis Island Immigrant Hospital cared for more than a quarter million patients. Those who had infectious diseases like tuberculosis were sent back to their countries of origin at shipping lines expense, which prompted shipping companies to begin assessing travelers before they boarded ships to avoid the potential financial as well as medical risk.

With the outbreak of the misnamed Spanish Flu epidemic in 1918 (it probably started in Kansas), Americans were primed to see immigration restriction as a way to fight disease. Much of the anti-immigrant rhetoric of the era described new immigrants as dirty, disease-ridden, and a threat to the native stock. Unsurprisingly, Congress acceded to popular sentiment, largely shutting off immigration in 1924 by limiting immigration from most countries to 2 percent of their U.S. population in 1890. Consequently, few Spaniards, Italians, Greeks, Poles, Russians (many of whom were Jews) or others from Southern and Eastern Europe, who had come in large numbers between 1900 and 1924, could immigrate until Congress rescinded the quotas in 1965.

It is one thing for nations to impose temporary travel bans to stem the spread of a highly contagious disease, but another to exploit a national emergency to further policy goals that would be difficult to achieve in normal circumstances. Trump has made no secret that he wants to reduce immigrationnot just illegal immigration but legal immigration as well. During his campaign, he advocated that before new green cards are issued to foreign workers abroad, there will be a pause where employers will have to hire from the domestic pool of unemployed immigrant and native workers. Once in office, Trump endorsed a bill sponsored by Sens. David Perdue and Tom Cotton that would have drastically slashed legal immigration. But even without Congress passing the bill, Trump managed to reduce net legal immigration 70 percent last year.

Trump isnt alone in believing fewer immigrants would be good for America. Neo-Malthusian groups like the Federation for American Immigration Reform, the Center for Immigration Studies, and many of the anti-immigrant groups in the U.S. think a shrinking population is a good thing. Its not. Fewer people mean fewer workers and consumers and a contracting GDP. U.S. population growth has already slowed significantly, with the native population having fewer babies and stricter immigration rules making it more difficult for legal immigrants to come here.

And its not just the loss of the immigrants themselves that will drive down population. Without immigrants and the children to whom they give birth, the United States would already be below replacement levelwhich is just what the restrictionists would like to see. COVID-19 may well accomplish what the radical restrictionists and anti-natalists have been wanting for years: fewer immigrants, fewer babies, and a declining American population.

We face difficult times ahead, but it would be wrong to allow fear of any disease to drive us to erect long-lasting barriers against welcoming immigrants and providing asylum and refuge to those who flee persecution, war, and violence.

See original here:
For Trump, COVID-19 Is Another Excuse to Limit Immigration - The Bulwark