Mediaboss Marketing

Justice Amoh

Ever since my asthmatic childhood, I dreamed of building technology to help the estimated 545 million people worldwide who suffer from respiratory diseases. When it came time for college, I left my native Ghana to attend Dartmouth, where I studied engineering as an undergrad and a Ph.D. candidate. By the time I graduated in 2019, I had my patented invention: a pendant-like device leveraging AI to continuously monitor the lungs.

To date, our company Clairways, has raised $1 million in investment capital and has funding from two federal agencies. One pharmaceutical company will soon be piloting our device in a clinical trial. Were in talks with another major pharma company for a project with potentially global impact. This interest makes sense; our product enables pharma companies to objectively track respiratory components during clinical trials, which helps speed up the development of life-saving drugs. Our technology provides both moment-by-moment data and a long-term picture of respiratory health. The pandemic has laid bare the necessity of these technologies.

While Clairways is growing, one crucial pain point relates to hiring: it is difficult to find qualified engineers to hire in the Upper Valley. In our attempts to hire, weve found that there is a limited pool of American applicants with the necessary technical skills. While the greater Boston metropolitan region is near and boasts a larger pool of technical talents, there isnt much appeal for applicants to move to rural New Hampshire.

International graduates of schools like Dartmouth are a great secondary option, but immigration policy makes them nearly impossible to hire. Thats a serious problem for us and for many small tech companies.

The worker shortage is real; there are 13 STEM jobs posted for every unemployed STEM worker, according to New American Economy.

I was encouraged by recent moves to address this problem. Recently, the House of Representatives passed the America Competes Act, paving the way for more international STEM Ph.D.s to apply for permanent residency. And earlier this year, the White House introduced several measures to help more high-skilled immigrants, including international STEM students, work for American companies.

This could be a game-changer for companies like mine but a temporary one. Most of the measures only provide short-term visas, which means any international talent we hire will inevitably have a limited impact. Ultimately, these two shifts represent piecemeal change at best. If America truly wants long-lasting economic vitality, we need robust immigration reform.

Its incredibly difficult to hire an international worker, even when there are no American applicants. We have to spend large sums to sponsor their temporary visa without any guarantee theyll receive one; the visas are granted by lottery, and last year, 300,000 people applied for 85,000 spots. Even if we do secure a visa, my employees could spend decades in limbo waiting for their green card. Thats partly because every country gets the same number of green cards each year, regardless of population size. As a result, applicants from India and China have wait times of up to 150 years.

As a Ghanaian and an advanced degree holder, I was fortunate. After graduate school, I worked in the U.S. for two years under a temporary training program for STEM graduates. Eventually, given my doctorate degree and valuable contributions to my industry, I sought a national interest waiver and self-petitioned for a green card. Since Im from a low-population country, I received my permanent residency only a year and a half later.

The new White House regulations will allow a larger spectrum of international STEM graduates to take advantage of the same training program I completed. But theres no guarantee that these grads, especially those from high-population countries, will be able to stay long term. At this early stage, our young startup simply doesnt have the bandwidth to cover the expense and time required to enter the high skilled visa lottery.

We are currently trying to sponsor one employee now, but the process is a resource drain. Meanwhile, our three unfilled jobs are dramatically restricting our output and growth.

That slows down our time to market, which means pharma companies cant use our products to speed up drug development, which ultimately hurts Americans suffering from respiratory health issues.

Industry leaders across STEM fields are making the same plea: We applaud the new White House rules and the House passage of the America Competes Act, but we need more to be done. We need Congress to reform the green card rules that put high-population countries at a serious disadvantage. We need them to clear the current green card backlog. And we should be awarding green cards to international STEM graduates so that we dont lose them to countries like Canada and Australia, which are considerably more hospitable to international talent.

Thats important for towns like Lebanon, where Clairways is based. Dartmouth turns out brilliant graduates, but many want to move to big cities. International students are an exception. Theyre much more willing to take a job in a smaller city or town and put down roots there.

Further, most New England states have aging populations. But from New Hampshire to Massachusetts to Maine, immigrants are much more likely to be of working age. We need this fresh blood to power our businesses and fuel our public services.

Thats why I started my company here in Lebanon. But we cant innovate, expand or compete if were perennially short of employees. Our device will help ease the suffering of millions with chronic respiratory diseases, so I make this appeal with urgency. Congress needs to get serious; give American businesses their workforce.

Justice Amoh is co-founder and chief technology officer of Clairways in Lebanon.

See the original post here:
We need to hire three people for my biotech company, but the worker shortage is standing in our way - New Hampshire Business Review

As it continues to ignore the wholesale breach of our nation's borders, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) just announced the launch of "Uniting for Ukraine," a historic effort to welcome 100,000 Ukrainians into the U.S. through various admission pathwaysmost prominently through humanitarian parole.

The full details have yet to be announced, but early indications are that this program will be yet another example of the Biden administration usurping congressional authority through an expansive and illegal use of humanitarian parole.

DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas has continually abused the limited discretion delegated by Congress in order to run his own mass immigration and refugee program. His abuse of humanitarian parole, expansion of Temporary Protected Status (TPS), weakening of asylum standards and non-existent interior immigration enforcement all amount to a lawless destruction of our nation's immigration limits and controls.

We are a compassionate nation with the world's most generous immigration system. Granting temporary refuge to people whose country was invaded by a malevolent, expansionist neighbor is the right thing to dobut it must be done lawfully.

Statute requires that parole be used temporarily, on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian or significant public benefit reasons. In this case, humanitarian parole, rather an actual immigration status authorized by Congress, is being used to circumvent immigration caps that Congress established in order to move hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals into the United States.

By any measure, the United States has over the last two years done more than its fair share of worldwide immigrant and refugee admissions.

The Biden administration and lawmakers in both parties also continue to improperly frame the plight of displaced Ukrainians. The fact is, nearly all Ukrainian refugees are already being properly assisted in the region, and there are plenty of ways for us to assist with monetary aid to ease suffering, restore stability and ensure that they can easily return home once the conflict subsides.

In early March, the European Union generously granted three-year residency to all Ukrainian refugees to live, work and access health care in 27 of the world's most secure and developed countries. Why not assist this effort rather than ignoring our own laws to give Ukrainians one more option halfway around the world?

Of course, Ukrainians are a group with compelling humanitarian needs and we share the Biden administration's sympathy for their plight.

However, Congress created the refugee admissions process and authorized TPS specifically to address these types of humanitarian situations, and has repeatedly sought to rein in the executive branch's abuse of humanitarian parole.

Humanitarian parole is not the appropriate mechanism to help Ukrainian refugees. "Programmatic" or class-based parole is unlawful and being used to get around caps that may have required the United States to accept fewer refugees from other regions.

With Mayorkas continuing to improperly invoke parole authority, it raises the questionwho's next and how many? Congress, not the executive branch, has plenary authority over immigration. Americans must demand that their government respect its limits.

Dan Stein is president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) in Washington, D.C.

The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.

View original post here:
Destroying Immigration Laws Isn't the Way to Help Ukrainian Refugees | Opinion - Newsweek

Congressman Tom Tiffany should have resigned long ago. His latest stunt is only more evidence that he is hostile to American democracy and would support a coup to install an unelected authoritarian government if given the chance.

Already infamous for promoting an an effort to overturn the will of Wisconsin voters (through supporting a failed Texas lawsuit that sought to throw out certified vote totals from multiple states) and opposing a symbolic resolution to stand with NATO as it faces the war designs of Russias dictator Vladimir Putin, Tiffanys latest stunt is to sign on as a co-sponsor of a resolution to impeach one of President Joe Biden Cabinet secretaries, Alejandro Mayorkas of Homeland Security. The Hazelhurst Republicans well-known infatuation with demonizing immigrants shines through in a letter he co-signed Monday to Mayorkas.

Tiffany is part of the latest GOP effort to divert attention from the investigation of the attack on the US Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021joining other right-wing Trumpers at the US southern border this week to make loud noises about a genuine problem while rejecting the only workable solution: true immigration reform. The folly of a massive, wasteful wall is their Holy Grail. Failure to support it, they claim, is reason enough to impeach Mayorkas.

This is not new territory for Tiffany. Prior to his special election to Congress in May 2020, he took part in a stunt by Republican state senators who refused to confirm several of Gov. Tony Evers cabinet heads and other nomineesan unprecedented and now permanent stain in the history books of Wisconsin Republicans. So its only in character for Tiffany to now want to impeach someone in the line of succession to the US presidency for partisan purposes rather than actual crimes. The only impeachment of a Cabinet secretary took place in 1876 amid charges of bribery.

This is extremistand arguably treasonousbehavior: undermining election results and thwarting the will of duly-elected chief executives at the state and federal levels for the sake of creating instability that threatens democracy itself.

In more normal times we would warn Tiffany that this is a dangerous game he and former President Donald Trumps other sycophants are playing. But we no longer believe this is just another game. Crazy as it sounds, these people arent merely trying to make political hay out of creating a Constitutional crisis, nearly overthrowing election results, and aiding an attempted coup. They believe it needs to happen and are seeking just enough public support to give them cover.

Dont go there, Congressman. The country you profess to love is in trouble, but its trouble caused by your inability to be a patriot and accept that your party continues to lose nationwide and statewide races because it has lost its way. Instead of seeking to govern, your party seeks to rulethrough gerrymadering, voter obstruction, and stoking fear. Its an authoritarian flirtation that needs to end before you and other co-conspirators drag this nation into even darker places.

Read more here:
To Rep. Tom Tiffany, Co-Sponsor of Impeaching a Biden Cabinet Officer: Don't Go There - UpNorthNews

When the U.S. Congress passedand President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into lawthe Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965, the move was largely seen as symbolic.

"The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants, lead supporter Sen. Edward Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) told the Senate during debate. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.

That sentiment was echoed by Johnson, who, upon signing the act on October 3, 1965, said the bill would not be revolutionary: It does not affect the lives of millions It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives or add importantly to either our wealth or our power.

But the actalso known as the Hart-Celler Act after its sponsors, Sen. Philip Hart (D-Mich.) and Rep. Emanuel Celler (D-N.Y.)put an end to long-standing national-origin quotas that favored those from northern and western Europe and led to a significant immigration demographic shift in America. Since the act was passed, according to the Pew Research Center, immigrants living in America have more than quadrupled, now accounting for nearly 14 percent of the population.

President Lyndon B. Johnson signs the Immigration Act of 1965 on Liberty Island in New York Harbor with a view of the New York City skyline in the background.

Corbis/Getty Images

In 1960, Pew notes, 84 percent of U.S. immigrants were born in Europe or Canada; 6 percent were from Mexico, 3.8 percent were from South and East Asia, 3.5 percent were from Latin America and 2.7 percent were from other parts of the world. In 2017, European and Canadian immigrants totaled 13.2 percent, while Mexicans totaled 25.3 percent, other Latin Americans totaled 25.1 percent, Asians totaled 27.4 percent and other populations totaled 9 percent.

The 1965 act has to be understood as a result of the civil rights movement, and the general effort to eliminate race discrimination from U.S. law, says Gabriel Jack Chin, immigration law professor at University of California, Davis and co-editor of The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act: Legislating a New America.

READ MORE: U.S. Immigration Timeline

President Lyndon B. Johnson shakes hands with Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) as the senator's brother, Senator Robert F. Kennedy (D-N.Y.) looks on after the signing of the newly enacted immigration reform bill at the Statue of liberty.

Bettmann Archive/Getty Images

Scroll to Continue

Immigration reform was also a personal project of John F. Kennedy, Chin notes, whose pamphlet written as a senator was published after his assassination as the book A Nation of Immigrants, and argued for the elimination of the National Origins Quota System in place since 1921.

Ted Kennedy, along with Attorney General and Sen. Robert Kennedy (D-N.Y.), were both proponents of the bill, in part to honor their brother and also because it was consistent with their general interest in civil rights and international cold war politics, Chin adds.

I think every sensible person in 1965 knew that the sources of immigration would change, Chin says. The more fundamental change, and the more fundamental policy, was the articulation by many legislators that it simply did not matter from where an immigrant came; each person would be evaluated as an individual. That kind of argument was novel, but consistent with the anti-racism of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The act, Edward Kennedy argued during the Senate floor debate, went to the very central ideals of our country.

Our streets may not be paved with gold, but they are paved with the promise that men and women who live hereeven strangers and new newcomerscan rise as fast, as far as their skills will allow, no matter what their color is, no matter what the place of their birth, he said.

Among the key changes brought by the Hart-Celler Act:

Comparing 1965 to 2015, the Hispanic population rose from 4 percent to 18 percent; and Asians grew from 1 percent to 6 percent. This fast-growing immigrant population also has driven the share of the U.S. population that is foreign-born from 5 percent in 1965 to 14 percent today and will push it to a projected record 18 percent in 2065, the report continues, noting that no racial or ethnic group will claim a majority of the U.S. population.

Read the rest here:
How the Immigration Act of 1965 Changed the Face of ...

While such sweeping reform remains unlikely, Ali Noorani, president of the National Immigration Forum, argues there are still legislative avenues Biden could pursue: Last year, Republican Senator John Cornyn and Democratic Senator Kyrsten Sinema introduced the Bipartisan Border Solutions Act, which aims to streamline border processing and improve access to legal services.

These types of reforms, paired with existing legislation that provides legal immigration pathways which address the growing labor shortage and permanent protections for Dreamers, farm workers, and Temporary Protected Status recipients, is smart policy and smart politics, Noorani wrote in The Daily Beast.

The Department of Homeland Security is bracing for up to 18,000 unauthorized migrants to cross the southern border per day once Title 42 is lifted next month. As midterms approach, the prospect of such an increase has prompted attacks from Republicans spotting an electoral opportunity and Democrats wary of an electoral liability.

In a highly publicized response to Title 42s planned phaseout, Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas, a Republican, sent unauthorized migrants on a bus from Texas to Washington, D.C., and ordered more-extensive searches of all commercial vehicles crossing from Mexico. Like many other members of his party, Abbott has sought to draw a direct connection from Bidens immigration policy to the surge in U.S. drug overdoses.

Moderate Democrats are casting Title 42s end as a logistics issue, joining Senate Republicans in introducing a bill to keep it in place until 60 days after the end of the Covid-19 public health emergency has been declared. Even Beto ORourke criticized Biden for lacking a plan to help border communities prepare for the increase in migration.

Electorally speaking, You sort of have the worst of all possible worlds here, Blitzer, the New Yorker writer, said. If the Biden administration had stuck to its plan to roll back Title 42 and systematically build up asylum capacity back in 2021, it might have enjoyed wider leeway to break with the previous administrations policies. Now, a year later, he said, that kind of honeymoon period, such as it was, is over.

Another angle: The Washington Post columnist Catherine Rampell argues that Democrats real political liability could be too little immigration. Last year, immigration fell by nearly 50 percent, which has deprived the tight labor market of much-needed workers. Democrats, Rampell writes, have been so fixated on bad-faith right-wing attacks that they have missed the bigger, and much more serious, immigration-related liability: the millions of immigrants whose absence from the U.S. work force is putting upward pressure on inflation.

Whatever immigration message Biden wants to push, he should start pushing it now, argues Glenn Altschuler, a professor of American studies at Cornell. More than half 55 percent of Americans now disapprove of Bidens handling of immigration, he notes. Turning their assessments around presents a daunting challenge. With the midterms less than seven months away, the clock is ticking.

Do you have a point of view we missed? Email us at debatable@nytimes.com. Please note your name, age and location in your response, which may be included in the next newsletter.

Go here to see the original:
Opinion | Is Bidens Immigration Reform Too Little Too Late? - The New York Times