Mediaboss Marketing

It was widely expected that massive numbers of migrants would stream into the U.S. following the expiration of Title 42, the COVID-19-era policy that allowed border authorities to rapidly return most migrants who had crossed into the U.S. illegally. Instead, the border has been relatively quiet, with roughly 4,200 migrants detained Saturday and 6,300 on Sunday. Thats a drop from peaks as high as 11,000 detentions earlier last week, just before the pandemic policys expiration.

But thats hardly solace for Chicago, where migrants have been sleeping shoulder-to-shoulder on police station floors and jammed into shuttered schools, Park District field houses and even an abandoned Streeterville hotel.

Many of the migrants are mothers traveling with toddlers and young children, all coping with the queasy angst of not knowing what happens next.

The crisis is both national and intensely local, and blame can be affixed to many players. It starts with Greg Abbott, the Republican governor of Texas, who resorted to the cynical ploy of using migrants as political pawns and shipping them with one-way tickets to Chicago, New York and other Democratic strongholds.

Former Mayor Lori Lightfoot, who justifiably has been harshly critical of Abbott, isnt altogether blameless. The first wave of migrants that Abbott dispatched came last fall. Then the flow of migrants coming into Chicago slowed, which should have given Lightfoots team ample time and opportunity to map out contingency plans for the next wave. One constant in this crisis has been Abbotts predictability, and Lightfoot could have done a better job bracing the city for this latest influx.

And then, of course, theres the inexplicable gridlock that has characterized Congress inaction on immigration reform for two decades.

One of the latest attempts at bipartisan immigration reform emerged late last year. Former Democrat and now independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema from Arizona teamed up with GOP Sen. Thom Tillis from North Carolina to craft a measure that would have tackled critical immigration issues such as improved processing of asylum claims, the creation of a pathway to citizenship for roughly 2 million so-called Dreamers (undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children), and the allocation of billions of dollars to better secure the southern border. It was a smart, comprehensive approach, and yet an ineffectual, divided Congress shelved it.

And if Vice President Kamala Harris has some effective new ideas on this emergency, we have yet to hear them.

In Chicago, the crisis is now in the hands of Mayor Brandon Johnson. The new mayor quickly made clear Chicagos compassion for the plight of migrants, saying during his inauguration speech Monday that the city will never close our doors to those who come here in search of a better life. One of his first official acts included an executive order creating a Deputy Mayor for Immigrant, Migrant and Refugee Rights, a post that will liaise with city departments to ensure support for asylum seekers.

On his first full day in office, he met with migrants at a police station in Pilsen and a Little Village park center, telling reporters Im here today because I needed to see it firsthand.

Thats laudable, but more than photo ops are needed for Chicago to cope with an ongoing migrant crisis that requires tangible support for asylum-seekers and a smart approach to finding ways to finance that support. Johnson can begin by fashioning a game plan for the crisis, and so far he hasnt shared that plan with the city.

Does he have one? He should.

Johnson has had weeks to prepare for what clearly is an urgent problem. This crisis isnt going away any time soon, and the mere fact that there are still migrant families including young children crammed into police stations should be ample incentive to move fast. Despite the lull in migrant activity at the border, more asylum-seekers are bound to get shipped to Chicago, and the city is already at capacity.

Smart thinkers in the city and surrounding suburbs have been talking up the merit of a regional approach toward solving metro area problems and crises. The current migrant plight can become the ideal litmus test for the city and suburbs commitment to regional problem-solving. Though Chicago has been struggling to find more adequate, humane shelter for incoming migrants, suburbia clearly has ample space and infrastructure.

New York Mayor Eric Adams has already tried sharing the burden of sheltering migrants by enlisting nearby suburbs. His attempt drew fierce blowback from those towns largely because he sprung the idea on them with little notice. Johnson could glean lessons from Adams experience and negotiate with Chicago suburban leaders so that the suburbs dont feel as if theyre simply being volunteered to help involuntarily. And Gov. J.B. Pritzker should lend his bully pulpit to the promotion of this cooperative approach.

The best solution, of course, is a permanent one and that will only happen when Congress, together with the administration of President Joe Biden, do what they were elected to do and hammer out genuine, lasting immigration reform. The Sinema-Tillis bill would be an ideal place to start.

Get opinion pieces, letters and editorials sent directly to your inbox weekly!

More:
WHAT OTHERS ARE SAYING: What's Chicago's migrant crisis plan - The Pantagraph

FAIR Take | May2023

Sanctuary New York City (NYC) Mayor Eric Adams is complaining loudly about the illegal aliens coming into his city saying the city is being destroyed by the migrant crisis. Ironically, just a couple of years ago, he put out the welcome mat for all illegal aliens to come to New York. In October 2021, Mayor Adams tweeted that NYC will remain a sanctuary city under the Adams administration, expressing that we should protect our immigrants. Now that NYC is shouldering the costs for the latest influx of illegal aliens, he is saying there is no more room at the inn and he is trying to send these unwelcome guests onto neighboringcounties.

As a result of the Biden administrations lax immigration policies, 61,000 illegal aliens have come to NYC over the past year and about 40,000 are on the taxpayer dole receiving housing, food, and other benefits. These illegal aliens are placing a tremendous strain on city resources and existing housing for the homeless is filled tocapacity.

Mayor Adams estimates that the Biden administrations immigration policies will cost the city $4.3 billion in 2023 and 2024. These costs were not included in a recent FAIR cost study that found New York was home to 1.8 million illegal aliens which cost taxpayers $9.9billion.

With existing facilities unable to house the 500 illegal aliens arriving daily and the expected influx of 300-500 additional illegal aliens with the lifting of Title 42, NYC has requested that all city agencies review their facilities to determine whether they can be repurposed into temporary housing for illegal aliens. Some of the locations being considered are hangars at JFK International Airport as well as local college gyms and parks including Central Park and ProspectPark.

One temporary facility currently being used to house illegal aliens is a former New York police department training academy (NYPDTA). While the NYPDTA is no longer in use, there is still a shooting range that is being used. The NYPDTAs gym was set up with rows of cots to house single males. However, the facility also had to admit families and children, prompting Mayor Adams to suspend NYCs Right to Shelter Policy which requires the city to house families in privaterooms.

Open borders advocates have complained about the housing situation, stating that [p]rivate sleeping quarters are required for families safety, for mothers to privately nurse newborns, to reduce the transmission of infectious diseases, and to prevent sexual assault.These advocates raise valid concerns regarding safety. It is estimated that one out of three women and children are sexually assaulted or raped crossing the border and it continues in the US with reports about rape trees and on sexual abuse in stashhouses.

In addition to re-purposing existing facilities in NYC to accommodate the influx of illegal aliens, Mayor Adams is trying to ship illegal aliens into other counties within the state. Mayor Adams notified Rockland, Orange, Rensselaer, and Oneida counties that illegal aliens would be sent to their locales for temporary housing, access to services, and connections to local communities as they build a stable life in New York state.He continued, Elected officials in New York and other parts of the country should do their part and emulate the humane and compassionate approach NYC has taken this pastyear.

Public officials in all of these counties have denounced Mayor Adams plan to send illegal aliens to their counties and have declared states of emergency. These are failures of the sanctuary city policy, and now, big city politicians want to have all of us pay the price for their misguided actions, stated Rensselaer County Executive Steve McLaughlin. We do not have the structure or the resources to take care of these people being forced out of NYC, he added. This is not the first time Rensselaer County has opposed sanctuary policies. In 2019, Rensselaer County filed a lawsuit against New Yorks Greenlight law that granted drivers licenses to illegalaliens.

Rockland County Executive Ed Day also denounced Mayor Adams attempt to ship the migrant problem elsewhere. Rockland County has filed legal action to stop Mayor Adams from sending illegal aliens into the county, and a judge issued a temporary restraining order to keep Mayor Adams from sending aliens to a Rockland County hotel. Commenting on the lawsuit, Mr. Day said, Rockland is not going to stand idly by as your administration which boasts itself as a sanctuary city diverts busloads of undocumented individuals to ourcounty.

Now New York Governor Kathy Hochul (D) is currently having her administration look into whether local governments can block NYC from sending illegal aliens into their communities. As the debate unfolds at the state and local level, the Biden Administration has remained quiet. Administration officials this week blamed Congress for not passing the mass amnesty legislation President Biden sent to Congress his first week inoffice.

Read more:
New York Citys Sanctuary Status To Cost Taxpayers Billions - Federation for American Immigration Reform

Thrive PRs Leilani Abels has welcomed immigration reforms committed to by the federal government in the 2023 budget, which she believes will help to see a coming of age in the public relations industry in Australia, now and into the future.

The sector has been calling for immigration reform for some time, as border closures put an even greater strain on an already dwindling PR talent market, Abels said.

Mid last year, the Public Relations Institute of Australia (PRIA) launched the The Migration Task Force, with the financial support of 17 agencies and a recruitment firm, with Thrive part of the cohort.

The task force made a comprehensive submission to the governments National Skills Commission to recognise PR as a long-term skill requirement an effort that has been rewarded with the Albanese governments commitment to an introduce evidence-based approach to identifying labour market needs, rather than a rigid occupations list.

ADVERTISEMENT

In new reforms first announced by the Minister for Home Affairs Clare ONeill last month, the Commonwealth has committed to creating a pathway to permanent residency for all temporary skilled workers by the end of 2023.

These changes were again committed to in last weeks budget, which stated: The government aims to ensure the migration system delivers the skilled migrants needed to address persistent skills shortages by allocating around 70 per cent of places in the 2023-24 Permanent Migration Program to the Skill stream.

In an interview with Mumbrella, Abels said: The PR industry in Australia is overly reliant on global talent, in particular immigration from the UK.

She noted that a pathway to permanent residency has not previously existed for temporary skill shortage visa holders in metro cities, as PR sat on the Short Term Skills list.

This is a mega win for the industry, ensuring permanent residency for those in Australia seeking a future here, she continued.

While Abels described immigration reform as a minefield, being that it is detailed and complex, she pointed to several other promising commitments in the budget she hopes will significantly impact the PR industry.

One of these is a new three-tiered temporary skilled visa framework that will create a permanent residency pathway for workers with skills identified as in demand, who are earning above a base salary of $70,000, replacing occupation lists with evidence-based assessment of skills shortages.

The PR industry can also hope to see a reduction in costs associated with visas, with the government promising to simplify the current process and allow employers to opt-in to pay visa fees in monthly installments, rather than upfront.

This levels the playing field for smaller and mid-level agency operators, who will be able to take advantage of spreading out these costs and participating in an easier immigration system, explained Abels, giving the caveat that there is a chance visa costs may rise.

In addition, Abels welcomed the news there would be a citizenship pathway for Kiwis in Australia for those who have been living in Australia for more than four years, with the major change being they will no longer have to first apply for and be granted permanent residency.

Gareth Beddoes, senior account director at Thrive, has recently been given the opportunity to apply for permanent residency with the support of the agency, as a result of the reforms.

More than six years after moving to Australia from the UK, and building a life with his partner, he said he could not fathom the fact Australia was going to be comfortable with just kicking us out.

The reforms would be a huge positive for the PR and creative industries as a whole, he added.

Post Covid, there was a lot of need to get people back over here and boost immigration, but I think they initially turned a bit of a blind eye to the people who were already here.

So Im grateful to see that theyre now tackling it from a two-pronged approach.

Continued here:
Mooted immigration reforms are a mega win for the PR industry, says Thrive PRs Leilani Abels - Mumbrella

After three weeks of negotiations, the nationalist Finns Party leader said that significant immigration reform is a prerequisite for her party to join the next cabinet.

Riikka Purra, chair of the Finns Party, said that immigration issues have yet to be resolved in negotiations on forming a new government.

The nationalist party leader spoke to reporters at the House of Estates in Helsinki as the third week of cabinet formation talks drew to a close on Friday.

Purra said she had reminded other negotiators that if there are no clear changes to the immigration policy, no government programme will be created involving her party.

She was asked whether immigration issues, which have been perceived as difficult for this planned government coalition, have been avoided by other parties.

"Maybe there is a kind of difficulty [with this issue]," Purra said, but went on to say that "without clear changes to Finnish [immigration] policy, a government will not be formed based on these parties."

According to Purra, there are problems in the talks regarding both work-related and humanitarian immigration.

According to the leading daily Helsingin Sanomat, the Finns Party is seeking changes such as limiting the right to seek asylum in Finland to internal European refugees and restricting the right to social security solely to Finnish citizens.

According to Purra, no agreements have reached over funding for international development cooperation either. Her party has called for a sharp cut in such spending, which now corresponds to about 0.5 percent of Finland's GNP.

Meanwhile, two other potential coalition partners, the Swedish People's Party and the Christian Democrats, have demanded that development assistance be raised to 0.7 percent of GNP, in line with long-standing international guidelines.

Meanwhile, Christian Democrats chair Sari Essayah said that the government negotiations have progressed more smoothly than in 2011, the last time her party was involved. According to Essayah, negotiators are continually adding to the text of the government programme.

Essayah said that it was difficult to say whether the talks had already reached the halfway point.

Prime minister-apparent Petteri Orpo (NCP) estimated earlier this week that the parties were about halfway through the negotiation process. He said he aimed to have a new cabinet in office before the Midsummer holiday on 23 June.

Original post:
Purra: No government deal without "clear changes" to immigration - YLE News

Democratic Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont, flanked by Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Ed Markey of Massachusetts, addressed concerns about debt limit negotiations during a press conference on Thursday. A group of Senate Democrats sent a letter to President Biden urging him to invoke the 14th Amendment to avoid a debt default if he can't reach a deal with Republicans. Alex Wong/Getty Images hide caption

Democratic Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont, flanked by Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Ed Markey of Massachusetts, addressed concerns about debt limit negotiations during a press conference on Thursday. A group of Senate Democrats sent a letter to President Biden urging him to invoke the 14th Amendment to avoid a debt default if he can't reach a deal with Republicans.

Some Democrats on Capitol Hill are growing increasingly worried that President Biden will give into too many demands from House Speaker Kevin McCarthy in continuing talks over a deal to avoid a historic debt default.

After a second White House meeting earlier this week, and staff talks in the last couple of days, Biden and McCarthy both expressed optimism that a deal could get done.

"I see the path that we could come to an agreement. And I think we have a structure now and everybody's working hard," McCarthy told reporters Thursday morning.

But with two weeks before the country runs out of money to pay its bills and negotiations limited to a tight circle of the president's and the speaker's negotiators, many progressive lawmakers are nervous about the lack of details about what is or isn't on the table.

A key issue causing many on the left heartburn is Biden's recent signal that he's considering some changes to federal safety net programs, a central Republican demand.

The fear that Biden is entertaining going further in negotiations than some in his own party are comfortable with is driving a Democratic backup plan to get around having to strike any compromise with McCarthy.

Progressive Democrats are the most vocal about their trepidationand are putting the president on notice that they are keeping a close eye on every morsel of information coming out of the negotiations.

"I'm watchful. I'm always watchful," Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., told reporters Thursday.

Many in her caucus were alarmed by comments Biden made before departing for his trip to the G7 where he suggested the possibility of toughening requirements for federal safety net programs like food stamps a provision included in a bill House Republicans passed last month.

"I'm not going to accept any work requirements that go much beyond what is already what I I voted years ago for the work requirements that exist. But it's possible there could be a few others, but not anything of any consequence," he said when pressed what kind of proposal he was discussing with McCarthy.

Jayapal took note, calling his remarks "a little bit confusing."

"What I've said in the past is, you know, I understand he voted for work requirements in 1996 and some other things in '86 with the crime bill," she said. "But we didn't elect the Joe Biden of 1986 and 1996. We elected the Joe Biden of 2020."

President Biden delivered a brief update of the ongoing negotiations over the debt limit at the White House on Wednesday. Some of his comments about work requirements raised red flags to progressive Democrats. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images hide caption

President Biden delivered a brief update of the ongoing negotiations over the debt limit at the White House on Wednesday. Some of his comments about work requirements raised red flags to progressive Democrats.

The White House has made it clear that any work requirements changes for Medicaid are not acceptable, but that leaves programs like food stamps or cash assistance programs for low-income individuals and families as possible areas negotiators may be reviewing.

Florida freshman Rep. Maxwell Frost says now that the talks have narrowed between the president's team and the speaker's, he wants Biden to hold the line.

"I have trust in the president on this," he told NPR. "But I do want to make sure that him and administration know that we don't want to see any cuts to these essential programs like SNAP," referring to the program that distributes food assistance.

McCarthy wouldn't say what kinds of additional rules to these programs were on the table but he argued there were statistics showing the benefits for putting restrictions on those getting federal benefits.

"Work requirements help people get jobs. It takes them out of poverty," he said.

But Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., told reporters he reached out to the Biden administration to say any deal that could impact anti-poverty programs needs to be rejected.

"The people that I've talked to in the White House have been reassuring from my point of view," he said. "I haven't talked directly to the president about this you know, he's overseas right now. But make no mistake: what they are proposing would adversely impact the most vulnerable people in this country."

He added he'll break with the president if he has to, telling reporters, "I can't support a bill that screws poor people and this would screw poor people."

One senior Democratic aide acknowledged a significant number of House Democrats could oppose a final deal, and that the speaker runs a risk of not getting enough for a bipartisan majority to approve a deal if he pushes too many provisions from the House GOP plan.

Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., says the president has a record of hammering out bipartisan bills, but he suggested the other person at the negotiating table is the problem.

"We know that President Biden can cut deals. We know that he's a man of his word. And I have confidence and faith in the president in these negotiations. But I do not have faith in Speaker McCarthy and right wing Republican House members," Markey said.

The Massachusetts Democrat and 10 other Senate Democrats are pushing for the president to use the 14th amendment to the Constitution - which says the validity of the country's public debt cannot be questioned - and the president can pay its bills even if Congress doesn't raise the debt ceiling.

"Republicans' unwillingness to consider one penny in new revenue from the wealthy and large corporations, along with their diminishment of the disastrous consequences of default, have made it seemingly impossible to enact a bipartisan budget deal at this time," the group wrote in a letter to Biden on Thursday.

Biden said last week he has been considering invoking the 14th Amendment to keep making payments on the nation's debt but said he doesn't think there's enough time left before a looming deadline to use the untested strategy.

The idea has been raised repeatedly over the years. Recently, Harvard's Laurence Tribe a former adviser to Biden said he thinks it would be a legitimate way to solve the problem.

"The problem is, it would have to be litigated," Biden said May 9, noting a debt limit extension would likely to be needed to avoid economic calamity. "I'm thinking about taking a look at it months down the road," he said. "I don't think that solves our problem now."

Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., acknowledged Democrats don't have a lot of detail about what the president and the speaker are discussing. But he says it's better to turn to the 14th amendment than agree to GOP demands.

"We're saying to the president, if the bottom line is that the only deal to be had that McCarthy will sign onto is one in which ordinary families are savaged and in which the economy is flooded with fossil fuels that is unacceptable," Merkley said.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., a former Constitutional law professor, has been pressing the case for the president to rely on the 14th amendment for months. He says "it seems perfectly obvious" that the Constitution is the guiding authority.

"It's not an option. It's a requirement," Raskin told reporters on Thursday. "And it hasn't been raised before because no Congress has ever tried to push the president to this point of essentially committing an act of legislative extortion, saying, if you don't accept our legislative agenda, then we're not going to allow you to pay the debts of the country."

While some Democratic lawmakers are publicly saying it's time for a break glass moment like using the 14th Amendment, others are willing to let the process play out a bit longer. They have effusive praise for the top White House negotiators Steve Ricchetti, who has served in multiple Democratic administrations, and Shalanda Young, a veteran Capitol Hill aide with expertise in budget talks. The president and top Democratic leaders admit in divided government Democrats aren't going to like everything in any deal the president negotiates with House Republicans.

Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., says it's important to not jump to any conclusions about where a final debt ceiling bill will end up and whether new work requirements will make it in a deal.

"Negotiating can be conversational and hoping that you might draw a bite based upon something you've said, which means that conceivably is not in the final package," he said. "So who knows? But I do think that giving the president some latitude here is really important."

More here:
Democrats worry Biden might cave to some GOP demands on debt ceiling - NPR