Mediaboss Marketing

By one measure, the Coachella Valley is even more politically polarized than California as a whole.

Last year, Joe Biden won over 70% of the vote in three cities here: Coachella, Palm Springs and Cathedral City. That outstrips the 63% he got statewide.

Meanwhile, then-President Donald Trump won just one city in the valley, Indian Wells. He got a hair under 60% there, close to double his 34% across California, according to data compiled by The Press-Enterprise.

You probably know some people coworkers, maybe even family who voted the other way and see a lot of things differently.

But do you ever talk to them about why?

Or do you just stick to the weather, either because you dont want to bother or because youve gotten sick of hitting a brick wall?

#ListenFirst: New virtual event kicks off annual National Week of Conversation

In an effort to bridge that divide through conversation instead of avoidance The Desert Sun and other newspapers in the USA TODAY Network are partnering with the group behind an event called America Talks.

The idea is simple: You answer a few questions about your politics, youre matched up with someone who answereddifferently, then the two of you talk.

The conversations happen next weekend, June 12 and 13.

Pearce Godwin, founder and CEO of the Listen First Project, explained the thinking to USA TODAY: Its easy to sit back and point fingers, to lose hope. What if instead we stepped forward and got real with each other, extending curiosity, good will and grace?

If you sign up as I did at the projects website, AmericaTalks.us, it asks whether you approve of the job Biden is doing as president. From there, it asks about your views on gun control, the minimum wage, immigration, marijuana and whether freedoms of speech and religion are threatened.

After you write brief answers to a couple more questions, it will take all that and match you up with someone to talk with next week.

It might be easier to talk to a stranger about thorny topics than to a friend or relative. Think of it as a warm-up.

Now, its understandable if right about now, youre thinking, I have no interest in speaking with someone who voted for the other guy.

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Joe Biden is doing as President?

But that carries on a vicious circle:Politics is so polarized that people dont talk in any real way, which makes politics more polarized, which...

And the pattern makes you think the worst of people who don't think like you. Someone who doesnt share your view of immigration reform is an inhumane monster. A person who supports government spending you dont is an anti-American socialist.

Sure, in theory, people dont think that way: Godwin cited research showing 79% of Americans believe creating opportunities for conversation among people with differing views and values would be effective to bridge divisions, and two-thirds think the differences between Americans are not so big that we cannot come together.

Answering a survey with such idealism is one thing. But how many of us behave that way?

Talking with someone on the other side of the chasm doesnt mean youre going to decide theyre right. Thats not the point.

The point is to find ways not to assume the worst about our fellow Americans.That can start with a single conversation.

Eric Hartley is The Desert Sun's opinion editor. Email him at eric.hartley@desertsun.com.

Read or Share this story: https://www.desertsun.com/story/opinion/columnists/2021/06/04/america-talks-bridge-political-divide-coachella-valley-across-us/7505069002/

Original post:
Column: Bridge the political divide in the valley, nationwide by talking to someone you don't agree with - Desert Sun

Priti Patel

Thom Brooks, The Independent

The latest net migration statistics published on 27 May are a much-delayed snapshot of England and Wales. The Office for National Statistics notes that new data from the year up to June 2019 should be viewed with some caution as Covid impacted its data collection.

Nonetheless, these new figures raise serious questions about the future plans for immigration reform announced by the government, led by Premier Boris Johnson, earlier this week.

The latest data shows drops in all areas from EU and non-EU citizens alike. Visits to England or Wales for work or study for three months to a year fell from 160,000 in June 2018 to 100,000 by June 2019. The only category where migration rose was in British citizens seeking work abroad. This doubled from 30,000 to 60,000 over the same period.

The picture being painted is clear. Most did not see England and Wales as a place welcoming global talent, with a greater number of citizens looking elsewhere for opportunities. The trend continues in estimates up to this spring, where work-related visas were down by over one third on last year, with more than two thirds due to falls in intra-company transfers.

While there should be some caution regarding these estimates, they show that in the run-up to 1 January 2020, those seeking work and study opportunities were looking elsewhere and this was before the pandemic arrived. It seems all but certain that this is the start of an unfortunate trend that the government may want to address urgently.

Since 2010, the Conservatives have made election manifesto promises to cut net migration to the tens of thousands. One regular criticism is that net migration has not, in fact, been higher than under the Tories. This highlights how their rhetoric does not match reality. Talking tough has not translated into results.

A second frequently raised concern is about the use of net migration for setting policy. Net migration counts all individuals entering or leaving over the year regardless of their nationality and mostly estimated using passenger data, making it more guesswork than science.

It has been noticeable for years that net migration would actually be higher if British citizens who are more likely to leave for abroad than return were discounted from the figures.

Earlier this week, home secretary Priti Patel vowed to strengthen the UKs digital border and introduce greater accuracy, avoiding hypothetical guesstimates of how much migration is actually happening. It is a shocking indictment that it has taken the Conservatives more than a decade to finally commit the government to getting a more accurate count, although no such system will be in place until 2025.

Paradoxically, the Tories have said they will not make any promises on migration reductions as they strive towards better accounting. This comes after making promises to cut numbers when the figures were known to be problematic for policy making.

This move towards improved accuracy is a part of Patels new plan for immigration, which sets out how she will fix the broken immigration system that her government has overseen for 11 years. While Patel wont say whether the new plan would lead to more or less immigration, it is clear she wants to position these plans as radical and positive changes. But in short, does it matter?

Her plans include a much-heralded points-based system. What Patel leaves out is that the new system was actually already in place since 2008, when launched by New Labour. Patels plans mean that the already complex and confusing system will be changing for the worse.

Given that the system was already in place for non-EU citizens in 2019, these changes do not appear likely to encourage global talent to work in the UK.

See the article here:
Patel's immigration reform is a confusing mess - Gulf Today

By Rogette Harris

Only 28 percent of registered Dauphin County voters participated in the May 18, 2021, election. Did the other 72 percent choose not to participate, or did they not realize an election took place? I would argue its a mix of the two, which is unfortunate since the political world looks incredibly bleak these days.

We dont always get the government we want, but we do get the government we deserve if we do not participate.

I acknowledge Im a politico, but even I admit government/elections is like a soap opera. With a soap opera, you can stop watching, pick up the same show years later and you can catch the storyline within a couple of episodes since the writers recycle the same plot. Its the same with government and our elected officials. After all these years, we are still waiting on commonsense immigration reform, a raise in the minimum wage, higher paying jobs, ending systematic racism, gender equality, making debt-free college a reality, securing universal health care, real action on climate change, curbing crime and a host of other challenges that confront our country that require immediate attention.

So, whether you voted in the primary election on May 18th, why vote for the general election on Nov. 2 when it seems like nothing is being accomplished?

Ill tell you why. You vote because every election matters and the candidates that win will matter. You vote because elections are more than just about your individual representatives in Washington, governor or who is president. Who you choose on Nov. 2nd to lead your local and county governments whether as our county judge, township supervisor or commissioner, mayor, city council member, or even school board member will have a serious direct impact on your life, your loved ones and your community.

The people who win this year will more directly impact your lives and affect your wallets even more than who wins the U.S. Senate and governor races next year!

Voting does matter and has a lasting impact on all our lives. Take for instance the four statewide judicial candidates on the ballot this year. Whoever gets elected on Nov. 2 will almost surely serve for life. And if anything has been proven this past year, the courts are our democracys last line of defense against ill-willed policies and legislation. When voters dont turn out to vote, they receive a government that doesnt represent them.

Consider all the uproar and protests against police officers shooting and ultimately killing unarmed black men and women. Community groups and activists continue to loudly protest and complain about police and community relationships, the lack of accountability in police departments and lack of reform in our criminal justice system.

A lot of these local governments and police departments arent responding to these community requests and needs. One could argue its because the majority of the community didnt vote to represent their needs.

Answer these questions: Who hires the police officers? The police chief.

Who hires the police chief? The mayor.

Who hires the mayor? Who elects the council? The answer is clear the voters.

Its easy to forget that local elections matterfrankly, its easy to forget that local elections even happen. But there is no such thing as an off year election. The news may not cover local/county elections as much, and we arent constantly bombarded with negative political ads (this is a good thing!). The chances of any of our local or county candidates being portrayed by Tina Fey, or Alec Baldwin on SNL is pretty much non-existent. However, if you want the potholes on the street in front of your house fixed, concerns about your property taxes, childs education and/or your trash picked up youd better start voting in these local elections

Voting for county and local officials has very real consequences. Congress and Harrisburg may be as unproductive as ever, but the health and prosperity of our communities isnt determined solely by them. Every eligible and registered voter must turn out to vote on Nov. 2, and every election day for the community to be respected and represented. Let your VOTE be your VOICE on Nov. 2!

Rogette Harris is a political analyst and was the Democratic pundit on PennLives Battleground PA.

Read more here:
Unfinished business. Did you know an election just happened? | Opinion - pennlive.com

President Biden has proposed sweeping changes to U.S. immigration law, contained in the pending U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021. This piece of proposed legislation, as introduced into Congress by the bills lead sponsors, Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) and Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA), contains several measures which would provide a boost to immigrants and employers aiming to expand their worker pool. However, the legislation would also ramp up enforcement efforts on the part of federal immigration officials meaning that employers should consider preparing now for increased risks and compliance challenges. What should you know about this proposal?

Overview of Proposed Legislation

The bill contains numerous provisions that would be helpful for immigrants and employers, including:

While many of these provisions are indeed very friendly to immigrants and companies seeking to employ foreign national workers, there are risks for employers contained in this proposed bill as well. Indeed, the usual horse trade when Democrats propose immigration reform with many immigrant-friendly provisions (i.e., the carrot) is that they offer some pro-enforcement provisions in an attempt to attract support from the other side of the political aisle, such as increasing worksite enforcement and audits (i.e., the stick).

Potential Risks to Employers

If the bill passes, employers will have more incentives to comply with federal, state, and local employment laws, specifically with respect to enforcement actions by ICE (Immigrations and Customs Enforcement).

Employment Authorization Changes

Title 5 of the proposed U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021 is entitled Employment Authorization and Protecting Workers from Exploitation, which envisions the establishment of a Commission on Employment Authorization. This group would consist of presidential and congressional appointees who would be charged with examining the current processes for employment authorization and proposing possible changes. The goal of the commission is to respect the rights of employment-authorized individuals to work in the United States, and to protect workers rights to be free from race and national-origin discrimination.

Employment Verification Once Again Up for Debate

Under Section 5101 of the proposed law, a commission would be established to make policy recommendations regarding employment-verification systems. The goal: to ensure employees are not incorrectly deemed ineligible for employment based on false positives, nor subject to discrimination based on race or national origin. The commission would also review the error rates for E-Verify and its impacts on various groups by national origin, race, gender, and socioeconomic background. At the end of the process, the government would be required to determine which recommendations are most likely to improve existing employment verification systems, keeping in mind whether such recommendations are feasible within existing budget restraints.

The net result of this activity certainly could involve an increase of employer compliance obligations under both E-Verify and I-9 employment eligibility verification processes. There are also provisions in the proposed legislation that would penalize employers who misuse E-Verify in ways that discriminate based on national origin or citizenship, deny employee benefits, allow unauthorized access to E-Verify data, or use an employment authorization verification system other than E-Verify.

Ramped-Up Penalties

Title 5 of the bill contains a provision which states that if an agency finds that an employer has engaged in civil violations of federal, state, or local labor laws regarding wages and hours, labor relations, family and medical leave, occupational health and safety, civil rights or nondiscrimination regarding an unauthorized worker, the employer would be subject to an additional civil penalty of up to $5,000 for each unauthorized noncitizen worker to whom the violation occurred. This fine is separate and apart from any penalties imposed by governmental agencies for violation of the underlying statutes themselves.

Additional Provisions

Some additional provisions of the proposed legislation would aim to refresh the current immigration system in many respects.

Visa Eligibility

Another provision would expand the eligibility of U visas for those who assist with immigration-related compliance and enforcement activities. According to the USCIS, the U nonimmigrant status (U visa) is set aside for victims of certain crimes who have suffered mental or physical abuse and are helpful to law enforcement or government officials in the investigation or prosecution of criminal activity. U visa eligibility would be expanded to include workers that have been subject to serious abuse by employers, or that have, are, or will be helpful to authorities investigating, prosecuting, or seeking civil remedies for a labor or employment violation arising from workplace claims.

In addition, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would allow an individual to remain in the U.S., delay a removal, and grant such an individual work authorization if this person has filed for a U visa, has filed a claim, or is a material witness to a workplace claim and has, is or will be helpful during the investigation. In situations where the DHS conducts an enforcement action where a workplace claim has been filed or based on information provided in retaliation against employees regarding a claim, the DHS will stay the removal of any detained noncitizens until the law enforcement agency with jurisdiction over the violations/criminal activity has been notified and the agency has had the chance to interview the individual.

Another provision would allow immigrants in the United States on temporary work visas to assert citizenship status discrimination. This is a change from the current law, which only allows U.S. Citizens, Green Card holders, and some asylees or refugees to make such claims. The proposed law would also grant enforcement jurisdiction to the Immigrant and Employee Rights Section of the Civil Rights Division within the Department of Justice, which would remain removing this authority from where it currently resides, with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Temporary Limitations

One other provision (which is not related to worksite enforcement or penalties per se) would allow the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish procedures for temporarily limiting employment-based immigrants from entering the country and/or applying for Green Cards in geographic areas or labor market sectors that are experiencing high levels of unemployment. How this provision could be utilized, or potentially abused, is quite unclear, especially since what is meant by high levels of unemployment is not defined in the bill.

Conclusion

We will continue to monitor this bill as it makes its way through Congress.Now is a good time to make sure your internal processes and procedures do not pose potential discrimination claims, and that their I-9s are in good shape. Yourattorney can guide you through these compliance challenges before ICE ramps up its enforcement efforts.

Read the original:
The Slippery Road Toward Immigration Reform Under President Biden: Beware of ICE! - JD Supra

Ms. Cabrales, who lives in Kansas City, Missouri, is desperately searching for avenues to help her husband gain legal immigration status. Since she is a U.S. citizen, she should be able to sponsor her husband for an immediate green card. But because he is living in the United States without status, the couple faces significant hurdles under current immigration law.*

Current immigration laws do not provide U.S. citizens or employers with a viable pathway to sponsor their undocumented family members or workers for lawful permanent residence, even if they would otherwise be eligible for a green card, if those individuals entered the United States without inspection and are still living in the country. Undocumented immigrants must first leave the country and apply for an immigrant visa at a consulate abroad. But once they leave, they face a lengthy ban on returning due to a cruel Catch-22 law put in place in 1996 that subjects anyone who was in the United States without legal immigration status for more than six months to a reentry bar of three or 10 years. This makes getting a green card effectively impossible for millions of people who should have a legal pathway to do so.

As Congress and the Biden administration move to create a more fair, humane, and workable immigration system, they should use every avenue possible to put undocumented immigrants on a pathway to legal status. This includes reinstating the Legal Immigration Family Equity (LIFE) Act and eliminating the three and 10-year bars to entry. These changes would allow as many as 2.3 million immigrants who are married to U.S. citizens or green card holders or have employers who could sponsor them to apply for a green card. Historically, these solutions have had bipartisan support and would reduce barriers for people to apply for legal status, which is currently inaccessible to them due to the bars on reentry.

Entered without inspection: When noncitizens enter the United States without applying and presenting themselves before an immigration officer at a port of entry, they are said to have entered without inspection.

Overstayed a visa: A noncitizen is said to have overstayed a visa if they were lawfully admitted but remained in the United States beyond the authorized period. If a visa overstayer is an immediate relative of a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident, they can apply for adjustment of status from within the United States without being affected by the bars.

Three- and 10-year bars: These bars, included in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Actof 1996, prevent undocumented immigrants who leave the United States from returning for specified periods of time. If someone accrues more than 180 days but less than one year of unlawful presence, they are barred from reentering for three years. If someone accrues one year or longer of unlawful presence, they are subject to a 10-year bar. If individuals can prove extreme hardship, among other requirements, they can apply for a provisional waiver that is precleared in the United States, allowing them to depart the country to get their visa without triggering the reentry bars. In 2016, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) published a new policy guidance that opened up the process to a larger group and clarified how it would adjudicate cases.

Section 245(i) of the LIFE Act: A temporary provision that allowed immigrants who entered the United States without inspection to pay a penalty fee to adjust their immigration status via family and employment-based visa petitions, filed between January 15, 1998, and April 30, 2001, without leaving the country and triggering the reentry bars.

Section 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets the eligibility criteria for adjustment of immigration status. Among other requirements, applicants must have been inspected and admitted into the United States; hold lawful status, with exceptions for immediate family members and visa overstayers who entered with inspection but have no legal status at the time of application; and have a visa available to them. In 1994, Section 245(i) was added to the INA as a temporary provision intended to alleviate burdens on consular offices overseas. It allowed eligible individuals to receive permanent resident status without first leaving the United States and without having to satisfy the inspected and admitted provision of 245(a). The creation of the three- and 10-year bars in 1996 increased the significance of 245(i), as the bars had harsh consequences for undocumented persons who left the United States.

The 245(i) provision enjoyed broad bipartisan support. Early on, it eased the workload of U.S. consulates, and after the reentry bars were instituted, it provided a way to keep families together. In 1997, during the Clinton administration, Republican majorities in the House and Senate extended the provision three times. In 2000, a divided Congress extended Section 245(i) through the LIFE Act. The provision was extended for the last time in 2001 and had strong support from then-President George W. Bush, who said that it recognize[d] the importance of families and that the reentry bars forced undocumented immigrants to stay in the United States without status to avoid separating from their families.

The 245(i) provision expired in 2001 and has not been extended by Congress since. However, in 2013, the Obama administration lowered the risk of triggering the three- and 10-year bars by issuing a rule called the provisional stateside waiver. This rule allowed eligible undocumented family membersand as of 2016, applicants from all immigrant classificationsto travel abroad for their green card without triggering a bar.

Reinstating 245(i) and eliminating the three- and 10-year bars could provide a much-needed solution for many undocumented immigrant family members of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents, as well as immigrant workers. According to the authors analysis, there are as many as 2.3 million undocumented immigrants in the United States who have a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident spouse or an employer who may be able to sponsor them for a green card. 1.4 million people have a U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse, and 1.1 million may have such an employer. This estimate does not include eligible undocumented parents of unmarried U.S. citizen children ages 21 or older who can petition for them. (see the Methodology below for more information on data limitations)

Over the years, there has been bipartisan support for eliminating the three- and 10-year bars. Former and current members of Congress including Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID), Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) have supported repealing or reforming the bars. Recently, Sen. Catherine Cortez-Masto (D-NV) introduced the Fairness for Immigrant Families Act, which would eliminate the bars and reinstate Section 245(i). President Joe Biden also proposed eliminating the bars in his comprehensive immigration reform bill, the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021.

The reinstatement of the LIFE Act or elimination of the three- and 10-year bars, or both, should be part of any legislative solution for immigration, either on their own or as part of a commonsense package that puts undocumented immigrantsincluding Dreamers, Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders, and farm and essential workerson a pathway to citizenship. Reinstating Section 245(i) of the LIFE Act alone would allow eligible people to process their application without leaving the country and triggering the bars.

Ms. Cabrales feels stuck because her husbands immigration status prevents them from fully building their lives in the United States. Adding that her husband works in construction, supports her, and pays taxes, she remarked, I am a U.S. citizen and I want to help my spouse it [the U.S. immigration system] is just not letting us. Reinstating the LIFE Act, which would allow people like her husband to apply for his green card without leaving the United States, and removing the reentry bars, which would not penalize him for leaving the country, would go a long way toward ensuring that the Cabraleses and millions like them can build a secure future and follow their aspirations.

* Ms. Cabrales, phone interview with author, Kansas City, Missouri, May 21, 2021.

Silva Mathema is the acting director of the Immigration Policy team at the Center for American Progress. Nicole Prchal Svajlenka is an associate director for research on the Immigration Policy team at the Center. Sofia Carratala is the research assistant for Immigration Policy at the Center.

The authors would like to thank Gregory H. Siskind and Lily S. Axelrod from Siskind Susser PC for providing their expertise; Gregory Z. Chen from the American Immigration Lawyers Association and Angela J. Ferguson from Austin & Ferguson, L.L.C. for their help; and Ms. Cabrales for sharing her story.

Estimates of the population who may be eligible for legal permanent residence if 245(i) is reinstated or if the three- and 10-year bars are eliminated are based on CAPs analysis of 2018 and 2019 one-year American Community Survey (ACS) microdata, accessed through the University of Minnesotas IPUMS USA database.

The size of this population is difficult to estimate due to certain limitations within ACS data. First, the ACS does not ask individuals about their immigration status. Using a series of editsbased on characteristics such as year of arrival in the United States, country of birth, occupation, and certain family relationshipsthe authors identified records of people they believe are likely to be undocumented. Additionally, researchers using ACS data cannot identify how many of the 2.3 million immigrants were undocumented because they overstayed a visa and how many were undocumented because they entered the United States without inspection. Researchers also cannot identify who is eligible for employer sponsorship or whether a visa would be available to them immediately. In an effort to match USCIS guidance on typical requirements for employment-based visa categories, this analysis counts as eligible for employer sponsorship undocumented immigrants who are employed but not self-employed and those who have received a bachelors or advanced degree. These categories include an overlap of almost 200,000 people; thus, the total does not equal the sum. Lastly, because the data only show family relationships for individuals living in the same households, the analysis cannot capture people who may be eligiblefor example, parents of U.S. citizens who are themselves adultswho are not living with a family member who could sponsor them.

See more here:
Reinstating the LIFE Act and Eliminating Entry Bars Would Allow Millions of Immigrants To Stay With Their Families - Center For American Progress