Mediaboss Marketing

FRESNO COUNTY, Calif (KSEE).- On Thursday the U.S. House passed two major immigration bills: one bill would grant permanent resident status to migrant farm workers, the other major bill, the American Dream and Promise Act of 2021, would provide permanent resident status and a path to citizenship for those brought to the U.S. as children, and who are temporarily protected under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals or DACA.Central Valley congressman Jim Costa has been a proponent of this bill with Democratic House leadership.

For them the only country theyve ever known is the United States, Costa said. Its estimated that between our community colleges, Fresno State, and UC Merced we may have between four and five thousand DACA students.

A major part of the bill stipulates people must have arrived in the country before age 18, and/or are enrolled in public education and working towards a high school or college diploma. Additionally, people must not have committed major criminal offenses.

Its an earned path, its not amnesty, Costa said.

For Joe Del Bosque a Fresno county farmer who employs migrant farmworkers some undocumented it makes a world of difference for their children.

A lot of them have children who have grown up here, theyve gone through the school system Del Bosque said. And a lot of them are already in college or getting close to going to college.

But congressional Republican leadership say this legislation doesnt do enough. Many Republican House and Senate members feel the growing issue of unaccompanied migrant children on the southern border isnt being adequately addressed by congressional Democrats and President Joe Biden.

They do nothing to address the problem, said House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy. It ignores the problem, but will actually worsen the situation.

Costa feels some republicans are playing partisanship.

Theyre making politics out of this frankly. And there are multiple facets to this, and thats why we need comprehensive immigration reform that would include improved border security.

But for Joe Del Bosque, strides made in immigration reform mean his employees can live life with more ease.

They go from home to work and back home and then they kind of just keep to themselves because I think they kind of live in fear for part of their lives.

See original here:
New immigration bills could have huge impact on Central Valley - YourCentralValley.com

Hundreds of thousands of immigrant families have been separated by deportation from the United States, in many cases with a parent on one side of the border and children on the other, according to estimates by the Urban Policy Institute and Migration Policy Institute. Reunification is a priority in President Joe Bidens proposed immigration overhaul and in bills that both the House and Senate will debate in coming weeks.

Both bills have provisions to preserve family unity. These include giving immigration judges increased discretion in deportation cases and allowing the secretary of homeland security or attorney general to waive deportation orders or allow deported parents of U.S. citizen children to return to the U.S.

Under U.S. immigration law, any noncitizen including legal permanent residents may be deported for committing a serious crime. Undocumented immigrants may be removed simply for being in the country without a valid visa and banned for 10 years or more.

Since 2016, I have coordinated a digital storytelling project called Humanizing Deportation, which has published personal narratives, in audiovisual form, from over 250 migrants. It is the worlds largest qualitative database on the human consequences of deportation and other harsh penalties of U.S. immigration law.

Our research shows that deportation doesnt just hurt the migrants who get deported it also does serious harm to their families, especially children.

Here are two such stories, told by the separated families themselves. Our project does not verify migrants stories, and what you read here is based on their recollection of events.

Tania Mendoza arrived in California in 1989 at age 3, brought by her parents from Mexico, undocumented, to escape poverty.

In 2010 Tania was arrested after a domestic dispute with a guy she was dating. Though no charges were filed and Tania had no criminal record, she was turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and deported. She was 24 and a mother.

Just two years later, Tania would have qualified as an undocumented childhood arrival, or Dreamer, and been protected from deportation by the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

Her toddler daughter remained with the childs father in Los Angeles.

Tania recalls her daughter watching her get detained by the L.A. Police Department: That was the last time I ever saw her, she told us tearfully.

Tania says separation from her daughter was the hardest part of life after deportation. Since she shared custody with the father, she could not take her daughter with her to Mexico without his consent.

Mother and daughter stayed in touch by phone until 2016, when the father to whom she was not married cut off all contact.

He took her phone away and just decided she was better off without me, Tania said. So my heart broke even more.

After two years without contact, a family court judge awarded Tania phone visitation rights the best proxy for enforcing the existing shared custody agreement due to Tanias removal from the country.

Tania has communicated regularly with her daughter since but has not seen her, except on a screen, for over 10 years.

Nowadays, she says, getting a simple text like Hi, Mom, how was your day? fills Tania with feelings of hope.

Family separation made headlines during the Trump administration, when Central American families seeking asylum were separated at the border. About 500 families remain separated today.

But family separation occurred during the Obama administration, too. Between 2009 and 2016, the U.S. expelled an average of 383,000 immigrants per year, according to Department of Homeland Security data. That surpasses Trump, whose government deported 325,000 annually over the first three years of his administration. George W. Bushs administration averaged 252,000 deportations a year.

So many deported immigrants whove shared their stories with us tell of the deep and enduring damage inflicted when their removal meant that their children lost their mom or dad.

Parents are rarely able to provide or care for their families from abroad. And the trauma of losing a loved one for an extended, indefinite period can be significant, especially for children. Psychologists have observed anxiety, depression, hyperactivity and other symptoms commonly associated with post-traumatic stress disorder in children whove lost a parent to deportation.

Why dont deported parents just take the kids with them? As Tanias story shows, this is not always practical, or even possible.

When Rosa Ortegas husband was taken to an immigration detention center in San Bernardino, California, in 2017, and then deported to his native Peru, it was a devastating ordeal for the couples three young children.

In the story Rosa and her daughter Zuri recorded for us that same year, Rosa says she didnt know how to explain to the children why their father was taken from their house in handcuffs, nor answer their questions about how long he would be gone.

Rosas eldest child, Zuri, a teenager, had to step in and assume responsibilities usually handled by her father.

Instead of him being there on [my sisters] first day of kindergarten, it was me, Zuri told us.

She said losing her father had forced her to mature and grow up and that she deals with more than what you are supposed to because she is filling in that role as a parent but still being a child at the same time.

Zuri is among the thousands of children who just might get to see their dad again under Bidens immigration reform plan.

But it has to pass the House and Senate first.

See the article here:
Biden immigration overhaul would reunite families split up by deportation - The Conversation US

The U.S. House is expected to take up a pair of bills dealing with immigration reform this week. Iowa State Dairy Association Executive Director Mitch Schulte is hopeful they can get those bills moved through. He says the current shortage of ag labor is significant in all sectors of U.S. agriculture including the dairy industry.

He says much of whats contained in the Farm Workforce Modernization Act that the House is looking at would help solve many of the ag labor problems dairy producers are currently up against.

Some Senators have said theyll oppose any immigration reform until the legislation includes securing the U.S. border from illegal immigrants. Schulte says that security is something they support but believe both border security and ag labor reform can be achieved.

Besides the Farm Workforce Modernization Act, House members are also expected to talk about a DACA measure that would impact young people that have shown up illegally.

Original post:
Iowa Dairy Executive Says Immigration Reform Bill Needs To Be Approved | Radio 570 WNAX - WNAX

The Conversation

U.S. taxpayers spend more than $2 billion annually in tax preparation fees. Nora Carol Photography/Getty ImagesThe Internal Revenue Service has postponed the April 15 tax filing deadline to May 17. If taxpayers need even more time to file federal returns, the agency added, they can request an extension until Oct. 15. This continues to be a tough time for many people, and the IRS wants to continue to do everything possible to help taxpayers navigate the unusual circumstances related to the pandemic, while also working on important tax administration responsibilities, said IRS Commissioner Chuck Rettig. The announcement may come as welcome news for many Americans, but it also raises an important question: Why should taxpayers have to navigate the tedious, costly tax filing system at all? The case for a simple return In 1985, President Ronald Reagan promised a return-free tax system in which half of all Americans would never fill out a tax return again. Under the framework, taxpayers with simple returns would automatically receive a refund or a letter detailing any tax owed. Taxpayers with more complicated returns would use the system in place today. In 2006, President Barack Obamas chief economist, Austan Goolsbee, premiered the simple return, where taxpayers would receive already completed tax forms for their review or correction. Goolsbee estimated his system would save taxpayers more than US$2 billion a year in tax preparation fees. Though never implemented, the two proposals illustrate what we all know: No one enjoys filling out tax forms. So why do we have to? A costly and time-consuming system Return-free filing is not difficult. At least 30 countries permit return-free filing, including Denmark, Sweden, Spain and the United Kingdom. Furthermore, 95% of American taxpayers receive more than 30 types of information returns that let the government know their exact income. These information returns give the government everything it needs in order to fill out most taxpayers returns. The U.S. system is 10 times more expensive than tax systems in 36 other countries with robust economies. But those costs vanish in a return-free system, as would the 2.6 billion hours Americans spend on tax preparation each year. Maybe youre wondering whether Congress is just behind the times, unaware that it can release us from tax preparation? Not true. As an expert on the U.S. tax system, I see Americas costly and time-consuming tax reporting system as a consequence of its relationship with the commercial tax preparation industry, which lobbies Congress to maintain the status quo. The United Kingdom is among dozens of countries that permit return-free filing for some taxpayers. Loop Images/Universal Images Group via Getty Images Commercial tax preparation Almost 20 years ago, Congress directed the IRS to provide low-income taxpayers with free tax preparation. The agency responded in 2002 with Free File, a public-private partnership between the government and the tax preparation industry. As part of the deal, the IRS agreed to not compete with the private sector in the free tax preparation market. In 2007, the House of Representatives rejected legislation to provide free, government tax preparation. And in 2019, Congress tried to legally bar the IRS from ever providing free online tax preparation services. Only a public outcry turned the tide. The public part of Free File consists of the IRS herding taxpayers to commercial tax preparation websites. The private part consists of those commercial entities diverting taxpayers toward costly alternatives. According to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, which oversees IRS activities, private partners use computer code to hide the free websites and take unsuspecting taxpayers to paid sites. Should a taxpayer discover a free preparation alternative, the private preparers impose various restrictions such as income or the use of various forms as an excuse to kick taxpayers back to paid preparation. Consequently, of the more than 100 million taxpayers eligible for free help, 35% end up paying for tax preparation and 60% never even visit the free websites. Instead of 70% of Americans receiving free tax preparation, commercial companies whittle that percentage down to 3%. Tax savings and evasion Perhaps you are guessing that there are valid policy justifications for avoiding government and empowering the private sector. Judge those arguments yourself. One argument from commercial tax preparers is that taxpayers will miss out on valuable tax savings if they rely on free government preparation. In fact, the government software would reflect the same laws used by the paid preparers with the same access to tax saving deductions or credits. Further, tax preparers like H & R Block promise to pay all taxes and interest resulting from a failed audit. As a result, these services have every incentive to take conservative, pro-government tax positions. A second argument is that government-prepared tax returns encourage tax evasion. In a no-return system, the government reveals its knowledge of the taxpayers income before the taxpayer files. Thus, the argument goes, the taxpayer knows if the government has missed something and has reason to let the mistake stand. But taxpayers already know what information forms the government has because they receive duplicates of those forms. The incentive to lie does not increase because the taxpayer avoids weeks of tax preparation. [Youre smart and curious about the world. So are The Conversations authors and editors. You can get our highlights each weekend.] Bolstering the anti-taxers Finally, there is the anti-tax argument for onerous tax preparation: Keep tax preparation unpleasant to fuel anti-tax sentiment. In the past, Republicans argued against high taxes. But after decades of tax cuts, Americans are no longer swayed by that argument. Exasperating tax preparation, according to this argument, helps keep the anti-tax fever high. And that fuels public hate for government and the tax system. Unfortunately, the anti-tax contingents desire to force Americans to spend time and money on tax preparation dovetails with the tax preparation industrys desire to collect billions of dollars in fees. Tax preparation companies lobby Congress to keep tax preparation costly and complicated. Indeed, Intuit, maker of TurboTax, the tax preparation software, lists government tax preparation as a threat to its business model. One example is the earned income tax credit, a government program for low-income people. The credit is so complicated that 20% of the people who are eligible never file. If the government prepared peoples tax returns, that 20% would receive government support. Nonetheless, Intuit has lobbied lawmakers to make the credit more complicated, thereby driving more taxpayers to paid preparation services. To date, the tax preparation industry has kept the system complicated because the potential cost to it in terms of lost revenue is vast. Only public outcry can change the system.This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. It was written by: Beverly Moran, Vanderbilt University. Read more:As Australias COVID vaccine rollout splutters, we need transparency about when international borders might reopenHow American tax laws encourage inequality Beverly Moran does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

View original post here:
Vote on immigration reform - Yahoo News

The budget is not normally somewhere that Global Mobility professionals look to for policy reform, however the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rishi Sunak, announced a number of changes to the UK immigration system in Wednesdays budget.

The key tag line that the government wants to reform the immigration system [to] help ambitious UK businesses attract the brightest and best international talent is hardly revolutionary, in fact it could be argued that any government that didnt buy into this principle would be acting irresponsibly. However, the budget publication does provide some good detail to support this ambition:

How will this help companies attract global talent?

The recent overhaul of the immigration system as a result of leaving the EU already means that UK businesses can hire in a significantly wider range of skilled roles from around the world, however when it comes to attracting the very brightest there has been little reform. The Global Talent visa (previously known as Tier 1 Global Talent) already allows recognised leaders and potential leaders in academia or research, arts & culture and digital technology to move to the UK, and the reforms announced to this category are unlikely to drastically change who will be eligible. Rather the reforms will simply make the application process easier, which may result in more recognised leaders choosing to move to the UK.

The Global Talent scheme only benefits a small area of the economy, however the announcement to provide practical support to small firms using the immigration system has the potential to really help British businesses attract talent from around the world. Something that puts a lot of small businesses off using t the immigration system is the upfront cost, however with the correct support and guidance these businesses can start to see the cost as a strategic investment rather than an administrative expense.

Where are the shortages in global talent and will the new fast-track immigration proposals help this?

The government maintains a Shortage Occupation List which is published in the Immigration Rules, and this list is dominated by STEM, creative, health and education roles. The announcements in the budget appear to show that the government is concentrating on only a small number of these roles and is paying particular attention to the fintech industry. Special treatment for scale-up companies the evolved form of a start-up, appears to be specifically focused at the fintech industry as this was one of the recommendations made in the Kalifa review, published less than a week before the budget.

The government appears to be doubling down on its support of the fintech industry, and is possibly an indicator that they are prepared to take a more sector based approach in helping develop high potential industries or supporting those that need a helping hand to remain competitive. The fintech industry is a good place to start as it is showing significant potential and also scalability, however if this government wants to make serious inroads into addressing the UKs shortage occupations it needs to continue expanding this approach into other sectors such as life sciences and manufacturing.

How will the new rules work and who will benefit?

The majority of the changes announced in the budget will not go live until Spring 2022, therefore the government will be publishing the detail on these changes over the course of the year.

The Home Office has historically been very slow and at times reluctant to adopt new ways of working, especially when it comes to digitising the immigration system, however the announcements in the budget appear to show that there is a renewed focus on modernising the infrastructure of the immigration system and making it easier to use.

Modernising the Sponsor Management System has been long overdue the system has not had any major upgrades since it went live in 2008. If this is done correctly it will make it significantly easier for Sponsor Licence holders to ensure they are compliant, and will also reduce the requirement for specialist intervention for administrative tasks such as reporting a change in a workers job title.

The announcements in the budget will primarily benefit 4 types of business;

There is certainly a great deal more work required to make the UK the leading destination for global talent, however the announcements in the budget are certainly a step in the right direction and should be welcomed by all areas of the economy.

View original post here:
Budget 2021: Chancellor announces further immigration reform - Lexology