Mediaboss Marketing

The Week

Britain's Supreme Court ruled unanimously Friday that drivers for the ride-hailing service Uber are company "workers," not independent contractors, and are therefore entitled to the national minimum wage, paid annual leave, and other benefits. The court also agreed with lower courts that Uber drivers are on the clock when they are logged in to the app, ready to accept passengers, not as Uber had argued only when they are actually driving people to their destination. Uber has 65,000 active drivers in the U.K., The Associated Press reports, and the ruling threatens to upend its entire business model in the country. "Questions still remain about how the new classification will work, and how it affects gig economy workers who work not only for Uber, but also for other competing apps," BBC News reports. This was Uber's final appeal, after losing in three lower tribunals starting in 2016. "I think it's a massive achievement in a way that we were able to stand up against a giant," said Yaseen Aslam, president of the App Drivers & Couriers Union (ADCU) and one of the original plaintiffs in the case. Another original litigant, ADCU general secretary James Farrar, called the ruling "a win-win-win for drivers, passengers and cities," because "Uber now has the correct economic incentives not to oversupply the market with too many vehicles and too many drivers." Uber shares were down more than 3 percent in premarket trading in New York, AP notes. More stories from theweek.comHow Rush Limbaugh broke the old media and built the new one5 outrageously funny cartoons about Ted Cruz's Cancun getawayAmerican politicians hide behind the palace walls

More:
Democrats immigration reform bill would increase technology at borders, provide path to earned citizenship: Rep. Titus - Yahoo News

Our commenting has been temporarily disabled.

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to ourTerms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sentvia e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

Go here to see the original:
Letter to the editor: Trump the only one to act on immigration reform - TribLIVE

What are rare earth metals and why should you care about them? Rare earth metals are critical for manufacturing just about every electronic device that you, and all of the world's modern militaries, use every day. They're essential for making screens, hard drives, and precision glass.

Without rare earths, you can't use a cell phone, save a document, watch a Netflix series, drive a new car, take a digital photograph, fly a drone, target a missile, or build a fighter jet. You wouldn't even be able to read Signal though we promise to make hard copies available if it comes to that.

It just so happens that China has a near-monopoly on the business of refining these metals for use in manufacturing. Since the 1990s, when environmental regulations in the US made it cheaper to refine rare earths in China, Beijing's share of the industry has risen from about 30 percent to more than 80 percent today. With that kind of market power, China can throw its weight around, and the US-China rivalry over technology creates a powerful incentive to do just that.

What is China threatening? According to the Financial Times scoop, China is conducting a fresh study to determine whether cutting off rare earths exports to the US would cripple the US defense industry, which relies on the stuff to make all of its key weapons systems. A single F-35 fighter jet, for example, contains close to 1,000 pounds of rare earths metals, according to a US congressional report.

The Pentagon knows all this, right? Of course. For years, Pentagon planners have been looking for ways to secure more access to rare earths mines, in particular by making inroads in southern African countries that are rich in reserves. And the Trump administration last year issued an emergency order to boost rare earths production in the US.

But the challenge isn't so much in finding rare earths which are, despite their name, present all over the world, including in the US. It's extracting them and then refining them that costs and pollutes a lot. Private investors haven't been able to make it profitable under US rules, so US agencies and lawmakers have explored subsidizing production or making regulatory changes that make more rare earths available for refining.

But for a Biden administration that has put environmental protection at the center of its agenda, this could mean a tough tradeoff: protect the defense industry and Silicon Valley, or protect the environment.

Would China really do this? Cutting off rare earth supplies to the US would be a huge blow to the US defense industry, and could also complicate things for Silicon Valley, which relies on Chinese rare earths as well though less so because so much of their manufacturing is actually in China at the moment.

Washington would almost certainly respond with severe sanctions or export limitations of its own. The US has already moved to limit China's ability to buy semiconductors, an area where China is almost entirely dependent on the outside world, in particular on Taiwan.

But there's another consideration for China don't rock your own boat. By threatening to cut rare earths supply, the Chinese government adds to other countries' sense of urgency about developing their own mining and refining. While that obviously won't happen overnight, the threat of losing access to 80-90 percent of the world's rare earths supply would accelerate things significantly.

More Show less

More here:
Can Biden work with Lpez Obrador on meaningful immigration reform? - GZERO Media

My motto is, get something done, said Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.). Whatever we do, we can't walk away empty-handed.

Like many other Democrats committed to an immigration overhaul, Gomez didn't publicly close the door to a massive deal, hoping to give Biden's team a chance: Does it mean a big immigration reform package? Maybe. Does it mean using budget reconciliation? Possibly. Or does it mean individual bills? Could be.

But Democratic veterans say they learned from the party's big immigration letdown in 2009, the last time it held all levers of power. Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) said he remembered then-President Barack Obama telling the Congressional Hispanic Caucus about his overhaul plans in April that year. The Blue Dog Democrat then leaned over to a colleague and whispered, It aint gonna happen."

And he warned the same thing could happen under Biden.

"Bottom line is, even when we had a supermajority in a better situation than were in right now, we did not pass anything," Cuellar said. Im not saying no way, Im just saying it would be very difficult.

Democratic veterans say they learned from the party's big immigration letdown in 2009, the last time it held all levers of power. Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) said he remembered then-President Barack Obama telling the Congressional Hispanic Caucus about his overhaul plans in April that year. | Alex Brandon/AP Photo

The divide over how to reshape the nations broken immigration system is a well-known Washington tripwire. But the question of whether to pursue a piecemeal approach or take one big swing has fresh urgency with Democrats in charge of Congress and the White House.

Democrats insist they're pursuing a dual-track approach, with Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) and Rep. Linda Snchez (D-Calif.) launching a full whip effort for Bidens comprehensive bill while leadership tees up more narrow proposals for floor time, likely in March.

Brian Deese, director of the White Houses National Economic Council, and Jeff Zients, Bidens coronavirus coordinator, will meet with the CHC next week. Several Democrats privately said theyre waiting on Biden to publicly signal hes open to a more step-by-step path something those close to him have expressed openness to, but the president and White House officials have yet to say outright.

April 1 looms on the calendar as Democrats face mounting pressure from immigration activists to move at least some key priorities. To skip another round of lengthy hearings, the party has to bring immigration-related bills that were passed last year such as protections for Dreamers or a farm worker modernization bill to the floor by then.

I think there is some unity around the idea" of a piecemeal strategy, Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said, while adding she would also push very, very hard for the broader plan Biden and his allies plan to release next week.

Jayapal, who started her career in politics as an immigration activist, said Democrats want to push forward on a bigger proposal while moving on a "parallel track" of bringing previously passed smaller bills to the floor.

Those tricky politics have already started playing out on the Hill as Democrats work to finalize their massive $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief bill. The debate raging behind the scenes: whether taxpaying undocumented immigrants should be eligible for the measure's $1,400 stimulus checks.

Top Democrats spent multiple days convincing members of the CHC, led by Gomez, not to offer an amendment on the issue during that bills markup this week a vote that would have been deeply uncomfortable for the partys centrists.

Nikki Haley enjoyed the MAGA glow while avoiding Trump's brash brand of politics. But in the aftermath of the Capitol insurrection, that position is becoming less and less tenable.

The California Democrat ultimately decided not to force the vote, and later said in an interview, It was something that we couldn't reach agreement on. Gomez added that he hopes to find a place for the measure in future packages and build support for it among his colleagues.

Latinos in my district, since November, had a 1,000 percent increase in deaths because of Covid, said Gomez. And I believe that since these folks are paying taxes, they deserve to get some of those benefits.

A similar non-binding amendment vote in the Senate last week also showed how sharp the divisions are, with eight Democrats breaking ranks to back a GOP amendment that would have prohibited undocumented immigrants from receiving checks.

Democrats have taken a small step to expand payment access since last year. They negotiated a new provision in December's massive relief bill to fix a glitch that prevented U.S. citizens from receiving stimulus checks if someone in their household was undocumented. And in the Covid package moving through committee this week, Democrats expanded the eligibility pool for households to receive checks to include all children who are U.S. citizens regardless of their parents' immigration status.

The benchmark is the social security number, said a White House aide.

But friction over the stimulus checks shows that despite party leaders' leftward shift on multiple issues since the Obama years, Democrats are still fractured over how ambitious they can get on immigration.

President Joe Biden entered office facing demands from immigration advocacy groups to move legislation in his first 100 days, using that window to enact massive policy changes before Congress productivity plummets as lawmakers pivot toward the next election cycle. | Alex Wong/Getty Images

Biden entered office facing demands from immigration advocacy groups to move legislation in his first 100 days, using that window to enact massive policy changes before Congress productivity plummets as lawmakers pivot toward the next election cycle.

And those expectations have sparked a frenzied internal debate over tactics and the timing of Bidens plans.

We need to see what combination of bills may indeed get those 60 votes, said Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.), referring to the necessary threshold for Senate passage. Chu said she's hoping that Biden's bill can get there but acknowledged the uphill climb and said "at least there's some alternatives, in case it doesn't."

Chu and other members of the group working on the Biden plan, dubbed The Closers, will start what she called "an all-out effort" on the Hill next week after they release the text of the presidents immigration package.

Senior House Democrats highly doubt they could wrangle 218 votes for a massive reform package and think the chances of passage in the 50-50 Senate are next to zero. Still, theyre keeping hope alive for a miracle.

Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) said lawmakers are haunted by memories from the Obama administration, when Democrats missed their chance to muscle through immigration reform. Aguilar, a member of leadership, described Biden's White House as learning at least some lessons from the past.

We are in a different moment in the sense that we have the administration leaning in pretty hard on this topic and moving in sync with us and being so closely aligned, Aguilar said.

See the article here:
It would be very difficult: Dems prepare for heartburn over Biden immigration plan - POLITICO

Boundless Immigration Inc. submits this statement for the record to provide the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship with data relevant to its February 11, 2021 hearing on The U.S. Immigration System: The Need for Bold Reforms.

Boundless is a Seattle-based technology company that empowers families to navigate the immigration system more confidently, rapidly, and affordably.

This statement includes sections on the following topics, with links to more detailed resources:

I. Our Family-Based Immigration System Too Often Keeps Families Apart

As part of his proposed immigration bill, the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021, President Biden calls for an overhaul of family-based immigration and an undoing of the Trump administrations systematic dismantling of the legal immigration system.

One of the most egregious policies enacted in recent years is the public charge rule, essentially an income test that makes it much harder for non-wealthy families to obtain green cards. The rule, now under review by the Biden administration, goes against our core American values of inclusion and equality of opportunity. In addition, the Trump-era Presidential Proclamation 10014 continues to ban entry by all family-based immigrants except for the spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens, which we estimate is blocking 358,000 individuals per year. Such policies that work to keep families apart have no place here, a nation built on the contributions of immigrants.

President Biden has also proposed shortening lengthy green card wait times and increasing per-country green card caps. In some family-based visa categories, relatives are currently slated to wait more than 100 years to receive a green card, which means that many close family members of U.S. citizens will die before they are reunited with their families. We need to remove these unnecessary barriers to ensure that families can live and prosper together.

II. The Naturalization Backlog Negatively Impacts the U.S. Economy

The United States must streamline and simplify the naturalization process. Naturalization benefits the economy naturalized citizens earn 8-11% more annually than non-naturalized immigrants, and if half of all those eligible were to naturalize, the increased earnings could boost GDP by up to $52 billion a year. Currently, nearly 9 million immigrants qualify for U.S. citizenship, but the backlog in processing applications has left more than 700,000 green card holders in limbo. Although the coronavirus pandemic temporarily froze naturalization interviews and oath ceremonies, processing times were increasing long beforehand. It now takes U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) around 10 months on average to approve a citizenship application, more than double the processing time between 2012 and 2016.

III. Protecting Undocumented Immigrants from Deportation Delivers Major Economic and Civic Benefits

Since it was first launched in 2012, the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) program has protected around 800,000 young people from deportation. The Trump administration repeatedly tried to eliminate the program, and barred first-time DACA applicants from applying. But late last year, the federal courts reinstated the program, and now President Biden proposes to create a pathway to citizenship not only for DACA recipients, but for all 11 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States.

Such bold reforms would deliver major economic and civic benefits. In 2017, DACA-eligible individuals and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders held $25.2 billion in spending power and contributed more than $5.5 billion in taxes. When people no longer fear deportation, they also tend to become more engaged and active in their communities, and feel a greater sense of belonging.

According to a recent Boundless report, nearly half the DACA recipients surveyed said they became more politically active after their application was approved, and 52% reported becoming more involved in their community. Their economic prospects also greatly improved prior to approval, only 45% of DACA recipients were employed compared to 88% who reported having a job after they were approved. In addition, their average annual earnings increased from $22,595 to $47,979 per year.

Read more from the original source:
Here's What Boundless Had to Say About the Need for Comprehensive Immigration Reform - Boundless - Boundless