Mediaboss Marketing

We were both headed to Bogot from JFK in a massive, empty airplane. No older than 10 years old, the boy sitting across the aisle from me was flying alone, proudly clutching his American passport in one hand while he gripped an iPhone in the other. Together, we flew over oceans, seas, and borders. I didnt know if he was coming home or leaving; all I knew was that he was able to look forward and backward. Its a subtle point that often gets lost in the tumultuous political debate these days: Undocumented immigrants dont get to look back. The American dream is a one-way ticket that offers captivity in the land that always promised mobility.

This little boy reminded me of myself. As the daughter of separated parents who lived lives separated by the Atlantic Ocean, I spent my entire childhood ping-ponging between Miami and Madrid. Even though I wouldnt see my dad for months, I always knew I could eventually come back to the United States for Christmas or spring break. Likewise, I knew my mom would be waiting for me at Madrids Barajas Airport upon my return. I remember there being nothing more soothing than hearing the flight attendant announcing our descent; the ability to returnto a loved one or a meaningful placeis one of the most comforting feelings we experience. On that international flight towards Bogot, it dawned on me: When was the last time an undocumented immigrant felt that?

I know. It seems like such an ordinary, superfluous questionespecially during such trying timesbut thats exactly the point: Weve deprived immigrants of the gift of being ordinary, the most human trait.

I actually recently asked Javier, an old family friend, that question while we were in the car in California. At this point, hes been in the United States for so long that he goes by Jimmy. Jimmy fled the poverty and violence of Guatemalas western highlands more than 30 years ago, at the age of 16. Hes almost 50 now, has two U.S.-born children, and is a proud Uber driver in Los Angeles. With his eyes set on the highway ahead of us, Jimmy unexpectedly cracked when his mind traveled back to Guatemala, where he left his mother, Dominga, behind. As he talked, his voice suddenly felt younger. The idea was always to come back and see her, to hug her, he tells me, but unfortunately, it didnt happen. After all these years, Jimmy is still undocumentedgoing back means possibly never being able to reenter the United States. My children are here. I dont want to abandon them the same way I abandoned my parents.

Read more from the original source:
What We Shouldnt Forget About Immigration Reform - Vogue

WASHINGTON (AP) President Joe Biden and congressional Democrats proposed a major immigration overhaul Thursday that would offer an eight-year pathway to citizenship to the estimated 11 million people living in the U.S. illegally.

The legislation reflects the broad priorities for immigration changes that Biden laid out on his first day in office, including an increase in visas, more money to process asylum applications and new technology at the southern border.

It would be a sharp reversal of Trump administration policies, and parts are likely to face opposition from a number of Republicans. Biden has acknowledged he might accept a more-piecemeal approach if separate major elements could be approved.

We have an economic and moral imperative to pass big, bold and inclusive immigration reform, said New Jersey Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez, one of the lead sponsors of the bill, in unveiling it Thursday.

Menendez said Democrats have failed in the past because they have too quickly given in to fringe voices who have refused to accept the humanity and contributions of immigrants to our country and dismiss everything, no matter how significant it is in terms of the national security, as amnesty.

Separately, enforcement guidelines released Thursday by the new administration would target immigration enforcement more directly at people in the country illegally who pose a threat. That, too, would be a reversal from the broader targeting policy of Immigration and Customs Enforcement under Trump.

The major immigration overhaul legislation would offer one of the fastest pathways to citizenship of any proposed measure in recent years, but it would do so without offering any enhanced border security, which past immigration negotiations have used as a way to win Republican votes. Without enhanced security, it faces tough odds in a closely divided Congress.

Menendez said he had been speaking to Republican colleagues in an effort toward putting the pieces of a puzzle together on a bill that would receive enough votes to pass. He acknowledged the final product is likely to change significantly. But he also suggested that elements of the proposal could be included through a parliamentary maneuver in a budget bill that would only require 51 votes.

The bill Democrats introduced Thursday would immediately provide green cards to farm workers, immigrants with temporary protected status and young people who arrived in the U.S. illegally as children. For others living in the U.S. as of Jan. 1, 2021, the plan establishes a five-year path to temporary legal status. If they pass background checks, pay taxes and fulfill other basic requirements, then, after three years, they can pursue citizenship.

The plan also would raise the current per-country caps for family and employment-based immigrant visas. It would eliminate the penalty barring those immigrants who live in the U.S. without authorization and who then leave the country from returning for three to 10 years. It also would provide resources for more judges, support staff and technology to address the backlog in processing asylum seekers.

The bill would expand transnational anti-drug task forces in Central America and enhance technology at the border. And it would set up refugee processing in Central America, to try to prevent some of the immigrant caravans that have overwhelmed border security in recent years.

The plan includes $4 billion spread over four years to try to boost economic development and tackle corruption in Latin American countries, to lessen pressure for migration to the U.S.

Democratic lawmakers, including lead sponsors California Rep. Linda Sanchez and Menendez, held a virtual press conference Thursday to unveil the bill.

Our border policy is broken, period, Sanchez said. But this bill employs a multipronged approach that will manage the border, address the root causes of migration crack down on bad actors and create safe and legal channels for those who are seeking protection.

Comprehensive immigration legislation has struggled to gain traction in Congress for decades.

Menendez was part of the bipartisan Gang of Eight senators who negotiated a 2013 bill that ultimately collapsed. Prior to that, a bill backed by President George W. Bush failed in Congress as well, after multiple attempts at compromise.

Republican immigration hardliners were already panning the bill Thursday. Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, charged in a statement that the bill rewards those who broke the law and floods the labor market at a time when millions of Americans are out of work.

President Bidens radical proposal is a nonstarter and should be rejected by Congress, he said.

Sanchez noted that Congress has tried and failed in the past, and we arent naive about the challenges that we face. But she contended that there is a broad coalition that wants to deliver on real reform.

While Biden is pushing a comprehensive bill, he suggested earlier this week he may be open to a more piecemeal approach. During a CNN town hall Tuesday night, he said that while a pathway to citizenship would be essential in any immigration bill, theres things I would deal by itself. That could leave the door open to standalone bills focused on providing a pathway to citizenship for various populations.

Menendez, too, seemed to suggest he was open to a piece-by-piece approach.

If we can get certain elements of this standing up and passed individually both in the House and the Senate, thats great, he said.

See the original post:
Democrats consider piecemeal approach to immigration reform - The Associated Press

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