Mediaboss Marketing

By Victoria Johnson,Chatham News + RecordStaff

Latino voters have the potential to sway North Carolinas election results, and Latino advocacy groups state and countywide have mobilized to make that happen.

On Sept. 3, the nonpartisan North Carolina Congress of Latino Organizations (NCCLO) and North Carolina Latino Power together launched a statewide Get Out the Vote campaign via Zoom to mobilize 120,000 infrequent Latino voters.

The November elections, beloved community, will be some of the most costly and competitive in the history of our country, NCCLO board member Daniel Sostaita said during the press conference, adding, (The candidates) know that they need the Latino vote today more than ever to win.

According to a 2019 Carolina Demography report, the number of Latinos eligible to vote increased by nearly 50% between 2012 and 2017. In 2012, the report read, just one in four North Carolina Hispanic residents were eligible to vote; in 2017, that number became one in three.

Nationally, 800,000 Latinos turned 18 this year across the U.S., said Matteo Ignacio, a young Latino voter from Durham, during the press conference.

The majority of them were born in the United States or theyve been naturalized and are eligible to vote in the next elections, he said. This means that more or less every 30 seconds a young Latino like me comes of voting age in this country. That is power.

But getting out the vote in 2020 will be different and not just because of COVID-19. This year, many Latino advocacy groups, including the NCCLO, have decided to try out a different, more personal strategy.

Beyond just phone banks, social media and newspaper announcements, Charlotte pastor and NCCLO member David Ortigoza told the News + Record the group plans to go person-by-person by empowering community leaders to reach out to people within their personal networks. They also plan to encourage people to share their personal stories and stakes in the issues the election likely will decide.

The Latino culture (works) better by relationship, he said, adding, We can spend our money to do (other) things, but if you dont get into the relationship, if you dont build a relationship with a Latino person, you will not get in.

Johnny Alvarado (Chatham N+R submitted photo)

In Chatham County, Johnny Alvarado, an NCCLO member and Jordan-Matthews High School teacher, is one of many community leaders trying to get out the Latino vote.

For many years, hes taught Spanish for native speakers and remembers going through hundreds of papers and recommendations to help many of his students qualify for DACA former students with whom he said he still maintains contact.

Many people dont vote, he said. They dont know how to vote. They dont know they can vote. They dont know how to register to vote. Many people arent aware of a lot of things. So my idea is through my contacts, my ex-students and their parents and relatives, we can get out that Latino vote.

Another group in Chatham County has also organized to get out the Latino vote. The group, called Voto Latino Chatham, seeks to increase Chathams registered Latino voters and educate them about the issues at stake in the upcoming elections, said leader Alirio Estevez.

Estevez, a Chatham ESL teacher, created the group in mid-July with the help of the national Voto Latino organization, who provided them training and direction. Originally, he said theyd planned to go door-to-door and hold several voter registration drives at St. Julias church, but the pandemic has forced them to follow a different strategy one thats a lot like the NCCLOs.

With a group of volunteers, about 12, mostly young people, were reaching out to our network of friends and family via text message or social media to make sure theyre registered to vote, Estevez said, and if not, we provided them with a link (connected to the DMV) to register online.

Siler City resident Ruben Ocelot, 20, is volunteering with Voto Latino Chatham alongside his cousins. Besides helping eligible young Latinos register, he said he wants to motivate infrequent Latino voters to cast their ballots and give them reasons to care about the upcoming elections.

In reality, they need to care because maybe their family member is undocumented, and they dont realize the fear that they live with, he said. Even though they might have papers, a family member might not. That (young voter) doesnt know how that family member lives every day, with a fear of When will they pick me up?

Whats at stake

Immigration reform is one of the most important issues for Latino voters this election season, according to state and countywide Latino advocacy groups.

The immigration system is completely broken, Ortigoza said during the Sept. 3 press conference. For that reason, this issue will be very present in the minds of all Latino immigrant citizens when they appear at the polls to vote in the next election.

At least 85% of undocumented Latinos have a one family member who is a citizen and who can vote on behalf of his or her family, he said families that desire immigration reform that provides undocumented members a path toward citizenship.

Ruben Ocelot (left) is a volunteer with Voto Latino Chatham.(Chatham N+R submitted photo)

Ocelot said immigration is the issue that he and Chathams Hispanic community cares most about in the upcoming elections. Many undocumented immigrants and their families live in fear, he said, never knowing if todays the last time they will see each other.

Thats why hes going to vote, he said to be the voice for the voiceless.

My vote is not just for myself, he said. My vote is for each one of you. Its voting because of you guys and myself because I want a better future for us.

Besides immigration reform, Estevez said he thinks many Chatham Latino voters also want more school funding.

They know that the schools need more resources, Estevez said. Theyre not enough. Students need to have after school tutorials, tutoring, and theres no money for that.

During the Sept. 3 press conference, Alvarado spoke about the importance of education reform statewide for other smaller counties who dont have the necessary support systems for Spanish-speaking families and students, like he said Chatham has.

I have personally experienced the disadvantages our Latino families and their children suffer when public schools are not properly prepared, he said. I understand how important it is that public schools hire interpreters, bilingual and bicultural staff for the success of our children.

Health care is another important issue, said Estevez and Ocelot. Many voters have family members who dont have health insurance and have been unable to get care, Estevez said, something the pandemic has only served to worsen. Many also fear Medicaid cuts, he said.

Theyre afraid for their little brothers (and) their little sisters because some politicians want to cut Medicaid, he said. That will impact a lot of children in our area.

Change, better opportunities and better representation thats what hundreds of Latino votes could bring, said Alvarado and Estevez. Many potential Latino voters may feel skeptical about voting, Estevez said, but doing nothing isnt an option.

As somebody said, the politicians only hear people for two reasons: (they) have money or they provide votes, Estevez said, adding: We Latinx lack money, but our potential as voters is our wealth. If we show up en masse, they will have to listen to us.

Chapelboro.com has partnered with the Chatham News + Record in order to bring more Chatham-focused stories to our audience.

TheChatham News + Recordis Chatham Countys source for local news and journalism. The Chatham News, established in 1924, and the Chatham Record, founded in 1878, have come together to better serve the Chatham community as the Chatham News + Record. Covering news, business, sports and more, the News + Record is working to strengthen community ties through compelling coverage of life in Chatham County.

Related

See original here:
'They Will Have To Listen To Us': NC, Chatham Latino Voter Groups Mobilize Latino Vote - Chapelboro.com

Executive Summary

Introduction

In the 2020 presidential campaign, immigration policy is a point of differentiation between presidential incumbent Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden. The candidates views of immigration differ largely because of the assumptions being made about the contributions that immigrants make to the economy. While President Trumps policies reflect a view that immigrants harm native-born workers, Joe Bidens proposals assume that immigrants make economic contributions. These basic assumptions lead to drastically different policies. In his almost four years in office, President Trump has cracked down on undocumented immigrants and reshaped the immigration system, while claiming that his measures support the workers and the U.S. economy as a whole. Bidens plan for immigration consists of two major points: dismantle the policies of the Trump Administration and reenact the Obama-era policies, which would include giving the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship. This analysis summarizes the immigration policies during the Trump Administrations first term, outlines his second-term goals, and identifies the areas that a Biden Administration could target and reverse regarding an immigration agenda.

The Principles of Each Candidate

Trumps Immigration Agenda

During his first term in office, President Trump created several policies that stem the flow of immigrants into the United States. Where the Trump Administration focuses on deregulation in most areas, immigration is one area that has seen major new regulation, including over 400 executive orders, in the past four years. The presidents justification for regulation and restriction assumes immigrant workers will increase labor market competition and drive down wages of native-born workers. He also contends that low-skilled immigration is responsible for African American and Hispanic unemployment.

Going forward, the Trump Administration plans to end chain migration and the visa lottery system, and instead turn to a merit-based immigration system. Chain migration is when an immigrant in the United States sponsors another family member for admission who can then sponsor other immigrants themselves, and so on, and the visa lottery system randomly selects those who are allowed to immigrate to the United States from a large pool of candidates. The merit-based system favors high-skill immigrants and seeks to eliminate family-based policies.

Bidens Likely Immigration Agenda

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Bidens immigration agenda is far less restrictive than that of the Trump Administration. It mainly involves reviving Obama-era policies while undoing current Trump Administration policies Where Biden pushes regulation in most areas, immigration is not one of them. Biden has proposed relaxing strict immigration policies and instead turning to a model where every type of immigrant, documented or undocumented, could gain access to government resources and a path to citizenship. The driving principles behind many of the Obama-era immigration policies (and now the Biden campaigns policies) are foremost equality and opportunity, but also, economic growth and prosperity.

Surveying the Research

Previous American Action Forum (AAF) research and other academic literature has found that President Trumps reasoning for limiting immigration is largely misguided. One study finds that immigration leads to labor specialization, which increases total factor productivity. Furthermore, the increase in productivity leads to increased income for American workers. Other studies have confirmed the income benefits. One found that native-born U.S. workers experienced long-run and short-run increase in wages during the high levels of immigration between 1990 and 2004. While it is true that new immigrants do bring labor-force competition, those who are directly impacted by increased immigration are other immigrants. On net, immigration leads to a more dynamic labor market and bolsters economic growth.

If the United States were to implement President Trumps proposed idea of removing all undocumented immigrants from the labor force, AAF research has found that gross domestic product (GDP) would decrease by between $380 billion and $620 billion and create a shortage of at least 4 million workers.

To be sure, merit-based immigration does bring economic benefits, too. For example, a study examined the growth of computer science workers on temporary H-1B visas from 1994 and 2001. It found that high-skilled immigration led to the creation of more IT firms in the United States, lowered the price of IT goods, and boosted the wages among non-computer science workers. While there certainly are benefits to high-skilled immigration, it is important not to discount the effects low-skill immigrant workers have on the U.S. economy. Many of the benefits of low-skilled immigration go to employers at least in the immediate term, but have also been shown to benefit consumers. While some estimates have indicated a negative impact of lower-skilled immigrants on native-born workers, these impacts appear to be modest and in the long run are increasingly muted.

Bidens immigration proposals could have positive economic effects if they were to be implemented. AAF research finds that adding foreign workers to the economy does not crowd out employment for native workers. The number of jobs in the United States is not fixed, and as the population and labor force increase, so does total employment. Furthermore, immigrants generate growth and employment opportunities by increasing the total number of people in the United States, leading to increased consumption levels, higher demand, and more production.

Assessing Specific Policies

Outlined below are President Trumps stances on several immigration issues going into the 2020 election that may be targets for reversal in the event of a Biden Administration.

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)

President Trump announced in 2017 that he would be ending The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. There are about 644,000 young adults under the DACA program in the United States currently. In 2018, AAF research estimated Dreamers contribute $42 billion annually to U.S. GDP, equating to $10.8 billion in tax revenues for the federal government per year. That is compared to $7.4 billion of federal costs per year for Dreamers, which means there is a net positive fiscal impact of $3.4 billion a year (see the AAF video and infographic on this issue) when DACA recipients work in the United States. In ending the DACA program, the Trump Administration is forgoing positive economic contributions, while a Biden Administration would be fostering these contributions.

Since DACA was a major focus of Obama-era immigration policy, Biden would reverse President Trumps efforts to end the DACA program. He would also strengthen the protections for Dreamers and so that they have a path to citizenship. In addition, Biden would make Dreamers eligible for federal student aid, such as loans and Pell grants, as part of his higher-education plan. He also proposed protections for the parents of Dreamers but offers very little detail on what these protections would entail.

Border Security

A main pillar of the Trump campaign in 2016 was to build the border wall between the United States and Mexico to stem the flow of immigrants entering the country. In 2019, about 980,000 people illegally crossed the southern border, the majority being families with children. This is the highest number of border crossings since 2007. The wall would cost around $5.7 billion. President Trump tried to have Mexico pay for the wall indirectly through the United States-Mexico-Canada Trada Agreement (USMCA). An AAF insight found that the USMCA will not generate any substantial economic growth that could increase tax receipts. Thus, it would not be able to fund a wall. After this means for funding the wall failed, President Trump declared a national emergency in February 2019. By doing this, the president invoked his authority to call up and deploy members of the militarys Ready Reserves, seize private lands, and repurpose military construction (MilCon) funding. By repurposing these MilCon funds, President Trump has taken more than half of the budget for other MilCon projects and has faced much backlash from Congress. The Trump Administration announced it has so far received funding for 61 percent of the wall and has finished 235 miles out of the 450 that were promised by the end of the year.

Like President Trump, Biden does not support decriminalizing illegal border crossing, but promises to reduce the number of prosecutions at the border for minor immigration violations.

Biden condemns the southern border wall and supports ending the national emergency that secures funding for the wall from the military as part of his first 100 days in office. Instead, he has proposed investing in technology for better security at the border. He would implement better screening infrastructure such as cameras, sensors, large-scale X-ray machines, and fixed watch towers at points of entry.

Central and South American Migration

Many illegal border crossers are refugees and asylum seekers from the Northern Triangle, a troubled region comprised of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. In January 2019, the Department of Homeland Security announced the implementation of the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP). The policy and its guidance outline the procedures under which the U.S. government will return certain asylum seekers to Mexico to wait for the duration of their cases pending in the U.S. immigration court system. Since the beginning of his term, President Trump has continuously tried revoking the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for the countries of the Northern Triangle. In fact, as of May 2019, TPS designations for El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua, and Sudan have been terminated pending ongoing court rulings. In September 2019, President Trump cut the refugee cap from 30,000 in 2019 to 18,000 in 2020, while also setting a new (and more selective) criteria for those who may be allowed to enter the United States. By August 2020, only 6,674 refugees have been admitted into the United States versus a total of 85,000 in 2016, the last year of Obamas term. The actions taken by the Trump Administration to stem the flow of refugees and asylum seekers will have two consequences: force people to stay in the dangerous conditions of their home countries, and/or push the humanitarian crisis into Mexico.

In order to steady rather than halt the flow of South and Central American immigrants into the United States, Bidens plans would seek to address the factors that cause the need for migration. He has proposed a four-year, $4 billion regional strategy to address the factors driving migration from the Northern Triangle. Aid would be dependent on factors such as gang and gender-based violence, improvements in education, and the implementation of anti-corruption measures. It is unlikely that $4 billion over 4 years is enough to address all the aforementioned issues effectively, if at all. Due to the broad nature of this investment, the best-case scenario is likely negligible improvements in the region. This plan could necessitate significantly more government spending and could even worsen the situation by causing dependency on U.S. funds. Furthermore, Biden has proposed mobilizing private investment in the region, improving security and rule of law, addressing endemic corruption, and prioritizing poverty reduction and economic development. As a part of the plan, Biden would immediately end President Trumps Migrant Protection Protocols program and undo regulations that make it harder for Central American asylum seekers to enter the United States. Biden has proposed to keep TPS programs for the countries which the Trump Administration have terminated, especially the Northern Triangle countries. He would also extend TPS to Venezuelans. As for TPS holders in the United States, Biden has pledged a path to citizenship via legislative immigration reform to those who have built lives in the United States. Lastly, Biden will also open the United States to 125,000 refugees from around the globe, up sevenfold from the 18,000 of the Trump Administrations cap.

COVID-19 and Immigration

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, U.S. employers were hiring over 450,000 new immigrant workers a year that worked in a range of different occupations. By June 2020, the White House had issued a proclamation that suspended several immigration programs it claimed present risk to the U.S. labor market during the economic recovery. In the near term, this reduction in immigration will likely harm employers that disproportionately rely on foreign-born workers, specifically in the agricultural, construction, and transportation sectors.

In the long term, halting new immigration to the United States could have negative impacts on productivity, output, and economic growth. Prior AAF analysis has also shown that this move could negatively affect job creation. In the midst of a pandemic, however, a more restricted immigration system, as is being proposed by President Trump, could be beneficial in the short term for economic recovery and reducing the spread of the virus. It is important to note that, should more restrictive measures be taken, it would likely be difficult to undo them as the public health situation stabilizes.

While Biden does not need to directly deal with the effect of COVID-19 on the labor market right now, the situation remains unstable, especially with flu season on the horizon. The United States will still be in recovery come January, even if the public health situation improves. Joe Biden does not seem to have a detailed recovery plan. While it appears as though the Biden campaign does understand immigration as a means toward economic growth and job creation, its plans are sparse when it comes to immigration during the pandemic. Even given the benefits of immigration, an economically unstable time when recovery is needed may not be the ideal moment to welcome 125,000 refugees or grant citizenship to 11 million undocumented individuals. The copy-and-paste nature of Bidens immigration policy does not seem to acknowledge the current public health crisis.

Conclusion

The immigration topics and the respective policy stances of both presidential nominees outlined above hardly scratch the surface of issues that immigrants and U.S. citizens face daily. President Trump has increased regulations, allegedly prioritizing American workers and wages, and is moving toward a merit-based system. Due to pandemic-related immigration policies, the Trump Administration has made it virtually impossible for migrants and refugees to enter the United States, citing health, safety, and labor-market concerns. On the other hand, Bidens approach, which is mostly a rehashing of Obama-era policies, does not seem to acknowledge the difficulty of drastic changes and foreign investment during the pandemic. In the medium- to long-term, however, some aspects of the Biden immigration plan could be an opportunity to expand the U.S. labor force, increase productivity, and ultimately lead to economic growth. There must also be considerations for the public health crisis the country currently faces and how a less restrictive immigration system could affect the number of COVID-19 cases.

Here is the original post:
Comparing Trump and Biden on Immigration - AAF - American Action Forum

Her stories

Araceli Esparza founded Wisconsin Mujer to encourage conversations and highlight the needs of her Latinx community in Madison. To that end, this Thursday she presents the fifth Latinx Talkback, Latina Voices on Immigration. Set for 8 p.m., the event features Valeria Cerda of Wisconsin VOICES, Nancy Flores at the National Partnership for New Americans, Larissa Joanna from Voces de La Frontera and Aissa Olivarez, an attorney at the Community Immigration Law Center. Broadcast via Wisconsin Mujers Facebook, the topic will be personal histories with immigration and migration, as well as immigration reform.

FRIDAY-SATURDAY, SEPT. 11-12

Music makes the world go round

Singers, players and dancers from Russia, Jordan, Haiti and Wisconsins own Ho-Chunk nation come together this weekend for workshops and concerts at the annual Madison World Music Festival. Events are, unsurprisingly, virtual this year, but theres still plenty to watch and listen to. Events kick off at 1 p.m. on Friday with Natu Camara: Music of Hope and Healing, and the West African singers performance will be at 8:30 p.m. that night. The nine-piece, multigenerational Haitian group Lazou Mizik closes out the weekend on Saturday after hosting a dance workshop for kids. There is no charge for these events.

More here:
The Week Ahead: Madison World Music Festival, Great Wisconsin Quilt Show, and more - Madison.com

By R. Hans Miller | News Editor

The Congressional District 22 seat is up for grabs after incumbent Republican Representative for the district, Pete Olson, announced last year that he would not be seeking reelection in 2020.

Three candidates are vying for the position this fall after the primaries came to a close earlier this year. Sri Preston Kulkarni is running on the Democratic ticket while Fort Bend County Sheriff Troy Nehls is running on the Republican side of the aisle. Libertarian Joe LeBlanc, Jr. will be running for his party.

Each of the candidates was provided the same questions as his opponents with the same amount of time and word count restrictions to answer each question. Their responses are below and have been lightly edited to remove simple typos and for clarity. Each candidate submitted their responses on or before the deadline provided to them.

Responses are listed in alphabetical order by candidates last name.

Relations between the Black community and law enforcement are strained right now. What can Congress do to help ease that strain and rebuild trust?

Kulkarni: The African American community has made it clear that they are in pain, and we need to listen to them.

Our policing system is broken for many people and ignoring our problems will only continue to cause suffering and division in our community.

We need to reform our policing system to ensure that everyone in our community feels safe. The solution isnt to defund the police or demonize hard working members of law enforcement, but to enact common sense reforms that will restore trust in our law enforcement and ensure justice. These include mandatory body cameras, banning chokeholds, and increased de-escalation training.

Additionally, while recognizing the vast majority of law enforcement officers are applying the law correctly and fairly, its also fair to ask for greater transparency within policing so that officers who are repeatedly cited for misconduct like improper arrests, destroying evidence and disobeying orders are accountable for their actions.

The goal of any of these initiatives needs to be focused on restoring trust and improving our citizens' lives. Police need to know the communities they serve, and the communities need to be able to trust those protecting and serving them. That makes everyone safer.

LeBlanc: Firstly, we need to admit that the handling of poor policing has been lackluster. Officers who have abused their position as peacekeepers need to be held accountable. We need to reevaluate qualified immunity. Secondly, we need to assess our Criminal Justice system and how it favors punishment over rehabilitation. This goes hand in hand with decriminalizing Cannabis which will help curb the black-market trade that infiltrates our society and keep nonviolent offenders from filling the system making it difficult for their return to society.

Nehls: Congress needs to stop making the issue partisan. Law enforcement in this country can always do better, but the partisan attacks calling for abolishment and defunding of law enforcement is uncalled for and dangerous. I often say if Washington wants to learn how communities and law enforcement get along, come down to Fort Bend County. I truly believe were the model for the rest of the country.

As Sheriff, I require all our deputies to take increased de-escalation training well above state requirements and weve seen results. In 2019, the Fort Bend County Sheriffs Office made over 23,000 traffic stops and there was not one case of bodily injury to the violator or officer. Ive also taken steps to establish a specialized unit at the Fort Bend Sheriffs Office that responds to mental health situations. In Fort Bend County, our Sheriffs Office has great relationships with every community regardless of race, religion, or socioeconomic status. I believe the model weve built here is a roadmap for the rest of the country.

COVID-19 has forced Congress to spend trillions of dollars to support those economically impacted by the pandemic. This is just one of many reasons the national debt has increased. What should Congress do to alleviate the rapidly mounting national debt?

Kulkarni: We need to stop treating the national debt like a political pawn. Washington politicians have blown a hole in the budget with corporate giveaways while taxes went up for some of our hardest working citizens. We need to stop only giving breaks to our wealthiest individuals and largest corporations so that we can get our debt under control and relieve the middle class. We also need to stand up to special interests who rig our political system to their own advantage, leaving us and future generations to deal with the consequences.

We also must protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Our most vulnerable citizens should not be made to pay for Washingtons fiscal irresponsibility.

LeBlanc: Congress has a duty to reduce the spending by our government. They need to audit, evaluate, and cut programs that are financially burdensome. It will not be popular with many members of congress but there seems to be a lot of waste in government contracts that are no longer needed. The military while necessary for defense could use a lot of trimming. Changing the way the federal government does budgets could help alleviate the cost as well since departments and military units have to use their entire budget every year or their budget for the next year is cut. So, to ensure that they will have enough funds for the next year they make sure their expenditures are as high as they can, which leads to gross amounts of waste.

Nehls: We need to find other areas where to offset that spending cost and reduce the deficit. As someone with decades of experience in and around government, Ive seen firsthand the level of waste and excess when it comes to spending taxpayers money. Our deficit is not a matter of too little tax revenue but too much spending. We also need to pass a budget, something Congress has failed to do for decades. Instead, Congress passes omnibus spending bills which are drawn up by party leadership and dumped on members desks days before a vote on it. Leadership packs as much as possible into it and you either vote yes or no on the entire package. Instead of omnibus spending packages and continuing resolutions, we should get back to passing a complete budget through the appropriations process.

The American health care system has put a financial strain on families across the country, including residents of the district you will represent, if elected. What changes do you support to fix the nations health care system and ensure your constituents have access to high-quality, affordable health care?

Kulkarni: At 19, I came home to take care of my family while my father was dying of cancer. After he died, we were pushed to the verge of bankruptcy by the remaining medical bills. Nobody should have to go through this.

Americans now pay twice as much as any other developed nation for their health care, but life expectancy has declined. Two thirds of bankruptcies are caused by medical costs. Before arguing about specific proposals, we must all agree on the two core problems: the cost of health care in America is too high and tens of millions of people still dont have any sort of coverage. In Congress, I would oppose any effort to dismantle, privatize, or undermine Medicaid or Medicare. I will push for expanded coverage for our nations poor, disabled, and elderly. I will support everyones right to keep their private insurance if they are happy with it. I will stand up against special interests who put profits over people, and I will advocate for lower, negotiated prescription drug costs. I will protect coverage for individuals with preexisting conditions, such as COVID-19, and oppose Texas Republicans lawsuit to repeal the ACA in the middle of a pandemic.

LeBlanc: There are a few changes we can implement at the federal level. Allowing true open insurance markets, where you are not restricted to only the policies in your state, will see a lowering of cost for insurance. Changing the patent system on pharmaceuticals where companies, using loopholes, end up holding eternal patents on their drugs and devices. Opening hospitals to allowing customers the ability to see costs up front and be able to choose which hospital they would like to go to based on price. These three things have been heavily regulated by the government for years and has caused our skyrocketing health care cost.

Nehls: What Americans like and need more than anything is options. There is no one size fits all fix to our nations healthcare problems. What we need to do is increase offerings, protect those with preexisting conditions, protect social security and Medicare, protect Medicaid, and protect private insurance. When Americans are in the market for healthcare coverage, there should be a healthy mix of private and public options that meet all budgets.

Drainage continues to be an issue across the Congressional district you are running to represent. What moves will you make in Washington to ensure drainage for the region is addressed in a timely manner?

Kulkarni: Growing up here, I personally experienced the damage that flooding can cause. My family lost our car and my brother and sister almost lost their lives. We need to be proactive in addressing issues of flooding, we cannot wait until after disaster strikes to act.

We need to increase funding in flood prevention infrastructure, with a particular emphasis on drainage. Hurricane Harvey flooded at least 900 levee-protected homes in Fort Bend (County). We need to strengthen the 20 levees in Fort Bend and identify new areas that require drainage infrastructure. We need to invest in larger storm sewers and pumps in the Katy area, specifically around the Brazos River. We must coordinate with local governments to ensure we are supporting the implementation of flood mitigation projects, such as Katys Patna Drive drainage improvement project and the Pitts Road Detention Pond.

We need to revisit our floodplain maps and ensure they are current, while devising and installing a system to address coastal surge protection.

LeBlanc: I believe that it is the Federal governments responsibility to assess the landscape and to give the evaluation of high-risk areas to the state and local governments. It is the state and local governments job to address the drainage issues and it is us, the voters, responsibility to hold those elected accountable.

Nehls: As Sheriff, Ive seen firsthand the issue of flooding and drainage in our communities. During (Hurricane) Harvey and Brazos River floods, I was out on airboats helping folks evacuate, rescuing left behind pets, and helping get food to ranchers stranded cattle.

Every time a flood happens, peoples lives are fractured, and they are left picking up the pieces. We are the greatest country on earth, and we can solve the problem if we work together. In Congress, I will make funding for our districts numerous drainage projects including Addicks and Barker (reservoirs) a top priority, and I will lobby leadership to fully fund the project as soon as possible. In addition, I will coordinate with the Army Corps of Engineers to ensure they have what they need to complete the project and are doing so in timely manner.

Partisanship is a notable challenge in todays America. What measures will you take to reach across the political aisle to work with your opponents party for the benefit of your constituents?

Kulkarni: I spent 14 years in the Foreign Service, where my job was to bring people together in war zones and dangerous places to find solutions to some of the worlds hardest problems. I would sit at a table with people who wanted to murder each other and find common ground to create real solutions that actually helped people. Unfortunately, that experience is pretty relevant to working in Congress these days. We need to cut through tension and ideology to get real results.

In Congress, I commit to rising above partisan politics and putting the people of this district first. We need to start solving our problems with evidence and science, not political ideology. We cant afford to play games with situations like the coronavirus.

When elected, I will put politics aside and focus on delivering real solutions to the people of our district.

LeBlanc: Personally, I am willing to sit down with anyone from any of the other parties, discuss and hash out bills that are beneficial to the American people, that are constitutional, and do not restrict our Natural Liberties. But I will also be very outspoken if bills brought by other members of congress increase the size of our government, restrict our liberties, or are blatantly unconstitutional.

Nehls: Partisanship is a problem and one in which Ive worked to avoid as Sheriff for the past eight years. As Sheriff over 826 employees and 500,000 residents, I do not protect and serve Republicans or Democrats, I am Sheriff for all people. The same is true when I was deployed overseas with the US Army. I didnt pick and choose who to stand beside or protect, we all treated each other like brothers.

These experiences have instilled in me an understanding of how to work with all people regardless of race, religion, or gender to accomplish a goal. There are numerous areas where I believe I could accomplish meaningful progress working across the aisle on criminal justice reform, increased education and resources for mental health, and veterans healthcare.

Human trafficking is a significant concern for the district with I-10 and other regional highways noted as trafficking thoroughfares. What will you do in Congress to help prevent human trafficking and aid victims?

Kulkarni: This is an issue I take very seriously. I worked on countering human trafficking in the State Department and worked on the End Modern Slavery Initiative Act in the Senate.

As most people in the district already know, human trafficking is an issue that too many local officials have failed to address in our community. That being said, District Attorney Brian Middleton, County Judge KP George, and Constable Wayne Thompson deserve credit for organizing and leading a recent multi-agency human trafficking sweep.

This kind of interagency cooperation is exactly what we need to address human trafficking and keeping our citizens safe. We also need to put resources behind raising awareness of how to spot the issue. Contrary to common opinion, the issue of human trafficking does not discriminate against any communities, anyone can fall victim to it. We need to enable our citizens to look out for signs a loved one might be at risk, and ensure they know where to get help, and we need to ensure no victims are turned away when they are looking for help.

LeBlanc: Human Trafficking is something even Libertarians support the Federal government combating. I applaud those who are on the front lines of combating human trafficking. But we can also assist them even more. Immigration reform is a necessity, and our laborious, expensive immigration system leads to millions of people willing to risk their lives to come into this country and has led to a large amount of the trafficking business.

The other major prong in trafficking is the sex trade. Decriminalizing prostitution will help remove the need for trafficked individuals to be forced into the sex trade. While it wont end trafficking completely it will also help narrow the focus to those forced into it, making it easier for officials to apprehend those responsible.

Nehls: As the father to three beautiful daughters, Im always concerned for their safety and wellbeing and as Sheriff of Fort Bend County, Im always concerned for the safety and wellbeing of all residents. Thats why Ive taken numerous steps to prevent human trafficking from gaining a foothold in Fort Bend County by establishing a local hotline for reports, hiring detectives dedicated to human trafficking cases, and shutting down numerous illicit massage parlors.

I will take this experience with me to Congress and work across the aisle to ensure the necessary resources for education and training are available to combat this global threat. I will also support interagency missions and task force

Read more:
Nehls, LeBlanc and Kulkarni discuss the issues as they compete for Congressional District 22 seat - Katy Times

As the only non-elected branch of our federal government, the Supreme Court usually gets a cursory glance during elections. The American political arena is dominated by the cult of personality. It makes perfect sense that politicians barely mention those stoic judges in black robes. Politicians are too busy screaming about tax cuts, gun control, abortion and immigration. Although the Supreme Court is less mentioned and less noticed by our politicians, the media and the general public, it is still a coequal branch of our government. The Supreme Court has always played a role in electoral politics. Conservatives have always worried more about the Supreme Court than liberals. Some scholars attribute this conservative concern to the liberal rulings of the Court in the 50s, 60s, 70s and early 80s. In 2016, the conservative majority on the Court was threatened after the death of Justice Scalia. Majority Leader McConnell refused to hear President Obamas nominee, Judge Merrick Garland. The majority leader felt the American people should decide the fate of the Court at the ballot box, which further politicized the Court. During the 2018 midterm campaign, President Trump nominated and the Republican-led Senate confirmed Justice Kavanaugh, a confirmation that helped the pink-wave of female Democrats elected all over the country. As the 2020 election heats up, the Supreme Court will inevitably be drawn into the fray. Here are the top ten ways the Supreme Court will come up in the 2020 election.

Gorsuch, Roberts, Kavanaugh and RBG

Last week, after Bostock v. Clayton County, GA, Zarda v. Altitude Express and RG & GR Harris Funeral Homes Inc v. EEOC, conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, in frustration over the ruling, called Chief Justice Roberts the worst Supreme Court Justice of all time. Shapiro went on to lambaste Justice Gorsuch as well. Republicans are not happy with what they perceive to be liberal rulings by the Court this term. On the other hand, Democrats will continue to make Kavanaugh a campaign point. Since Mr. Biden has chosen a woman as his running mate, his VP pick and female Democratic congressional candidates will likely continue to criticize that the Republicans confirmed a man accused of a heinous sex crime. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal icon, is 87 years old and has health problems. If President Trump gets a second term, she may die, and Trump will get to pick her successor. Democrats will do whatever they can to stop that scenario from happening.

More Conservative Justices and Court Packing

After recent defeats at the Supreme Court, President Trump tweeted that we need more Justices. Some people interpret this to mean more conservative Justices, while mostly liberal commentators said Trump was threatening to pack the Supreme Court. They claimed Trumps tweet was a threat to democracy. I find Democrats accusing President Trump of wanting to pack the Court ludicrous because some of the Democratic 2020 presidential candidates were openly saying the Court should be expanded with new justices. Pete Buttigieg put forth a plan to add additional justices to the Court, and Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris and Andrew Yang indicated that they were open to the idea of packing the Court. I can talk all day about FDRs Court packing plan, the switch in time that saved nine, why expanding the Court endangers the independence of the judiciary and why we need a constitutional amendment establishing nine, and only nine, justices. But thats a story for another day. Fortunately, former Vice President Biden said hes against packing the Court.

Voting Rights

After Shelby County v. Holder in 2013, the Voting Rights Acts power was drastically limited. Now Voter ID laws, purging voter rolls and voting by mail are politically charged issues. With the coronavirus raging across the states, worries about the 2020 election have crossed the minds of elected officials. Some states have already held primaries under threat of the coronavirus. These states are test runs for how to safely run the general election in November. Many states are turning to mail-in ballots as a safe solution. Wisconsin had a lot of legal drama in April revolving around the last-minute implementation of their vote-by-mail program and hundreds of voting precincts being closed. The Court weighed in the night before the election on an application for stay of a lower Court order. The Roberts Court has been especially concerned with staying out of issues of gerrymandering and voting. Chief Justice Roberts views those issues as inherently political and therefore out of the purview of the Court. Voting rights are becoming a new battlefront for culture wars. Expect Democrats to criticize the Court on these issues.

Religious Liberty and LGBT Rights

After the recent Court ruling that employers cannot discriminate against members of the LGBT community, conservatives have been fearing for the future of religious liberty. Justice Gorsuch addressed this concern in the last few paragraphs of that majority opinion. He said that the Court couldnt really address religious liberty claims in those cases since the employers based their defense on the sex portion of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It would have been a different matter if the employers defense was based on the Free Exercise Clause. More conservatives and more liberals are viewing religious liberty and LGBT rights at odds with each other. Expect this issue and the Courts jurisprudence in these areas to be a big point of contention in the 2020 presidential and congressional races.

Immigration and DACA

Earlier this week, the Court ruled that the Trump Administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act in the way it ended the DACA program. After the ruling, President Trump aired his grievances on Twitter. He vowed to end the program again but in accordance with the Courts decision. Immigration is one of the main differences between the two parties right now, and selecting justices who will protect immigrants will be a top priority for the Democrats. DACA is at risk to be legally ended unless the Democrats take the White House or Congress enshrines legal status for the Dreamers through federal legislation. Democrats taking the White House is more likely than immigration reform passing Congress.

Abortion

The Court has yet to rule in June Medical Services LLC v. Russo. That decision will be coming in the next few weeks. This case is almost a carbon copy of Whole Womans Health v. Hellerstedt (2016). The factual circumstances regarding the case are eerily similar. The only real difference is the composition of the Court. Logic tells us that the Court will uphold the Hellerstedt precedent and rule in favor of the abortion providers. President Trump and Republicans would ideally like the Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, but this case is unlikely to be the vehicle for the conservative bloc to overturn the 1973 decision. If the Court decides to reject the Hellerstedt precedent, they will use this case to start slowly chipping away at Roe and Casey. If the Court rules in favor of the abortion providers again, conservatives will use this ruling as a way to characterize the Court as liberal. President Trump will vow to nominate justices who will overturn Roe. On the other hand, if the Court starts chipping away at Roe, Democrats will use this to prove that they need to take back the White House and Senate to restrict the power of a conservative Court.

Obamacare

Next term, the Court will hear yet another challenge to the Affordable Care Act. Since the Trump Administration is urging the Court to rule the ACA unconstitutional, Democrats are saying the heartless Republicans are trying to take peoples healthcare away during a pandemic. The Democrats are going to use this as another reason to take back the White House and nominate justices willing to uphold the previous Obamacare precedents. Earlier, the Court ruled that the individual mandate was constitutional because Congress enacted it as a tax rather than through the power of the Commerce Clause. President Trump and the conservatives, who are suing, argue that since the individual mandate tax no longer exists, the entire Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. This will probably be a 6-3 or 7-2 decision upholding the ACA next term, but this will be a major campaign issue for the Democrats.

Qualified Immunity

In the late 1960s, the Supreme Court introduced the concept of qualified immunity for law enforcement officers. Qualified immunity intends to protect officers from frivolous lawsuits and financial liability in instances where the officer acted in good faith. In the many years since the late 1960s, qualified immunity has been used to shield law enforcement officers from being held accountable for their actions, especially in cases of police brutality. In recent years, the Court has been unwilling to revisit the issue. The Court ideally wants Congress to take up the issue. Since the brutal murder of George Floyd, the country has been engaged in a conversation about police brutality, racism and the proper role of law enforcement in a free society. Expect Democrats to bring up the Courts role in establishing qualified immunity and their recent unwillingness to revisit the issue.

Gun Control and Gun Rights

The Court ruled that the case was moot in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York. Revolving around restrictions on transporting firearms, this was one of the first big gun cases to reach the Court sinceHellerandMcDonald. The Court could have ruled on the side of gun rights and placed legal barriers to future gun control legislation, but the Court decided to rule on the factual circumstances of the case. All the recent mass shootings and the lack of effective legislation in wake of those tragedies have enraged Democrats on the campaign trail. Gun control will be a litmus test for any Democratic presidents nominee to the Court. Any nominee favorable to gun control will be a reason for Republicans to block said nominee.

Campaign Finance

If Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders were the Democratic nominee, campaign finance would likely be a bigger issue. Campaign finance has fallen to the wayside in light of the coronavirus and police brutality. Although campaign finance is not being talked about as much as it was a few months ago, many Democrats still feel passionately about this issue. Citizens United is not disliked by only Democrats. The majority of Republicans, independents and the public at large dislike this ruling. The precedent established by Citizens United has led to the perception of dark money in politics. Although the American people dislike this decision, only Democrats push this issue. Moderate Republicans, such as Senator John McCain who cared about this issue, have either left or been forced out of the Republican Party.

Patrick Johnson is the President of Hope Colleges Pre-Law Society

Related

View original post here:
Election 2020 and the Supreme Court | The Anchor - The Anchor