Mediaboss Marketing

Is it realistic for Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden to promise to dismantle the changes President Trump has made to the American immigration system if he wins the White House in November?

It may be, and Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLUs Immigrants Rights Project thinks it should be done.

According to the Migration Policy Institute, the Trump administration has undertaken more than 400 executive actions on immigration. They include:

Sarah Pierce, a policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute says, I dont think its realistic that Biden in four years could unroll everything that Trump did. Because of the intense volume and pace of changes the Trump administration enacted while in office, even if we have a new administration, Trump will continue to have had an impact on immigration for years to come.

Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLUs Immigrants Rights Project says, What the administration has sought to do is to simply turn off immigration and to do it unilaterally by presidential edict, without the approval of Congress or the consent of the American people. That project should be reversed.

Thats exactly what Biden pledges to do.His position paper on immigration 22 pages long seeks to roll back Trumps accomplishments and reenact Obama-era policies.

Biden pledges, If Im elected president, were going to immediately end Trumps assault on the dignity of immigrant communities. Were going to restore our moral standing in the world and our historic role as a safe haven for refugees and asylum-seekers.

The former vice president has an exhaustive to-do list. Within his first 100 days, Biden says he would implement a wide range of policies:

However, if Biden is elected, he would face a host of obstacles that could slow his immigration counter-revolution.

1. Theres the specter of renewed chaos at the Southern border. Last year, groups as large as 1,000 Central Americans at a time waded across the Rio Grande into El Paso, Texas, to request asylum. The Border Patrol was overwhelmed and ended up detaining families in primitive, unsanitary conditions. Immigration hawks are wary that Biden would throw open the gates again.

Federal border officials are worried about what would happen if Biden cancels bilateral agreements with Mexico that have dramatically slowed the migrant flow.

Ron Vitiello, former deputy commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection says, If Mexico right now decided they werent going to continue to help us, people would start coming through like we saw in the caravans two springs ago. Theres no reason that it wouldnt come back as bad as it was.

Some 700 migrants languish in filthy tents pitched in a public park amid mud, rats, and clouds of mosquitoes. The encampment is in Matamoros, just across the Rio Grande from Brownsville, Texas. Theyre seeking asylum in the U.S. but are stuck there under a Trump initiative known as Remain in Mexico.

Theres no doubt about it, this is a monumental challenge, says Heidi Altman, director of policy for the National Immigrant Justice Center. That means a complete and utter reorientation of the culture of the agencies that administer immigration law and policy in the United States.

But thats a tall order and another obstacle Biden would face.

2. Immigration agents have enjoyed extraordinary support from the White House over the past 45 months. The Trump administration has bragged about unshackling them to let them do their jobs more aggressively.

Angela Kelley, senior adviser to the American Immigration Lawyers Association stresses, That isnt something thats a light switch. You cant change the culture within an organization that vast overnight. So I agree that its going to be a long, long road.

A Biden presidency also would likely find itself skirmishing with conservative lawyers the way the Trump administration has been tied up in federal courts fighting immigrant advocates.

3. Groups will sue. The simple fact is if Biden is elected and his administration starts rescinding executive actions that Trump had firm legal authority to do, groups will sue. R.J. Hauman, head of government relations at the Federation for American Immigration Reform confirmed this. It was something they did under Obama.

4. The pandemic.Biden has not said if he would reverse that order to reopen the borders and jump-start the asylum process, which has been suspended. According to an NPR/Ipsos poll the majority of Americans support Trumps decision to shut the nations borders to all types of immigrants to stop the spread of the coronavirus.

Go here to see the original:
Biden promises to overturn Trump's sweeping immigration policies - NYCaribNews

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic hit, there was a strong case to cut immigration, which had run at turbo-charged levels for 15 years:

First, Australian real wage growth had remained stillborn for nearly 10 years:

Australias labour underutilisation rate had been stuck at stubbornly high levels:

Whereas average monthly hours worked had collapsed to record lows:

All three indicators pointed to an Australian labour market that has been chronically oversupplied, driven by the tidal wave of migrants, both temporary and permanent.

When combined with the negative impacts on housing affordability, congestion and overall amenity in our major cities, it is clear that Australias mass immigration experiment has unambiguously reduced living standards for the typical Australian household.

The situation is obviously far more fragile now with the economy devastated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Real unemployment has risen to levels not seen since the 1930s Great Depression and Australian households are facing heavy income losses once emergency income support is wound back.

Thus, the absolute last thing Australian workers need is to be competing for scarce jobs with hundreds of thousands of migrant workers arriving every year.

Yesterday, Labors opposition leader, Anthony Albanese, flagged a new immigration platform aimed at protecting Australian workers:

The draft platform says Labor would favour permanent migration over temporary migration.

Labor will restore public confidence in Australias temporary migration program and ensure that temporary migration does not adversely affect the employment and training opportunities for Australians, particularly young people who suffer from higher rates of unemployment and underemployment, the draft platform says.

Labors priority is to ensure that job opportunities are offered to local workers first and that temporary migration will never be used as a means to undercut local wages, conditions and training opportunities.

The document also says Labor would encourage skilled migrants to move to regional and rural areas where there are skills shortages

Labor aspires to progressively increase Australias government-funded humanitarian intake to 27,000 places per year, the document states. Labor aspires to progressively increase the community-sponsored refugee program intake to 5000 places per year

The document says Labors humanitarian program would accommodate LGBTIQ people who fear persecution.

This is a great start by Labor. But it needs to go much further to restore integrity to the immigration program and maximise living standards.

Below are suggestions on how to practically reduce Australias immigration intake, both temporary and permanent, to sustainable levels.

The number of temporary visas outstanding reached absurd levels at the end of 2019, at nearly 2.5 million people:

The first step to lowering the number of temporary migrants should be to significantly lift the Temporary Skilled Migration Income Threshold (TSMIT) from $53,900, which is well below the median Australian wage of $1,100 per week ($57,200 p.a.), according to the ABS:

This TSMIT wage floor has now fallen $3,300 (6%) below the median income of all Australians ($57,200), which includes unskilled workers. Thus, the TSMIT has incentivised employers to hire cheap migrants instead of local workers, as well as abrogated the need to provide training.

The wage floor for all skilled migrants (both permanent and temporary) should be set at least at the 75th percentile of earnings (preferably higher).

This would ensure that the temporary migration scheme is used sparingly by businesses to employ only high skilled migrants, not as a general labour market tool for undercutting local workers and eliminating the need for training.

Second, the federal government should lift English-language and financial requirements for international students, alongside limiting work opportunities.

Raising entry standards would ensure a smaller number of high quality international students, while also ensuring they are financially independent and not reliant on work for income.

In turn, this would lift export revenue per student and reduce competition in the workplace. It would also ensure that students come to Australia to study, not for ulterior motives, such as to work and/or to gain permanent residency.

These measures alone would dramatically reduce temporary migration into Australia.

The permanent migrant program is dominated by the skilled stream, which has set aside 108,000 places for so-called skilled workers:

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic hit, this skilled stream was highly dubious.There was no evidence that Australia was experiencing skills shortages that warranted such a strong intake.

We also know that Australias skilled migrant program has been widely rorted, attracting migrants to areas already heavily oversupplied with workers (e.g. accounting, engineering and IT), with most of these migrants employed at levels well below their claimed skills set.

Skilled migrants generally also have significantly higher unemployment and underemployment than the Australian born population, and are paid less. This is evidenced by the Department of Home Affairs Continuous Survey of Migrants. This surveyshows that migrants have significantly worse labour market outcomes than the general population:

In particular:

Even if we focus on the skilled stream only, both median earnings and unemployment is far worse than the general population:

These are shocking results. Skilled migrants should be paid well above the general population, which comprises both skilled and unskilled workers, as well as have very low unemployment.

Thus, like the temporary skilled visa system, the permanent program has unambiguously undercut workers and contributed to Australias poor wage growth, in addition to crush-loading the major cities and making housing less affordable.

With Australians now facing mass unemployment, and skills shortages virtually non existent across the economy, there is zero rationale for maintaining such a strong permanent migrant program.

Instead, the skilled program should be phased back to historical levels of around 35,000, and be reserved only for truly world-class leaders in their field that Australia cannot foster internally.

Moreover, these highly skilled migrants should have an income pay floor set at least at the 75th percentile of earnings (preferably higher), as for temporary skilled migrants.

No longer should Australian employers be allowed to simply grab a migrant to fill ordinary positions in the labour market cheaply. Instead, they would have to lift wages to attract workers (thus countering anaemic wages growth), as well as commit to training local workers.

Lets also not forget that many migrants come to Australia on temporary visas with the hope of transitioning to a skilled permanent visa.

Therefore, if Australia was to remove the carrot of permanent residency by slashing the skilled intake, it would also reduce the flow of temporary migrants, since the two areas are intrinsically linked.

Cutting immigration in this way is an easy sell for Labor. All it needs to argue is:

Most Australians know these to be true and would resonate with these common-sense arguments.

Labor should also state that it is merely seeking to lower immigration back toward the historical (pre-2004) average, and that the new lower intake would still be at the higher end of developed nations.

Moreover, progressively lifting the humanitarian intake by around 10,000 is smart, provided it is accompanied by large reductions in other categories of immigration, since it automatically counters faux arguments of racism and xenophobia that are likely to emerge from the fake left.

If Labor wants any chance of winning the next election, it must return to its working class roots and represent the interests of regular Australians over inner-city progressives. Otherwise it will remain in the political wilderness.

Leith van Onselen is Chief Economist at the MB Fund and MB Super. Leith has previously worked at the Australian Treasury, Victorian Treasury and Goldman Sachs.

More here:
Labor takes baby steps toward immigration reform - MacroBusiness

Whoever is president the day after inauguration 2021 is going to face serious immigration issues, and he may not be able to get the funds needed to deal with them.

How large is the undocumented alien population, really?

The president should establish a more reliable method for estimating the size of the undocumented alien population.

Pew Research Center's(PEW) estimates of the undocumented alien population are highly respected even the Congressional Research Servicerelies on them. PEW uses aprocess known as the residual method, an approach also used by theMigration Policy Institute(MPI), and the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

The problem is it doesnt produce reliable results.

The residual method uses data from the Census Bureaus annualAmerican Community Surveys(ACS) to estimate the number of foreign born people in the United States. It subtracts an estimate of the number of lawful immigrants in the United States from the foreign-born population estimate, and the remainder is the estimate of the undocumented alien population.

The ACS surveys are taken from 1 percent of the population, which isnt a statistically significant percentage. Moreover, it asks about a persons race, place of birth, whether he is a citizen of the United States, and other questions that undocumented aliens might not be willing to answer truthfully.

A more reliable method for estimating the size of the undocumented alien population is needed for enforcement purposes and to estimate how many undocumented aliens would participate in a legalization program.

There is also a challenge in trying to track the performance of border security measures, specifically how many aliens successfully cross the border illegally each year. Section 1092 of theFiscal 2017 National Defense Authorization Act requires the DHS Secretary to make an annual Border Security Metrics Report to Congress on the effectiveness of methods being used to secure the border between ports of entry.

The report must include estimates of the number of undetected unlawful entries; Undetected unlawful entries are illegal border crossings between ports of entry that are not directly or indirectly observed or detected by the Border Patrol.

The problem is that DHS cant count crossings that are not observed or detected.

The solution may be to install a surveillance system that would detect every crossing. This hasnt worked in the past, but that doesnt mean that it shouldnt be tried again with modern surveillance technology.

Immigration court backlog crisis

The backlog was only542,411 casesin January 2017, when PresidentDonald TrumpDonald John TrumpSenate panel seeks documents in probe of DHS whistleblower complaint Susan Collins: Trump 'should have been straightforward' on COVID-19 Longtime House parliamentarian to step down MOREtook office. As of the end of July 2020, it was up to1,233,307cases.

The average wait for a hearing is 777 days, which makes meaningful interior enforcement impossible, and it is more difficult to secure the border when undocumented aliens know that they arent likely to be deported once they have reached the interior of the country.

Due process also is affected. The need to hire more judges has made it necessary to lower qualification standards. The immigration judgevacancy announcementdoesnt even ask for immigration law experience.

The immigration court is adjudicating more cases, however. In fiscal 2019, it completed 275,552 cases, the second-highest completion total in its history but at that rate, it would still take four and a half years to clear the backlog, even if no new cases were put on the courts docket.

Comprehensive immigration reform

It has been more than 30 years since the passage of the last comprehensive immigration reform bill with a legalization program, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA).

IRCA was supposed to establish an interior enforcement program to eliminate the job magnet that draws undocumented aliens to the United States. It was thought that this could be accomplished by establishing sanctions to punish employers that hire immigrants who are not authorized to work in the United States.

Approximately 2.7 million aliens were legalized, but the employer sanctions program was only implemented on a token basis. By the beginning of 1997, the 2.7 million legalized aliens had beenreplaced entirely by a new group of undocumented aliens.

We still do not have a large scale, nationwide employer sanctions program.

We need to fund a program to make it more difficult for American employers to exploit undocumented foreign workers. Thats what draws unscrupulous employers to unauthorized workers. The Department of Labor (DOL) could address this problem purely as a labor issue by enforcing federal labor laws that were enacted to curb such abuses.

With additional funding, DOL could mount a large-scale, nationwide campaign to stop the exploitation of employees in industries known to hire large numbers of undocumented immigrants.

Funding

The country is having serious financial difficulties that may make it difficult for the president to get funding to deal with these problems.

According to a Sept. 2, 2020, report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the federal budget deficit for 2020 has reached $3.3 trillion, which is more than triple the shortfall recorded in 2019. CBO attributes this mainly to the economic disruption caused by the 2020 coronavirus pandemic and the enactment of legislation in response to it.

CBO expects the Federal debt held by the public to reach 98 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) in 2020.

Maybe the best we can hope for is that the president wont make the immigration problems any worse than they already are.

Nolan Rappaportwas detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an executive branch immigration law expert for three years. He subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years. Follow him on Twitter@NolanR1or athttps://nolanrappaport.blogspot.com.

Read more:
Immigration problems our president will face in 2021 | TheHill - The Hill

How many states have, at some point in their history, allowed noncitizens to vote? Take a moment. Guess the answer. Now guess higher.

The answer is 38. Nearly 80% of states at one time extended voting rights to immigrants, without regard to whether they eventually became citizens or not.

Today, the number of states who allow noncitizens to vote is zero. But on Thursday, a three-judge panel unanimously rejected President Trumps latest attempt to exclude noncitizens from the United States Census. The Administration could not, they ruled, ignore undocumented immigrants when conducting Americas once-per-decade reapportionmentthe population count that determines how many Congressional representatives each state receives.

The judges ruling was a blow to Republicans, the party that would likely benefit from the attempt to change the way the count was made. But no less important, the panels decision was a reassertion of one of Americas most enduring and least-well known democratic values. For the vast majority of the past 230 years, immigrantsboth authorized and nothave been allowed to play an important role in the U.S. political process.

In fact, at the dawn of American history, immigrant voting wasnt even controversial. Voting was restricted in ways we would never accept today: by race, age, gender and even wealth. The founders worried about what might happen if they expanded the franchise beyond the relatively small group that possessed it. But the prospect of non-citizens voting didnt worry them.

In our modern political climate, this lack of concern might seem strange. How can you be in favor of restrictions on voting and not care if newly arrived immigrants vote? Yet at the time, this attitude made perfect sense. After all, when your country is brand new, everyone is brand new to your country. Moreover, as political scientist Ron Hayduk points out, the revolutionary slogan no taxation without representation applied in reverse. It was widely accepted that anyone who paid taxes deserved a say in how their money was spent; their birthplace was irrelevant.

Get your history fix in one place: sign up for the weekly TIME History newsletter

For these reasons, nearly all the original 13 states allowed new immigrants to vote. A few of them changed their minds as populations grew, but these older states were offset by newer ones, which offered noncitizens voting rights as enticement to move west. In 1848, for example, the new state of Wisconsin permitted all declarantsimmigrants who publicly expressed a wish to become citizens in the futureto cast ballots.

So why cant noncitizens vote today? The answer depends on the state, but generally speaking, a combination of factors was at work. The number of immigrants arriving in America gradually increased, which spooked those already here. Newcomers often moved to cities, and state legislatures favored the countryside. There were also the usual accusations of fraud as recent arrivals became associatednot always unfairly, it must be saidwith corrupt political machines. Finally, dont discount good old-fashioned prejudice; as immigrants began showing up from places other than England, Americans became less eager to enfranchise them.

Yet despite all this, it wasnt until 1926 that noncitizen voting in America ceased completely. To put it slightly differently, every President prior to Herbert Hoover was elected with noncitizen help. And for many decades after, nothing prevented states from welcoming immigrants back into the presidential electorate if they chose to. Congress didnt officially ban noncitizen voting for federal offices until 1996. Friends has been around longer than that.

More importantly, in light of President Trumps attempt to shut undocumented immigrants out of the apportionment count, nothing in the Constitution prohibits immigrants from voting once again. While it seems highly unlikely, it is theoretically possible that sometime between now and 2030 Congress could allow immigrants particularly green card holders, who arrived here legally and who have publicly pledged to remain to once again vote in federal elections. Were that to happen, and were the Presidents order to go into effect, it would deny millions of eligible voters equal representation in Congress.

A far more likely possibilityone with historical precedent, and one which a vast majority of Americans supportwould be to restrict the vote to citizens, but to streamline our legal immigration process while providing undocumented immigrants with a pathway to citizenship via immigration reform. As of 2017, nearly 7 million peoplea population roughly the size of Massachusettshad arrived in the U.S. illegally but had lived here for ten years or more. The average unauthorized immigrant arrived in America around the time Finding Nemo arrived in theaters.

By every possible definition, these long-term undocumented immigrants have made America their home. Their careers and families are here. Like all immigrants, they pay taxeswell more than $10 billion in taxes each year. Theyre part of this country. Theyre just not part of the part of this country that can vote.

For all these reasons, it makes sense that over the last century, the alternative to noncitizen voting has not been mass disenfranchisement, but mass citizenship. In 1929, almost the exact same time immigrant voting ceased, Congress allowed any unauthorized person to retroactively gain legal status. The government legalized large groups of immigrants again in 1958, and again in 1965. It legalized 2.7 million undocumented immigrants under Reagan and a million more under Clinton.

President Trump claims that his executive order is designed to benefit American citizens. But what happens if immigration reform passes in 2021, or 2022 or 2023? In that case, millions of American citizens would be denied equal representation in Congress. Thats hardly putting America first.

Politically, its not hard to see why such as strategy would appeal to President Trump. But as his rejected order demonstrates, immigration is not just a cultural or economic issueits a voting-rights issue, and targeting voting rights comes at a tremendous cost to American democracy. By seeking to exclude millions of people living in America from our politics, the Trump Administration and its allies attempted to sever the link between power and accountability, without which our republic cannot function.

In the statement accompanying his executive order, President Trump promised that he was acting consistent with the principles of our representative democracy. But this simply isnt true. Even at a time when we, the people was defined in an unconscionably narrow way, our founders understood that non-citizens contributed to this country, and deserved to be represented. As a matter of principleand now, officially, of law as wellthe same holds true today.

David Litt, a former senior speechwriter for President Barack Obama, is the author of Democracy in One Book or Less: How It Works, Why It Doesnt, and Why Fixing It Is Easier Than You Think and Thanks, Obama: My Hopey, Changey White House Years.

For your security, we've sent a confirmation email to the address you entered. Click the link to confirm your subscription and begin receiving our newsletters. If you don't get the confirmation within 10 minutes, please check your spam folder.

Contact us at letters@time.com.

Go here to read the rest:
Immigrants Have Always Played a Key Role in the U.S. Political Process. The Latest Ruling on Trumps Census Plan Is Part of That History - TIME

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