Mediaboss Marketing

With the Iowa caucuses just weeks away, eight of the remaining Democratic presidential candidates gathered in Des Moines on Monday (Jan. 20) to share their plans to tackle topics including healthcare and social equity at the Brown & Black Forum, hosted by VICE News and Cashmere Originals.

Polls show wage inequality, overall economic injustice, and the current administration's stance on immigration as bedrock issues driving the Black and LatinX vote.

In response, Demoratic hopefuls doubled down on popular talking points like increasing minimum wage and creating a path to citizenship.

Participating in the forum was former Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado, former Vice President Joe Biden, former Mayor Pete Buttigieg, former Rep. John Delaney of Maryland, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and entrepreneur Andrew Yang.

The Forum was moderated by VICE News correspondents Antonia Hylton, Alzo Slade, Paola Ramos, Dexter Thomas, David Noriega, Krishna Andavolu, and Roberto Ferdman.

Heres what the candidates had to say about immigration and the economy at the Brown and Black Forum.

Michael Bennet

Michael Bennet, the senator from Colorado, was the first to take the stage in Des Moines.

Bennet quickly acknowledged that his campaign has a name recognition problem after moderator Alzo Slade pointed out that New York Magazine described you as the bland white guy youve never heard of."

Im not as well-known as other candidates, but I do think the ideas Im advancing in this campaign are the ones that will make the biggest difference for kids living in poverty in this country.

Bennets economic plan includes an increase to the child tax credit, paid family leave, earned income tax credit, and raising the minimum wage for business that can afford to do so.

When presented with the question on if businesses that cant afford a living wage should still be in business, Bennet maintained, A wage is better than NO wage, an opinion that is in stark contrast to candidates like Sanders and Warren, who are in support of a $15 federal minimum wage.

Joe Biden

Upon taking the stage in Des Moines, former Vice President Joe Biden faced criticism for his ties to the Obama administrations record-high levels of deportations.

Biden, however, stopped short of directly criticizing the previous administration.

The way we did when we reformed the system with the DACA I would not retain them behind bars, Biden said in reference to the Obama administration's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which would have provided a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants brought to the country illegally as children.

Biden instead supports implementing a system where rather than incarcerating those who cross the border, they would instead be tracked with an ankle bracelet.

In contrast to some of his opponents, including Senator Elizabeth Warren, Biden's plan stops short on the more progressive policies like decriminalizing the act of crossing the border and placing a temporary moratorium on deportations. In addition to backing a $15 federal minimum wage, Biden wants to heavily back unions and crack down on corporate entities that attempt to stymie collective bargaining.

Pete Buttigieg

Moderators pressed the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, Pete Buttigieg on his struggle to resonate with minority voters.

Buttigieg used his screen time in front of a diverse audience to reaffirm his plan to address inequality and what he describes as the Trump administrations discriminatory policies toward Latinos.

Buttigiegs plan includes creating a path to citizenship for immigrants who are living, working and paying taxes, putting an end to family separation, and updating the immigration laws to reflect the economic and humanitarian needs of today.

Not only does Buttigieg support raising the federal minimum wage to $15, he also backed the Paycheck Fairness Act. The legislation, which was passed by the House last year, would, ban employers from using an employees salary history to determine wages, ensure that workers have the right to discuss wages without retaliation and require employers to justify any pay discrepancies."

Bernie Sanders

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders boldy responded when moderators referred to his agenda as radical.

Raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour: Is that radical? Canceling all student loan debt. Radical? Immigration reform: Radical? Sanders asked the audience who responded with a resounding, NO!

On his website, Sanders immigration proposal includes using executive action to protect unauthorized immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for more than five years from deportation.

Sanders also plans to crack down on tax breaks for large corporations removing tax loopholes and breaks that only benefit the rich and raising the tax rates for the top 0.2% of wealthy Americans.

Im a very data driven guy, but Im 100% confident that putting $40 billion into the hands of Black and Brown communities every month is going to be a major positive, said entrepreneur Andrew Yang when questioned about how his universal basic income can close the wealth gap.

Yang plans to give every American adult $1,000 a month in universal basic income as a way to offset job loss from automation. The first-time presidential candidate proposes paying for the monthly distributions, in large part, by implementing a new 10 percent value-added tax on goods and services.

Amy Klobuchar

I dont pretend to know what it feels like to be followed around in the store or to face poverty like 30 percent of Black children do, but what I do know is that its not right," said Senator Amy Klobuchar in response to the current administration's harmful rhetoric directed at minority communities.

The senator from Minnesota outlines on her website plans to reform ICE and reexamine the policies in place as they pertain to detainments at the borders.

The Brown & Black Forum kept candidates on a strict time limit, so not every candidate had the chance to address every issue. Read on to learn where some of the other presidential hopefuls stand on immigration and economic policy.

Warren

Previously, Senator Elizabeth Warren proposed plans which include raising the federal minimum wage to $15 and streamlining the process for refugees seeking asylum.

Warrens plan of "economic patriotism" would result in the government prioritizing the interests of middle-class people over those of corporations. This is aimed directly at companies like Amazon, which receives major tax incentives from the government.

When it comes to immigration, Warren is calling to expand the program for DREAMers and their families, as well as those with Temporary Protected Status. If elected, Warren plans to admit more refugees, decriminalize crossing the border without papers.

While bold, Warrens plan would face great difficulty in Congress, particularly if Republicans maintain control of the Senate.

Tom Steyer

Tom Steyer, the billionaire environmental activist from California, has outlined an immigration proposal seeking to decriminalize illegal border crossings and work with Congress to approve a pathway to citizenship for millions of people in the U.S. illegally.

Like Sanders, Steyer is promising to use executive action to reinstate Obama administration protections for people brought to the country illegally as children. Hed do the same to nullify President Donald Trumps Muslim ban and end the separation of immigrant families at the U.S.-Mexico border.

Steyers economic agenda highlights people over profits and aims to address what Steyer calls the "undue influence" of corporate power on the U.S. economy. Like many of his White House rivals, his plan also calls for a $15 minimum wage.

John Delaney

The former three-term Maryland congressman supports comprehensive immigration reform. As a congressman, he cosponsored the DREAM Act in 2017, which would have provided a path to citizenship for so-called "dreamers," young undocumented immigrants brought to the country illegally as children.

In the past he has referred to the Trump Administrations decision to end DACA as "cruel, heartless and mean-spirited.

By clicking submit, I consent to receiving BET Newsletters and other marketing emails. BET Newsletters are subject to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Users can unsubscribe at anytime. BET Newsletters are sent by BET Networks, 1540 Broadway, New York, NY 10036. http://www.bet.com

Read this article:
Brown And Black Forum: Immigration Reform And The Economy - BET

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement deported an estimated 25 Cambodian immigrants this week, the agency confirmed Friday to NBC News.

The group, which largely consisted of individuals who arrived in the country legally as refugees after the Vietnam War but have been convicted of crimes, left for Cambodia on Monday. This was the first round of repatriations this year, even as deportations in the Southeast Asian community have significantly increased under the Trump administration.

Kevin Lo, a staff attorney at the civil rights organization Asian Americans Advancing Justice ALC, described the deportations as part of the ongoing attacks by the Trump administration on this vulnerable immigrant population.

We expect ICE to conduct nationwide raids on this community again in the near future, he said.

Lo, whose organization has been in contact with many of the families affected, explained that a sizable number of the deportees were born in refugee camps and many have never been to Cambodia.

In the past two fiscal years, the deportation of Cambodian nationals has increased by 279 percent, according to ICE data. However, the country continues to be listed as one of a handful that ICE considers recalcitrant, or uncooperative in issuing travel documents the U.S. requires for deportation.

The Morning Rundown

Get a head start on the morning's top stories.

Katrina Dizon Mariategue, director of national policy at the Southeast Asia Resource Action Center, noted that the New Way Forward Act, immigration enforcement reform legislation introduced in the House in December, would have potentially prevented many of those whove been repatriated this week from being deported.

The act would roll back two strict Clinton-era immigration laws, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. The laws had, in part, broadened the types of offenses that subjected legal immigrants to repatriation and further tied the criminal legal and immigration systems together.

The 1996 laws also prevented judicial discretion in immigration hearings, so that a judge would not be permitted to take into consideration the circumstances surrounding an individuals case. For example, factors including an individuals status as a caregiver, active member of society, or parent of U.S. citizens would not be examined.

Basically the judges' hands are tied and youre mandatorily attainable and deportable, Mariategue said.

However, under the New Way Forward, judges would be able to review these cases, looking at all the factors involved before making a decision to deport someone. The Act would also introduce a provision on statute of limitations of five years or more. Currently, people who committed crimes decades ago are still at risk of being deported. Lo noted that many in the Cambodian community who are facing deportation have long avoided any contact with the criminal justice system and have established families and careers.

For almost all the cases we've encountered, the crime was committed decades ago, Lo said. Since that time, most of these people have demonstrated that they have changed their lives, started families and are essential members of their communities.

Those who are deported to Cambodia face significant challenges, particularly since many have no family ties, do not speak the language and face cultural barriers. Lo explained that once in Cambodia, deportees often have difficulty finding work, housing, medical access, mental health support and government identification.

There is also a high rate of suicide and mental health issues, he said. They have no family or community support in Cambodia because their loved ones that didn't die in the genocide are now in the U.S.

The subject of repatriations remains a source of tension between the U.S. and Cambodia. They reached an agreement in 2002 in which Cambodia consented to taking in a limited number of deportees. The agreement set off protests in the Cambodian American community, which raised humanitarian concerns around the repatriation of refugees.

The backlash prompted Cambodia to drastically cut back on deportations, and in August 2017, the country halted issuing travel documents for deportation. However when the Trump administration slapped visa sanctions on the country, barring high-ranking Cambodian officials and their families from traveling to the U.S., Cambodia responded by issuing roughly 50 travel documents by the end of the year.

While Mariategue said she cant say for certain whether the administration will ramp up deportations, she noted that by looking at the rate in which people are being repatriated, its likely the number of deportees this fiscal year will surpass last year.

Kimmy Yam is a reporter for NBC Asian America.

Originally posted here:
ICE deported 25 Cambodian immigrants, most of whom arrived in the U.S. as refugees - NBC News

Advertisement

In late 2018, the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) of Japan pushed through an immigration reform law that aimed to attract 345,000 foreign workers over the next five years. Driven by demographic and business concerns about Japans shrinking labor force, the legislation created two types of visas: one for less skilled foreign workers to stay for not more than five years, and one for semi-skilled workers who can stay for 10 years with the possibility to become permanent residents thereafter. Almost immediately, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and his party were on the defensive, battling criticisms of the law from the left and the right.

The more liberal-leaning opposition parties protested the hastily drawn up legislation, pointing to the lack of preparations to protect foreign workers rights and provide for their social welfare. Japan already had a trainee program, but the program was plagued with worker abuses such as trainees working overtime, being underpaid, or having their passports withheld, and has recently been linked to concerns about political corruption. Opponents to immigration reform were concerned about increasing the number of immigrants before even adequately dealing with the problems of the existing trainee program. Preparing Japanese to live with foreigners and providing Japanese language education for accompanying children are particular concerns.

At the time of the laws passage, it was also criticized from a more traditionalist angle for creating a path for guest workers to become permanent residents, and for allowing some guest workers to bring their families. Though the conservative ruling party is responsible for passing the law, that does not mean that Japans mainstream attitude is currently receptive to embracing foreign nationals as truly Japanese. Deputy Prime Minister Aso Taros recent single-race nation gaffe (which he later apologized for) demonstrates how deeply many Japanese identify Japan as a nation for the Japanese race.

The immigration reform law took effect on April 1, 2019. The findings of last Novembers Cabinet Office survey were released earlier this week, offering a glimpse into how the Japanese public views the issue of granting permanent residency to foreigners.

The 1,572 survey respondents were told that at the end of 1998 Japan had 90,000 permanent residents, at the end of 2008 Japan had 490,000 permanent residents, and at the end of 2018 Japan had 770,000 permanent residents. They were then asked whether they thought Japan had many permanent residents or not. Of the respondents, 38.3 percent thought that Japan has many permanent residents, 29.2 percent thought that Japan has an appropriate number of permanent residents, and 18.6 percent thought that Japan has few permanent residents.

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

Though a plain reading of these numbers would indicate that there is little appetite to increase the number of permanent residents, such an interpretation may be misleading given how little information was given to respondents. Providing more information about Japans labor force shortages or demographic crisis for example, the Cabinet Office estimates that Japan has a shortage of about 1.2 million workers in many labor-intensive sectors could change these results. The survey findings tell us that Japanese respondents may have an initial inclination to think that there are many permanent residents, but it does not rule out the possibility that they may be persuaded about the desirability of more permanent residents if given greater context.

Respondents were also asked what kinds of requirements are needed to grant a foreigner permanent residency, and were allowed to select multiple answers. 73.7 percent responded having no criminal record, 71.6 percent responded paying taxes and social security premiums, 61.3 percent responded having never broken immigration laws, and 53.9 percent responded having enough income or property to support themselves.

The survey also asked respondents whether permanent residency should be revocable. An overwhelming majority 74.8 percent said it should be revocable, and only 14.6 percent opposed such a measure. Of the respondents who wanted permanent resident status to be revocable, 81.0 percent said that permanent resident status should be revoked if the individual was sentenced to prison, and 73.2 percent said status should be revoked if the individual failed to pay taxes and social security premiums.

These survey results are interesting for two reasons. First, there seem to be at least two separate concerns driving those who are less favorable toward granting foreigners permanent resident states: one is couched in terms of law and order concerns, and the other in terms of the states fiscal sustainability. It is impossible to disentangle which concern is more salient given the way the questions were structured to allow individuals to give multiple responses.

Second, even though respondents were given the option to also select criteria for permanent residency that may be interpreted as more nativist, these options were not the most popular. Specifically, only 31.3 percent of respondents thought that living in Japan for at least 10 years should be a minimum condition for permanent residency on the first question. On the question about conditions for revoking permanent resident status, only 38.3 percent thought that it should be revoked if a foreigner married a Japanese person and thus sped up their approval process but divorced the Japanese person soon after gaining status, and only 33.1 percent thought that status should be revoked for foreigners who spent most of the year abroad.

Whether such responses were not chosen as often because respondents genuinely do not prefer those options or because they thought it was impolitic to select those options is difficult to say. The government-run survey was a fairly straightforward questionnaire, with no attempt at uncovering less savory motivations for opposing granting foreigners resident status, though incidents of anti-foreign discrimination and hate speech belie any benign image of Japan as an immigrant-friendly nation.

The rest is here:
January 22, 2020 Is Japan Ready to Welcome Immigrants? - The Diplomat

According to an advisory opinion issued in December by Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring, localities in the commonwealth cannot declare themselves exempt from laws passed by the state legislature. In support of his position, Herring cites both statutes and established common law doctrines [that] specifically limit the authority of local governments. He further states, It also bears emphasis that neither local governments nor local constitutional officers have authority to declare state statutes unconstitutional or decline to follow them on that basis.

Translated into plain English, Herring is telling jurisdictions that have identified themselves as Second Amendment sanctuaries meaning they will refuse to enforce any new state laws that impose mandatory gun registration to stay in their own wheelhouse and execute the laws passed by the legislature. Should counties and localities believe that a gun law passed by the Virginia Assembly is unconstitutional, they should follow proper procedure and either speak to their legislative representatives or file a lawsuit requesting that a court declare the measure unconstitutional.

Thats wise advice. Our governmental system is constructed as a pyramid. We have multiple levels of government that exercise limited authority. Local governments are not entitled to pick and choose which state laws they wish to enforce. Similarly, states are prohibited from engaging in selective enforcement of federal laws. When any level of government attempts to usurp responsibilities exercised by the tier above or below it, the whole pyramid collapses. Herrings memorandum advises municipal and county governments to stick to the format that has made our republic successful for the past 244 years.

So one wonders why Herring wishes to apply his logic only to Second Amendment issues. Virginia is full of so-called illegal immigration sanctuaries. In those jurisdictions, local governments refuse to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Whats more, they actively shield immigration violators from federal authorities. Clearly, those cities and counties are attempting to nullify federal immigration law and declare themselves exempt from it. And they do so with the full support of the Virginia state government.

In fact, Herring himself has strongly supported Virginia officials who have thumbed their noses at both the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and ICEs authority to enforce it. He has unabashedly declared that state law enforcement officials who hold immigration violators on the basis of detainer requests issued by ICE risk violating the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable seizure. And he has consistently interfered with efforts by Virginia law enforcement agencies to cooperate more closely with federal immigration authorities in order to remove dangerous, criminal aliens from Virginias communities.

But, according to Herrings logic, neither Second Amendment sanctuaries, nor immigration sanctuaries are lawful. The U.S. Constitution grants the federal government exclusive authority to regulate immigration. As a matter of law, state and local government officials have no say in how, where or when the federal government chooses to enforce the INA. In fact, the Supreme Court explicitly stated this, in 2012, in its holding in United States v. Arizona.

So, why did Second Amendment sanctuaries provoke a sternly-worded memorandum telling local officials to play nice when the attorney generals office has not uttered a single word about immigration sanctuaries? Clearly this is an instance of profound hypocrisy a case of, Do as I say, not as I do. Because, while he professes to believe that Virginians should hew closely to the principles of constitutional federalism when addressing public concerns over gun control legislation, Herring is perfectly comfortable obliterating any distinctions between federal and state powers or executive, legislative and judicial functions, for that matter when it comes to immigration.

If we, indeed, live in a country that is ruled by distinct levels of government that are intended to exercise limited powers in defined spheres, then state and local governments should, as Herring suggests, either petition Congress to change laws they dont like or file lawsuits seeking to overturn them. But that approach, which is dictated by our system of Republican democracy, should be the standard procedure regardless of the issue that is subject to debate guns, immigration or anything else.

Meanwhile, Virginia residents who support the rule of law are still waiting for Herring to advise illegal immigration sanctuaries that their policies are both illegal and unacceptable.

Matt OBrien is director of research at the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a nonprofit group advocating for legal immigration. He previously served as assistant chief counsel with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and as a division chief with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. He lives in Virginia.

Read the original:
Virginia AG's immigration hypocrisy | TheHill - The Hill

24 January 2020

Envoy Global, Inc.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

Immigration is always evolving, but 2019 brought with it somechanges that could impact the next decade of talent mobility. TheU.S. saw increased scrutiny of petitions, new policies and callsfor immigration reform from both political parties. For employers,it's clear that immigration will remain a hot topic going into2020, and staying ahead means staying informed.

As we've previously discussed, year-end data released by U.S Citizenship & ImmigrationServices (USCIS) proves that scrutiny of visa petitions continues.In FY 2019, USCIS received a total of 420,617 H-1B visa petitions,and of the petitions submitted and completed, 40.2% of themreceived a Request For Evidence (RFE). Once a petition receives anRFE and is re-submitted, it's approved 65.4% of the time,according to USCIS data. While the approval percentage is a declinefrom previous fiscal years, it actually increased when compared toFY 2018. Other visa types, including the L-1 visa, were alsosubject to increased RFE rates and declining approval rates.

Originally proposed back in March 2018, USCIS finalized a ruleon June 5, 2019, requiring all visa applicants to submit their social media information to theDepartment of State. Applications must now include anysocial media account names from Facebook, Twitter, Instagram,LinkedIn and YouTube used over the previous five years (individualscan voluntarily input additional social media accounts on platformsnot listed.) Additionally, applicants will also need to providefive years of previously used email addresses, international traveldetails, deportation status and telephone numbers.

Wondering about electronic registration for the FY2021 Cap season? Register For Envoy's webinar on January 15 tolearn more.

The H-4 EAD program, which allows the spouses of high-skilledimmigrant (H-1B) visa holders to work in the U.S., is currentlyfacing opposition by the Trump administration, as well as a lawsuit from a private advocacy groupagainst the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). While thelawsuit was recently allowed to proceed in a district court, theTrump administration's proposal remains under federal review.DHS has indicated that the program could be rescinded as early asSpring 2020, but at this time, there is no impact to H-4 dependentsholding or seeking to apply for EAD cards. USCIS will continue toaccept and adjudicate initial EAD applications and extensions underthe current rule.

Earlier this year, all eyes were on the Fairness For HighSkilled Immigrants Act, which aimed to eliminate the annualper-country cap on green cardscurrently at 7%toalleviate extended green card wait times. The act passed the House with bipartisan support inJuly, but failed to pass the Senate. Sponsors are seeking anothervote on the bill, but meanwhile, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) hasintroduced a competing proposal known as the Resolving ExtendedLimbo for Immigrant Employees and Families (RELIEF) Act, whichaddresses concerns that the High-Skilled Immigrants Act wouldcreate new backlogs for countries other than China and India, amongother provisions.

Electronic registration. The new registration process, firstproposed in December 2018, will require employers wanting to fileH-1B petitions to register electronically with USCIS for eachsponsored foreign national employee in lieu of filing a completepetition upfront. On December 6, 2019, USCIS announced that it will implement the system for the FY 2021Cap season.

The 2020 Presidential Election. The highly-anticipated electionwill likely shape future reforms to both employment-based andfamily-based immigration and the green card process. Stay up todate by following reputable news sources such as the AssociatedPress, Reuters and the American Immigration Lawyers Association(AILA).

Continued scrutiny. GIA expects the trend of increasing RFErates for H-1B petitions and other employment-based visas tocontinue in 2020. Minimize your risk by developing a strategic and thorough immigration programthat accounts for changing regulations and other unexpectedcircumstances.

Envoy is pleased to provide you this information, which wasprepared in collaboration with Jordan Mendez, who is a SeniorAssociate at Global Immigration Associates, P.C. (www.giafirm.com),Envoy's affiliated law firm.

The content of this article is intended to provide a generalguide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be soughtabout your specific circumstances.

POPULAR ARTICLES ON: Immigration from United States

McLane Middleton, Professional Association

For roughly the past year there have been a greater number of jobs available than workers seeking jobs.

Dentons

In a move under the Hire American/Buy American Executive Order touted as aiding US employers, the US Citizenship and Immigration Services in November actually placed an extra burden on US employers...

Go here to see the original:
The State Of US Immigration: 2019 Highlights And What To Expect In 2020 - Mondaq News Alerts