Mediaboss Marketing

Sisters of Charity, BVM Celebrates 190 Years -From Dublin to Dubuque, Around the World

The story of the BVM Sisters begins with Foundress Mary Frances Clarke and her companions boarding a ship in Dublin, Ireland, in 1833. These were modern women, shaped by the intellectual and political influences of their day even as they bent their lives to shape the world about them. Leaving their families and homeland, they were driven by a vision of a better life for immigrant children through education. As they celebrate 190 years, the Sisters of Charity, BVM are grateful for all the opportunities from Dublin to Dubuque that have taken BVMs around the world.

Choosing education as the initial ministry was a prophetic decision. BVMs were teachers who opened schools that led to a network of Catholic elementary and secondary schools across the country, including two colleges. Throughout history, the majority of BVMs taught in elementary and secondary schools. BVM Sisters staffed more than 300 schools across the United States and in three foreign countries, providing students a quality education, opportunities for development, and Catholic values.

In the 1960s, ministries grew to include healthcare, social services, community advocacy, and parish administration. In accordance with their values, the congregation has taken on corporate stances on nonviolence and immigration reform, and against human trafficking and the death penalty. Their commitment includes joining with others to work for justice and to care for Earth.

As BVMs have retired from active ministry, partnership grants and scholarships for women have been established to ensure the BVM legacy will continue through organizations that hold similar values. Endowed scholarships have also been established in every U.S. diocese in which BVMs have ministered.

BVMs continue to honor the core values of freedom, education, charity, and justice. BVM President LaDonna Manternach shares, BVM shoes have left footprints around the world for ministry, study, and travel experiences . . . Today, in the spirit of charity, virtual BVM footprints are being established via Zoom meetings, grant funding, scholarships, and gifts to organizations that send aid across the world . . . thank God for all the gifts we have received: from Dublin to Dubuque, and around the world.

Since the beginning, nearly 5,000 women have followed in the footsteps of Mary Frances Clarke.Like many religious congregations today, the BVMs face new challenges. Currently there are more than 200 sisters with an average age of 85 years young.

In honor of the 190th Anniversary, the Sisters of Charity of the Blessed Virgin Mary invite you to join with them in a live, virtual Mass held Nov. 1, 2023, at 10:30-11:30 (CDT) at the following link: https://portal.stretchinternet.com/bvmsisters. A recording of the Mass will be available following at the same link.

Continued here:
Sisters of Charity, BVM Celebrates 190 Years From Dublin to ... - Global Sisters Report

The latest CBS News/YouGov poll is out, and it has a lot of bad news both for the White House and the country as a whole. Solid majorities of Americans believe the conflict between Hamas and Israel will spill into a larger regional conflict and trigger terrorist attacks in the United States. Relatedly, Americans disapprove of Bidens handling of immigration, except for liberal Democrats, who strongly approve. A recent article in The Atlantic may shed some light on that divide.

The poll was conducted by YouGov for CBS News and surveyed 1,878 U.S. adults between October 16 and 19.

Biden Job Approval, Generally. Just 40 percent of respondents approved of Joe Bidens handling of his job, compared to 60 percent who disapproved. Even then, Bidens overall approval was lukewarm at best, with just 18 percent of those polled strongly approving of his performance, compared to 41 percent who strongly disapproved.

Given the polls other findings, though, its surprising the president is doing as well as he is. Just 28 percent think things in the country are going well, with the somewhat well crowd (22 percent) significantly outpolling the very well contingent (6 percent). By comparison, 36 percent believe things here are going somewhat badly, and an equal percentage opine that things are going very badly.

At least part of that may have something to do with Americans dour impression of the U.S. economy. Among those polled, just 31 percent offered an optimistic view of the economic state of the Union, with 7 percent rating the economy as very good and 24 percent saying that it is somewhat good.

By contrast, 34 percent of respondents view the economy as very bad and 29 percent describe our current fiscal state as somewhat bad. Five percent arent sure.

The Current Conflict Between Israel and Hamas. Bidens doing slightly better with respect to his performance responding to the current conflict between Israel and Hamas, but not much.

Just 44 percent approve of Bidens handling of that conflict, while 56 percent disapprove. Respondents reasons for their disapproval on this score are all over the map, with 24 percent stating that Biden is giving too much support to Israel and 32 percent opining that he is not supporting Israel enough.

Some 34 percent of those who believe that Biden is doing too little to support Israel complain he should be giving more weapons and supplies to them, while 54 percent of those who think Biden is doing too much to help the Israelis want him to give them fewer weapons and supplies.

Overall, 76 percent of respondents want Biden to send humanitarian aid to Israel and 57 percent want him to send humanitarian aid to the Palestinians in Gaza; 72 percent want Biden to engage in diplomacy with the other countries in the region. A slight majority of respondents overall, 52 percent, dont want Biden to send weapons and supplies to Israel, compared to 48 percent who think he should.

Fears of a Wider War and Terrorism in the Homeland. Respondents were next asked: How concerned are you, if at all, the conflict between Israel and Hamas could lead to a wider war involving more countries and groups in the Middle East? On that question, the responses were not so mixed, with 45 percent answering that they were very concerned about an escalation and an additional 40 percent stating that they were somewhat concerned.

Just 21 percent responded that they were not too concerned (16 percent) or not concerned at all (5 percent) about the conflict expanding.

Then, the poll got interesting, as question number 13 asked: How concerned are you, if at all, the conflict between Israel and Hamas could lead to terrorism in the U.S.? The responses: very concerned, 45 percent; somewhat concerned, 34 percent; not too concerned, 16 percent; not at all concerned, 5 percent.

Given that the events of September 11th are still (somewhat) fresh in the minds of anyone aged 30 and older, it is only natural that Americans would quickly be able to comprehend the connection between Mideast conflicts involving Islamic terrorists and dangers to the Homeland.

Go into the toplines on that question, however, and you will see that even a majority of respondents (67 percent, or two-thirds) of those younger than 30 are concerned that the events in Israel will have a national security impact here, with 31 percent of respondents in that demographic very concerned about such spillover and 36 percent somewhat concerned.

Independents were more likely to respond that they were very concerned (42 percent) than Democrats (38 percent), while that was the response of a majority of Republicans (58 percent). Still, overall concern was the overwhelming option for a majority of both Democrats (75 percent) and the non-aligned (76 percent).

Immigration. Its unclear from the CBS News/YouGov poll whether those terrorism concerns are connected to their discontent over immigration, where Biden received his lowest marks.

Respondents were asked for their impressions of the presidents handling of four different subjects, the economy, jobs and employment issues, the situation with Russia and Ukraine, and immigration.

Bidens underwater on the first three: The economy, 37 percent approval and 63 percent disapproval (26 percent overall disapproval); jobs and employment issues, 44 percent approval and 56 percent disapproval (12 percent overall disapproval); the situation with Russia and Ukraine, 44 percent approval and 56 percent disapproval (12 percent overall disapproval).

Compared to immigration, however, those three topics were his strong suits. Less than a third, 32 percent, of those polled approved of Bidens handling of immigration, compared to 68 percent who disapproved, for a whopping overall disapproval margin of 36 percent.

When the incumbents margin of disapproval is larger in a topic area than his cushion of support, he would logically rethink his policies. But that plainly hasnt happened with respect to the president and his immigration policies.

Thats likely because the toplines show significant support among his fellow Democrats for Bidens immigration policies. Some 62 percent of the presidents fellow partisans approve of the job he is doing on immigration, compared to (a not inconsiderable) 38 percent of Democrats who disapprove.

By comparison, less than a quarter, 24 percent of Independents approve of Bidens handling of immigration, while 76 percent of those in the middle of the political road disapprove.

Reading through the toplines, however, its not clear where Bidens getting any support for his immigration policies. Bidens 42 points underwater on the subject with whites (29 percent approve/71 percent disapprove), 16 points in the red with Blacks (42 percent approve/58 percent disapprove), and 32 points down with Hispanics (34 percent approve/66 percent disapprove).

Women disapprove of Bidens immigration policies (69 percent disapprove/31 percent approve) more strongly than men (67 percent disapprove/31 percent approve).

Biden is drawing all of his support for his immigration policies from three groups: his fellow Democrats, as noted above; liberals (61 percent approve/39 percent disapprove); and those younger than 30 (53 percent approve/47 percent disapprove). In the latter case, its closer than I would have guessed.

The Hard Truth About Immigration. Thus, the only group that appears to strongly favor Bidens handling of immigration and the border are liberal Democrats. Some reasons why that is true may be found in a recent article, from a surprising source.

On October 23, left-leaning magazine The Atlantic published a piece by David Leonhardt, an economics columnist for The New York Times, headlined The Hard Truth About Immigration: If the United States wants to reduce inequality, its going to need to take an honest look at a contentious issue.

Its a refreshing analysis of the impacts of U.S. immigration since 1965, with a special emphasis on the poor. And, although the Center is not mentioned, that article vindicates many of our key principles.

That rather lengthy article merits its own analysis (and if you care about the immigration debate, you should read it for yourself), but Leonhardt focuses on two belief sets he identifies as universalism (adherents to which emphasize two values above all: care for others, especially the vulnerable, and fairness) and communalism (whose adherents also emphasize such values coupled with respect for authority, appreciation of tradition, and loyalty to family and community).

He explains:

Immigration policy presents a distillation of the tensions between the two worldviews. To communalists, a government should limit arrivals and prioritize its own citizens. To universalists, national loyalties can be dangerous, and immigration can lift global living standards by allowing more people to share in a rich countrys prosperity. In recent decades, this debate has become part of the growing political polarization in many Western countries, including the United States. Surveys show that liberals tend to be universalists who support higher levels of immigration, and conservatives tend to be communalists who favor less immigration.

Maybe because I am from Baltimore, where struggling has been a generational way of life for many, I hew more toward the communalist mindset. But I still have some universalist tendencies, as I believe immigration is an overall good and thus must be protected and nourished.

As I have in the past, Leonhardt frames many of his points around positions taken by the late Barbara Jordan, former Democratic congresswoman from Texas and civil-rights icon, in her role as chairwoman of President Clintons Commission on Immigration Reform. He places special emphasis on Jordans belief that, as he puts it: To nurture the American community, the federal government first needed to regain control of its immigration system.

One Jordan quote Leonhardt should have added, but didnt, is one that I have focused on frequently, from her testimony before the House Judiciary Committee in September 1994:

Simply put, if we cannot demagnetize our economy for illegal aliens who come here to seek jobs, we cannot control illegal immigration. If we cannot control illegal immigration, we cannot sustain our national interest in legal immigration. Those who come here illegally, and those who hire them, will destroy the credibility of our immigration policies and their implementation. In the course of that, I fear, they will destroy our commitment to immigration itself.

Youll hear many Republicans who take the similar position that they favor legal immigration but oppose those who come here illegally. Communalists would accept that proposition at face value, while universalists would likely see it as a mask for latent xenophobia.

Leonhardt, to a degree, falls into that trap, contending: Many opponents of immigration are xenophobes. He is quick to add, however: In the 21st century, the contours of the immigration debate can seem binary: Somebody is either in favor of immigration or opposed to it.

If like Jordan (and me) youre a proponent of immigration, you understand that the only way to ensure Americans continued support for legal immigration is to control illegal immigration. As the CBS News/YouGov poll reveals, theres a bloc of the electorate that nonetheless favors illegal immigration, but theyre in the minority. And as terrorism concerns grow, their numbers are likely to thin.

Original post:
Americans Concerned Mideast Terrorism Could Spill into the United ... - Immigration Blog

As Republican hardliners tossed Speaker Kevin McCarthy out of office and attempted to dictate his replacement, one word kept recurring in their complaints about existing GOP leaders: uniparty.

The term crystallizes an idea widespread on the MAGA right: that too many Republican politicians and especially leaders are, on key issues, aligned with Democrats and the Washington establishment, and working against Donald Trump and the right.

Right now, we are governed by a uniparty that Speaker McCarthy has fused with Joe Biden and Hakeem Jeffries, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) said last month, as McCarthy seemed set to keep the government funded and avoid a shutdown. This was the justification Gaetz gave for his push to oust McCarthy (though he may have had personal reasons as well). And since enough other House Republicans were dissatisfied with McCarthys handling of the spending battles, Gaetz succeeded.

One key outside ally for Gaetz was Steve Bannon, the former Trump aide and now commentator. Bannon frequently deploys the uniparty epithet, as hed done for years. Hes long tried to purge the GOP of its more conventional members, replacing them with hardliners who will more loyally back Trump and far-right causes.

In many ways, the idea that Kevin McCarthy was indistinguishable from a Democrat seems self-evidently absurd. The two parties are deeply polarized and locked in seemingly eternal partisan warfare. The GOP has moved far to the right on abortion, immigration, trans rights, gun rights, environmental regulation, and other issues while backing Trump ever more fervently.

Indeed, uniparty is an exaggerated, sloppily conceived concept thats often deployed as a way to blame the rights own failures to achieve a conservative policy paradise on some sort of dastardly conspiracy against them by their own leaders.

And yet sometimes its not entirely off-base.

Thats because there are important issues where many Republican elites have long thought the MAGA rights preferences are wrongheaded or downright dangerous and where those elites work, either openly or subtly, to ensure Trump and his acolytes dont get what they want.

These range from major foreign policy questions about the USs role in the world, to preferences about tactics in government spending battles, to issues at the heart of American democracy such as whether elections that Donald Trump loses should be certified.

Now, Trump and Gaetz are declaring the election of Mike Johnson as speaker of the House as a win for MAGA Mike. But will Johnson be able to transform the speakership? Or will he inevitably be drawn, by the institutional incentives of the job, toward governing more like McCarthy? Maybe you either die a MAGA hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the uniparty.

Politicians and political commentators have long loved a good rhetorical flourish that pits them as plucky underdogs fighting for the interests of the common people against a dastardly, powerful cartel.

Depending on who is using the term, this cartel can be called any number of things: the deep state, the swamp, the special interests, the Blob, the Cathedral, or simply Washington. The commonality is the suggestion that theyre the people who are really in control, and who are therefore responsible for all the problems the country faces.

But uniparty is useful for those who want to say theres something rotten with the party theyd typically prefer. In 2000, that was leftist supporters of presidential candidate Ralph Nader, who complained that the Democratic Party had become functionally indistinguishable from the GOP. As Ben Zimmer wrote for Politico Magazine, online supporters of Nader disparaged the corporate UniParty, and Nader himself used the term in a book.

Conservatives, meanwhile had long slapped moderate Republican politicians with the label RINO, Republican in Name Only. That has a similar vibe to uniparty. But by the mid-2010s, many on the right felt frustrated and disillusioned with the GOP establishment. Complaints included GOP leaders openness to immigration reform and free trade, foreign policy failures exemplified by the Iraq war, the failure to drastically cut spending under President Barack Obama, and a general sense that the party simply didnt fight Democrats hard enough.

Trumps presidential campaign became the vessel for these frustrations. So commentators affiliated with the populist right, like Ann Coulter and Breitbart editor-in-chief Alexander Marlow, began denouncing Republican Trump critics (of which, back then, there were many) as the uniparty. In Coulters telling, this included the Republican Brain Trust, the Washington Establishment, the Insiders, ... the lobbyists, the consultants, the think tanks, [and] the pollsters.

Trump himself preferred to talk about the swamp and, once in office, the deep state likely because disparaging the Republican Party made little strategic sense for him once he was the leader of that party.

But once Bannon was ousted from Trumps White House, he started using the term again to denounce all the GOP establishment squishes who were undermining the MAGA agenda. Hes still doing so today and so, now, is Donald Trump Jr., who tweeted in July that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantiss primary campaign was the Uniparty vs. Trump & MAGA.

The framing of Trump as inexorably opposed to a hostile GOP establishment is oversimplified and out of date on many issues. As president, Trump happily embraced conventional Republican policies on many issues (tax cuts, judicial appointments, rolling back regulations) while the GOP establishment moved in his direction on others (party elites largely abandoned their longtime support for immigration reform and free trade deals). Trump is perfectly comfortable with big business and big donors, and did little during his presidency to challenge their power. Many, if not most, leading Republicans now see themselves as fully on the Trump team.

And yet its still true that a core of Republican elites has major temperamental, tactical, and substantive differences with Trump and the right sometimes to the point where they really do seem more aligned with Democrats, and to be working against the right either openly or subtly.

Foreign policy: These differences are perhaps most intense on foreign policy. Trump has made clear that he supports massively overhauling US foreign policy. Hes talked frequently about withdrawing from NATO, pulling back US troops from deployments abroad, and generally playing a less active role in world affairs. The latest flashpoint for this clash of visions is the Russian invasion of Ukraine, with the MAGA right becoming intensely opposed to aiding Ukraine further.

The traditional hawkish Republican elite has fiercely resisted these changes. While Trump was president, his defense secretaries regularly delayed or slow-walked his troop withdrawal orders. If Trump had actually tried anything like withdrawing from NATO while in office, he would have seen major resignations of top officials (though former Trump national security adviser John Bolton warns it may happen if he is elected to a new term). Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has loudly championed Ukraines cause, and Kevin McCarthy has reportedly tried to find a way to get more Ukraine aid through the House despite right-wing opposition.

(It should be noted that a leftists conception of uniparty foreign policy would be rather different theyd point out hawkishness toward China, high levels of military spending, and support for Israel as areas where theres now little difference between the two parties. And Obama aide Ben Rhodes viewed that administrations foreign policy on Iran and the Middle East as an effort to push back against a Blob of entrenched establishment thinking. But the rights concept of a uniparty is just about issues where the establishment disagrees with them.)

Election theft: When Trump tried to steal the 2020 election from Biden, the Republican Party did not act in a disciplined, unified way to help him to do it much to his chagrin. Yes, many elected Republicans claimed to doubt Bidens wins in certain states and said they wanted them thrown out, and most who knew better did little to stop Trump. And several, including the new speaker of the House, actively tried to help him.

But key Republicans with positions of authority to affect the results governors, state legislative leaders, state election officials, Justice Department officials, judges, and the vice president overwhelmingly didnt use their formal powers to help Trump pull off the steal. The uniparty united around the shared belief that respecting the results of American elections and the peaceful transfer of power is important. Trump would like to stop that from happening again.

Government spending battles: Even before Trumps rise, many conservatives have long resented what they see as the GOP establishments willingness to cave to Democrats on spending policy, when they want far greater cuts. (Trump himself never staked too much on these fights while he was president when he brought on a shutdown, it was instead over trying to get more money for his border wall.)

After one such government spending deal in 2013, Angelo Codevilla, who would become a leading intellectual voice of the pro-Trump right, wrote: The Republican Partys leaders have functioned as junior members of Americas single ruling party, the UniParty. Whatever differences existed between then-congressional leaders, Republicans John Boehner and Mitch McConnell and Democrats Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, he said, got worked out behind closed doors.

GOP establishment leaders in Congress and on the appropriations committees generally profess that theyd love to cut spending more, but that the activists demands and their understanding of politics are simply absurdly unrealistic. They argue that the level of cuts demanded by the right would be deeply unpopular, that theres no way to force Democrats to cave when they control key levers of government, and that a prolonged government shutdown would hurt Republicans politically.

But the hardliners suspect all this is cover for a comfort with the status quo, and a lack of desire to truly disrupt Washington. And Gaetz used the latest government spending agreement between McCarthy and Democrats as a pretext to oust McCarthy from the speakership.

In a sense, the uniparty idea is an attempt to answer a question: Why are so many Republican elites still so resistant to following Trump or the base on key issues?

One theory, pushed by Bannon and Codevilla before him, is that its about the people: The wrong Republicans, lacking sufficient loyalty to Trump and the cause, are in these jobs. So if Trump is returned to power, his appointees should be more carefully chosen for loyalty to the MAGA cause, not just the GOP. Purportedly uniparty-aligned elected officials should be primaried and replaced with MAGA-friendly candidates.

Replacing McCarthy with Johnson a longtime conservative and Christian right activist who helped Trump try and steal the 2020 election is, in this thinking, a major step forward.

That surely has some truth to it, but its not the whole story. Because another view is that the supposed uniparty politicians are often responding to the institutional incentives and pressures of their roles and that even MAGA diehards in those roles will face the same incentives and pressures.

Notably when Trump was president, he regularly caved to the supposed uniparty. He could have overridden his appointees and forced quicker troop withdrawals, but he often didnt. He could have forced bigger fights about cutting spending, but he generally didnt. As president, with his political future and a whole agenda at play, he had to weigh priorities and calculate political blowback.

In government, its often said that where you stand depends on where you sit. Appointees to head government agencies typically become champions of their particular agencies priorities. Similarly, if youre a right-wing media commentator or a representative in a deep red district, your only real priority is to please a far-right audience, and you have no real responsibility to govern or achieve anything.

But if youre speaker of the House, you have different priorities. You have to manage the concerns of the vulnerable swing-district members on whom your majority depends. You have to cultivate big-money donors who fund your effort to keep that majority. And you actually have responsibility over policy.

One major tell about how this works will be seen in how Speaker Johnson approaches Ukraine aid. As a little-known Congress member in a deep red district, he frequently criticized aid to Ukraine. In May 2022, he said, We should not be sending another $40 billion abroad when our own border is in chaos, American mothers are struggling to find baby formula, gas prices are at record highs, and American families are struggling to make ends meet, without sufficient oversight over where the money will go.

But now, as speaker of the House, he was playing a different tune. We cant allow Vladimir Putin to prevail in Ukraine because I dont believe it would stop there, Johnson said on Fox News Thursday. Were not going to abandon them. The uniparty may have life in it yet.

Will you support Voxs explanatory journalism?

Most news outlets make their money through advertising or subscriptions. But when it comes to what were trying to do at Vox, there are a couple reasons that we can't rely only on ads and subscriptions to keep the lights on.

First, advertising dollars go up and down with the economy. We often only know a few months out what our advertising revenue will be, which makes it hard to plan ahead.

Second, were not in the subscriptions business. Vox is here to help everyone understand the complex issues shaping the world not just the people who can afford to pay for a subscription. We believe thats an important part of building a more equal society. We cant do that if we have a paywall.

Thats why we also turn to you, our readers, to help us keep Vox free. If you also believe that everyone deserves access to trusted high-quality information, will you make a gift to Vox today?

Yes, I'll give $5/month

Yes, I'll give $5/month

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via

The rest is here:
Why right-wingers think a uniparty controls Congress - Vox.com

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., speaks to media after a Senate Republican policy luncheon, Tuesday, Oct. 24, 2023, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Stephanie Scarbrough)

PARKERSBURG Congress can move forward now that the Republican-controlled House of Representatives has chosen a new speaker, U.S. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito said Thursday.

Thats welcome news from my perspective, Capito, R-W.Va., said.

Republicans in the House Wednesday voted for Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., who led the efforts to overturn the election results in four key states where President Joe Biden won.

The House has been without a speaker since Rep. Kevin McCarthy was ousted on Oct. 3.

Peppered by the infighting amongst Republicans in the House, Johnson was the fourth nominee for speaker following Reps. Jim Jordan, Steve Scalise and Republican Whip Tom Emmer.

The House and Senate can now address the business of the nation including aid for Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan and to address illegal entry at the southern border with Mexico.

Lets get back to work, Capito said.

Any funding bills have to include efforts to seal the southern border, which doesnt necessarily mean throwing money at the problem, Capito said. Capito spoke to reporters from West Virginia in a press briefing on Thursday from Washington.

The most migrants ever tried to cross into the United States from Mexico in the last fiscal year, according to Capito. About 270,000 migrants attempted to cross, U.S. Customs and Border Protection said.

Terrorists may be coming to America through the southern border, Capito said. The flow has to be stopped at the point of entry, she said.

While barriers appear to impede illegal entry, the illegal immigration issue isnt just money, Capito said. The United States could require those seeking asylum to remain in Mexico while their cases are pending, a remain-in-Mexico policy, which worked under Donald Trump and which President Joe Biden can impose, but chooses not to, she said.

We need immigration reform, Capito said.

Other topics included the hydrogen storage hub in West Virginia, which is proposed in Washington, W.Va., and the military blockade against promotions caused by Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala. The hub will be part of the nations efforts toward cleaner energy, she said.

Tuberville is blocking the promotions over Pentagon abortion policies.

Capito has opposed Tubervilles methods, but deferred comment on a resolution working its way through the Senate to move on the promotions. The senator also said she was reluctant to make rule changes.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

Read more:
Capito: Election of New House Speaker 'Welcome News' - Wheeling Intelligencer

Amy Torres, Executive Director of New Jersey Alliance for Immigrant Justice, joins Steve Adubato for a conversation about the ending of Title 42, our nations asylum crisis, and the need for immigration reform. Recorded 6/20/23

Steve Adubato asks Amy Torres about the state of Title 42 and immigration enforcement. Torres responds, I think its really important to understand that colloquially we use words like refugee and asylum seeker to describe people who are fleeing for their own safety, trying to protect themselves, trying to protect their loved ones. Its important to understand that in U.S immigration policy these words refugee, asylee, theyre very restrictive coded definitions that change over time and we saw that with title 42 right. There was a real restriction on the internationally recognized right to asylum, there were barriers put in place that made it very difficult to file for asylum. We saw it again when title 42 ended and the Biden Administration proposed their own new restrictions that in many ways went further than title 42, to make it even more difficult to file for asylum, to come to the U.S and stay here and seek safety. I think weve heard a lot over the last few months about a border crisis, or a migration crisis. Really what were facing in the United States is a policy crisis. We have a deeply broken immigration system that means that its more difficult than ever to try to come to the United States, and even more difficult once youre here to be able to legally stay here.

(Visited 91 times, 2 visits today)

Click here for the full Insider Index

See the rest here:
Examining The State of Immigration Reform and the Nation's Asylum ... - InsiderNJ