Mediaboss Marketing

Allowing campuses to employ such workers could change thousands of students lives and invoke a bevy of court challenges. The ten-campus system would be the first to openly skirt a law then-President Ronald Reagan signed in 1986 that banned employers from hiring people who lack federal work authorization.

A group of students and progressive legal scholars led by UC law school deans and professors have argued the Immigration Reform and Control Act does not apply to states. Theyve for months pressured the universitys governing board to allow campuses to hire undocumented students, whove been placed in a precarious position since a federal judge in 2021 blocked the Biden administration from approving new recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

The federal courts have consistently recognized that states have broad power to determine the appropriate qualifications for state positions, including qualifications related to immigration status, the co-directors of the UCLA Center for Immigration Law and Policy wrote in a letter explaining their theory in September.

The prestigious university system of nearly 295,000 students already provides legal advice, financial aid and counseling to undocumented students. Californias Democratic-led Legislature has passed a series of laws since 2001 extending in-state tuition to more undocumented students and making it easier for them to apply for state financial aid, in sharp contrast to Republican-led states.

The latest move by a higher education system with international visibility could be emulated by other universities that market themselves as immigration sanctuaries.

Regent Jos Hernndez said Thursday that UC leadership identifies UC as a progressive leader in the higher education system. And it is my hope that other states, other education entities will soon follow with us.

View post:
University of California considers hiring undocumented students ... - POLITICO

When the U.S. Congress passed the CHIPS and Science Act in August 2022, it committed $53 billion to fund semiconductor research and manufacturing in the United States. As a result of this legislation, advanced chip manufacturers have been racing to build new U.S. factories. Since then, however, it has quickly become apparent that fabrication capacity alone will not be enough to make the United States a semiconductor powerhouse. What the country lacks is not raw materials or capital. The main constraint is a shortage of talent.

According to current projections, U.S. semiconductor companies will have 300,000 unfilled vacancies for skilled engineers by 2030. Targeting, training, and recruiting hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens will be impossible in such a compressed time frame. The only way to meet this demand is to recruit many more skilled workers from abroad. On the face of it, this should not be a problem: the United States has long relied on its companies and universities to attract the worlds best and brightest. Brilliant engineers from all around the world helped me turn Google into a world-leading technology company. But this did not happen because of the U.S. immigration system. It happened in spite of it. For decades, Washington has failed to pass meaningful immigration reform. If the United States wants to remain the world leader in innovation, it can no longer afford to ignore the talent waiting beyond its borders.

As I wrote in Foreign Affairs earlier this year, innovation powerthe ability to invent, adopt, and adapt new technologies to advance national powerwill determine the future of geopolitics. And this ability to innovate depends, above all, on the strength of a countrys talent pool. U.S. professional sports leagues understand this: basketball and baseball scouts scour the globe to find the best players for their teams. But when it comes to recruiting the worlds top AI scientists and semiconductor engineers, the U.S. immigration system has put up unnecessary barriers. Current restrictions are increasingly putting the United States behind countries with points-based immigration systems like Canada and the United Kingdom, which are aggressively courting advanced tech workers and engineers.

The United States is still the worlds most attractive country for immigrants. Its university system is the envy of the world and its companies lead the world in innovation. But if Washington wants to stay ahead and achieve the promise of the CHIPS and Science Act, it must act to remove the needless complexities to make its immigration system more transparent and create new pathways for the brightest minds to come to the United States.

While the United States dysfunctional system increasingly deters the worlds top scientists, researchers, and entrepreneurs, other countries are proactively recruiting them. China is particularly active in doing so, with direction coming from the very top. In 2021, President Xi Jinping declared that the competition of todays world is a competition of human talent and education. At his instruction, the nation, which suffers from an exodus of talent, began to spend serious money to woo back native-born STEM graduates. Today, Chinese research institutions offer some postdoctoral researchers three times the salaries they could make at a U.S. university. Skilled Chinese engineers and scientists who previously moved abroad to work are being offered powerful incentives to return home.

U.S. allies have significantly stepped up efforts to bring in the best talent, too. Last year, United Kingdom Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced a scheme to target and attract the worlds top 100 young AI researchers. The United Kingdom now has a High Potential Individual visa program, which is specifically aimed at graduates of the worlds top universities. In 2015, Canada created an Express Entry system, which allows high-skilled foreign nationals to become permanent residents in only a year. The results are already showing: between 2016 and 2019 alone, the number of Indian STEM masters students studying in Canada rose by 182 percent. During the same period, the number of Indian students studying in the same fields in the United States dropped 38 percent.

To be able to compete in the decades to come, the U.S. economy needs to attract the high-skilled immigrants who will build the technologies of the future, from large language models to quantum computers. Many talented workers who would like to come to the United States are put off by its complex and restrictive immigration rules. These rules particularly affect foreign students, who currently make up over 70 percent of U.S. graduate students in computer science. International students who wish to remain and contribute to the U.S. economy upon graduation usually seek to do so by applying for an H-1B visa. But H-1B visas are allotted not on a candidates relative talent but through an arbitrary lottery that has a success rate as low as 11 percent. A majority of foreign U.S.-trained Ph.D. graduates in artificial intelligence who consider leaving the country cite its immigration system as a main reason. Although U.S. universities continue to train many of the most capable scientists and engineers in the world, it is other countries that are increasingly enjoying the benefits.

60 percent of Republicans and 83 percent of Democrats supported more skilled immigration to the United States.

There is broad bipartisan support for common sense immigration reform.Yesterday, 70 experts and former national security officials published an open letter calling on the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party to attract and retain global STEM talent to maintain U.S. leadership in technology. Last year, in a poll conducted by the Economic Innovation Group Economic Innovation Group, 60 percent of Republicans and 83 percent of Democrats supported more skilled immigration to the United States. Seventy-three percent of the U.S. public favor a visa allowing international graduates in STEM subjects to work in the United States. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have made proposals to increase U.S. competitiveness by attracting more high-skilled foreign workers. But these proposals have been blocked year after year. Last year, there was bipartisan support for making available additional green cards with shorter wait times for STEM Ph.D.s. Yet ultimately this initiative was stripped from the final National Defense Authorization Act.

Still, there are a variety of ways to make targeted changes with the backing of both parties. Today, for example, even a physics or math Ph.D. from the United States best universitiesexactly the type of person needed to spur innovation and scientific discoveryhas no clear path toward obtaining residency in the country. Congress should begin to address this problem by creating a conditional green card for STEM Ph.D.s, perhaps with an initial focus on U.S. partner countries. This visa would give recipients permanent residence for two to three years, with an option of extension upon review. There is precedent for creating such a special entry program: conditional green cards have been successfully used for investor visas, and the United States has, at various times, tailored visas toward nationals of allied countries. Perhaps the most notable example of this is the E-3 visa, which applies to specialist workers from Australia, and could be expanded to other nations. This new type of green card would make the immigration process for STEM Ph.D.s more streamlined and predictable. It would also remove pressure on other visa categories with numerical limits and country caps, as well as allow green card holders to move freely between jobs. At the same time, this new green card should come with sensible restrictions, limiting eligibility to a recognized list of leading research institutions.

To win the global talent competition, the United States needs to not only retain but also attract global talent. As Harvard political scientist Graham Allison and I have argued, the U.S. government should make a concerted effort to identify and recruit top researchers from across the globe. A special green card for exceptional scientists would allow the United States to maintain its edge in technology and help it confront the great geopolitical challenges of the coming years.

In fact, the U.S. government already has a successful history of using such a strategy in the decades around World War II. In the 1930s and 1940s, the United States succeeded in attracting a whole generation of talent, including such luminaries as Albert Einstein and Enrico Fermi. The two left Nazi Germany and fascist Italy, respectively, before coming to the United States, where their research, along with that of other migr scientists, was instrumental to the Manhattan Project. Today, Washington needs to do more to attract leading scientists from nonaligned or even hostile countries, even if doing so requires more extensive security screening. The United States missed a major opportunity last year when U.S. President Joe Biden was unable to persuade Congress to waive visa requirements for top Russian engineers and scientists who were seeking to escape President Vladimir Putins rule. The United States should also do more to attract Chinese scientists and innovators, who have been a huge boon to the U.S. economy. Since 2000, Chinese STEM Ph.D.s have created startups valued at over $100 billion. If Washington wants innovators to start their businesses in the United States, rather than in China, it must be more welcoming to Chinese talent. Although much has been made in Washington of the security risks posed by a few foreign researchers who have been accused of intellectual property theft, far greater harm will be done to the country over the long term by keeping out entrepreneurial Chinese scientists.

Washington must also make it easier for the worlds top entrepreneurs to come to the United States. More than half of U.S. companies valued at over $1 billion were founded or co-founded by immigrants. But, unlike in Canada and Australia, there is no designated startup visa for entrepreneurs who want to found a business in the United States. Congress should resurrect an earlier version of the CHIPS and Science Act that would have created a new visa category for startup founders. And that is only the start. Several other visa classes should be created, including ones for foreign nationals of high aptitude who, in return for residency, agree to work for federal or state governments in areas which most need immigration. Similar to pathways to citizenship for those enrolling in the U.S. military, the United States should use new visas to draw exceptional talent into local government.

There are already signs of progress. The State Department is planning to make it easier for millions of international professionals to renew their visas without having to travel abroad. The department should also relax requirements for the J-1 visa, which requires most holders to return to their home countries and stay there for at least two years before they can return to the United States.

The global contest for talent is too important to hold up these reforms for the sake of an elusive bipartisan immigration grand bargain. Hard though it will be, opening up more pathways for highly skilled workers to enter the United States will be key to preserving and promoting national competitiveness and national security. Without such changes, the promise of the CHIPS and Science Act will remain unfulfilled. The power of the American dream has long allowed the United States to attract the best and the brightest. Washingtons ability to field the best team for the coming geopolitical competition rests on this advantage. The United States cannot afford to lose it.

Loading...Please enable JavaScript for this site to function properly.

See original here:
To Compete With China on Tech, America Needs to Fix Its ... - Foreign Affairs Magazine

WASHINGTONU.S Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Chairman of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, on Thursday spoke on the U.S. Senate floor to debunk the myths and untruths about the end of Title 42.

Murphy called out Republicans who rooted for chaos on the border while, in reality, the U.S. saw fewer crossings than expected: [M]y sense is that there were a lot of conservatives out there and a lot of haters of President Biden who were kind of rooting for chaos at the border, were hoping that there was just going to be this overwhelming flood of crossings and apprehensions at the border when Title 42 was lifted. Here's maybe the most important thing to say: it didn't happen. In fact, if you look at the number of people who were showing up at the southwest border, right before Title 42 expired, and I will admit that that number was elevated, we have seen half as many people crossing in the last four days as were crossing right before Title 42, expired. 4,000, 5,000 people, that is still a lot of people per day who are being apprehended at the border. But it does not match the doomsday predictions that many on the right were making.

On Republican fear mongering about immigrants, Murphy said: This is Donald Trump's Department of Justice, released a study that found undocumented immigrants had substantially lower crime rates than native born citizens and legal immigrants across a range of felony offenses. That's the truth. It's Donald Trump's truth. And in fact, people who come to this country, theyre legal immigrants or without documentation, are not committing crimes at a greater rate than natural born Americans. That doesn't excuse our broken system. That is not an argument to continue to allow so many people to come to this country without documentation. It just means that we shouldn't set on fire these arguments that we have something unique to fear. Why? Because these people are coming to the United States for a better life. These people are coming to the United States to flee terror and torture, persecution, violence and economic destitution.

Murphy debunked four myths that Republicans have peddled in Congress and in the media. First, Murphy explained why President Biden could not keep Title 42 in place: Interestingly, the only restriction that Republicans wanted to keep in place was the one at the border that stopped people from coming into the United States that look different than them. The pandemic is over. Title 42 can't stay in place. The President doesn't have the legal authority to continue to turn people around and deny them the right to apply for asylum. And so it is just not true that this is President Biden's choice.

Second, he cited evidence that border crossings were not at an all-time low during the Trump administration: [J]ust before the pandemic, when President Trump was in office, we had a historically high number of crossings. In 2019, 800,000 people showed up at the border that was twice the number for the previous decade on average. During President Obama's time in office and the first few years of President Trump, about 400,000 people were showing up. Then in 2019, the numbers spiked to 800,000. They go down for one year, but they came back up as soon as the worst of the pandemic abated. And so it's just not true that this problem was a creation of President Biden's swearing in.

Third, he outlined the steps President Biden took to prepare for Title 42 to end: President Biden surged thousands of troops to the border, he put more asylum officers there, he moved Border Patrol, he signed agreements with Mexico in which Mexico agreed to take a certain number of individuals who are coming from countries like Venezuela and Cuba. And he implemented a really tough new asylum rule. A rule that frankly, many people on his political left say went beyond his statutory authority. But that rule says that you actually cannot apply for asylum at the border unless you've applied beforehand in a safe third country or you've made an appointment. That's a really innovative, tough new approach to try to reduce the number of crossings and presentations at the border.

Finally, he highlighted how Congresss failure to pass immigration reform has made it near impossible for presidents of both parties to manage the border: We, through our inaction, have left president after president, Republican and Democrat with a mess, because our laws don't work, our immigration system is broken. And yet, we blame the president for failing to be able to work miracles out of a system that has been fundamentally rendered ineffective.

Murphy concluded: [P]art of the reason that I'm down here on the floor today trying to correct these myths and untruths is because I think it is a necessary predicate in order for us as a body, Republicans and Democrats, to sit down and talk about solving this problem. The lack of action in Congress has left President Biden an impossible task. He's done the best that he conceivably can with a set of broken laws, but instead of spreading these myths and often outright lies about what's happening at the border and the consequences of lifting Title 42, we should as a body instead, do our job and fix our broken immigration laws.

On Sunday, Murphy joined NBCs Meet the Press with Chuck Todd to discuss the prospect for bipartisan immigration reform in the wake of Title 42s expiration.

A full transcript of his remarks can be found below:

One of the benefits of sitting in the chair, as the senator from Maine is currently, is that you get to hear a wide variety of views from our colleagues, and I have had the opportunity over the past several weeks while sitting in the chair to hear my Republican colleagues talk about their concerns regarding the lifting of Title 42. They are concerns that are very often shared, in many respects, by Democrats as well.

But it's really important that we level set the facts when we're talking about what's happening at the border right now, as the pandemic authority to stop people from applying from asylum is as required by law being lifted. It's really important that we understand that in this debate, there's a lot of spinning, there's a lot of myths. There are some just outright mistruths that are being spread about what's happening at the border and what has been happening at the border. And so I'm down on the floor just for a few minutes today to try to talk about a short list of those myths and untruths that are being spread sometimes on this floor, but very often on social media and on cable news, so that we can find a way to have a functional conversation between Republicans and Democrats of good faith who actually want to make progress.

First, my sense is that there were a lot of conservatives out there and a lot of haters of President Biden who were kind of rooting for chaos at the border, were hoping that there was just going to be this overwhelming flood of crossings and apprehensions at the border when Title 42 was lifted. Here's maybe the most important thing to say: it didn't happen. In fact, if you look at the number of people who were showing up at the southwest border, right before Title 42 expired, and I will admit that that number was elevated, we have seen half as many people crossing in the last four days as were crossing right before Title 42, expired. 4,000, 5,000 people, that is still a lot of people per day who are being apprehended at the border. But it does not match the doomsday predictions that many on the right were making.

So I think it's just important to acknowledge that fact because if you read the newspapers, if you paid attention to cable news, you would have thought that the minute that Title 42 ended there was going to be a doubling, a tripling of the number of people who showed up at the border. That didn't happen. In fact, 50% less people are showing up.

Now that may not hold. I can't promise that that's the future trajectory. But I'm going to tell you a story today about why that happens. And it's connected to things Joe Biden did.

The second level setting exercise I want to engage in is this idea that we should be in just lockdown fear of all these people who are coming to the United States at the southern border, that there is something uniquely dangerous about immigrants writ large, but more specifically undocumented immigrants. And this is a trope that's been around for as long as the United States has existed that we should fear immigrants coming to this country. But we now have data to tell us whether or not people who are coming to this country as immigrants or people who are even coming to this country as undocumented immigrants are a risk, a threat to the United States compared to natural born citizens.

This is a study that Donald Trump's Department of Justice released. This isn't Joe Biden, this isn't Barack Obama. This is Donald Trump's Department of Justice, released a study that found undocumented immigrants had substantially lower crime rates than native born citizens and legal immigrants across a range of felony offenses. That's the truth. It's Donald Trump's truth. And in fact, people who come to this country, theyre legal immigrants or without documentation, are not committing crimes at a greater rate than natural born Americans. That doesn't excuse our broken system. That is not an argument to continue to allow so many people to come to this country without documentation.

It just means that we shouldn't set on fire these arguments that we have something unique to fear. Why? Because these people are coming to the United States for a better life. These people are coming to the United States to flee terror and torture, persecution, violence and economic destitution. There are criminals amongst their midst. There are individuals who end up committing crimes, but at no greater rate of offense than people who were born in this country. It's just important to acknowledge that.

I want to talk about four of these myths very quickly. The first one is that President Biden had the authority to keep Title 42 in place. Thats just not true. For the better part of the last two years, Republicans, conservatives, the broader right has been pillorying President Biden for not lifting COVID authorities fast enough. The pandemics over, the right says, why do we still have these restrictions on our on our movement? Why are there still restrictions on air travel?

Interestingly, the only restriction that Republicans wanted to keep in place was the one at the border that stopped people from coming into the United States that look different than them. The pandemic is over. Title 42 can't stay in place. The President doesn't have the legal authority to continue to turn people around and deny them the right to apply for asylum. And so it is just not true that this is President Biden's choice. And if you are a constitutionalist, if you are somebody that believes that the president cannot and should not exceed his constitutional statutory authority, then you have to support the lifting of Title 42. Now we could change the law, and there are proposals here to do that. But President Biden can't keep Title 42 in place any longer than he declares a broader public health emergency.

The second myth is, and I've heard this from some of my colleagues her, is that everything was great under President Trump, and it exploded under President Biden. In fact, sometimes you hear this stat: that crossings were at a historic low under President Trump. Well, that is true to the extent that gas prices were at a historic low under President Trump. Because crossings were at a historic low for one year, for 2020 when we were in the middle of the teeth of the pandemic, and nobody was going anywhere. Yes, during that period of time, when we shut down the border, when nobody in the United States was moving, when nobody in Mexico was moving, we did have a relatively low number of crossings.

But just before the pandemic, when President Trump was in office, we had a historically high number of crossings. In 2019, 800,000 people showed up at the border that was twice the number for the previous decade on average. During President Obama's time in office and the first few years of President Trump, about 400,000 people were showing up. Then in 2019, the numbers spiked to 800,000. They go down for one year, but they came back up as soon as the worst of the pandemic abated. And so it's just not true that this problem was a creation of President Biden's swearing in. Numbers were abnormally high right before the pandemic, and they started jumping back up once the pandemic started to lessen in its severity.

The third myth is that President Biden didn't prepare for the end of Title 42. That's also not true. And I gave you that statistic to show that in fact, crossings right now are half what they were right before Title 42. expired. I can't divine all the reasons for that, and maybe those numbers are temporary, but it is definitely true that President Biden has taken extraordinary steps to be ready for this moment even while Congress refused to act and give them any help. President Biden surged thousands of troops to the border, he put more asylum officers there, he moved Border Patrol, he signed agreements with Mexico in which Mexico agreed to take a certain number of individuals who are coming from countries like Venezuela and Cuba.

And he implemented a really tough new asylum rule. A rule that frankly, many people on his political left say went beyond his statutory authority. But that rule says that you actually cannot apply for asylum at the border unless you've applied beforehand in a safe third country or you've made an appointment. That's a really innovative, tough new approach to try to reduce the number of crossings and presentations at the border. A step that, frankly, President Trump didn't even entertain. So it is just not true to say the President Biden hasn't done anything.

In fact, he's taken extraordinary steps to try to be as ready as he can, which leads me to the fourth and final myth, which is that this is just all President Biden's problem. It's not. It's our problem. We haven't significantly updated the immigration laws of this country since the 1980s or 90s. It's been 30 years since we have changed the laws of this nation to reflect the changing nature of migration globally and the changing nature of migration to the United States.

We, through our inaction, have left president after president, Republican and Democrat with a mess, because our laws don't work, our immigration system is broken. And yet, we blame the president for failing to be able to work miracles out of a system that has been fundamentally rendered ineffective.

And let's be very clear, Republicans have had ample opportunity to fix the laws of this nation. In 2013, when the presiding officer and I got to the Senate, there was a deal on the table to fundamentally and comprehensively reform our immigration laws. Republicans in the Senate joined with Democrats to get that done, but the Republican Speaker of the House refused to have a vote on it in the House. Since then, there have been a number of efforts to reach out and try to find compromise with Republicans. And it has generally been the Republican Party writ large that has decided that there's too big a political cost for them to pay in trying to find common ground on immigration reform.

Now, I say that that is a position of the Republican Party writ large because I do know and believe there are individual Republican senators in this body who do want to find compromise, who do want to recognize that this cannot be solved by any president, so long as the laws of this nation don't provide resources to move asylum claims faster, don't give Border Patrol what they need, don't allow enough people to come into this country through legal pathways.

And part of the reason that I'm down here on the floor today trying to correct these myths and untruths is because I think it is a necessary predicate in order for us as a body, Republicans and Democrats, to sit down and talk about solving this problem. The lack of action in Congress has left President Biden an impossible task. He's done the best that he conceivably can with a set of broken laws, but instead of spreading these myths and often outright lies about what's happening at the border and the consequences of lifting Title 42, we should as a body instead, do our job and fix our broken immigration laws.

I yield the floor.

###

See original here:
Murphy Debunks Republican Myths About the End of Title 42 - Senator Chris Murphy

It was widely expected that massive numbers of migrants would stream into the U.S. following the expiration of Title 42, the COVID-19-era policy that allowed border authorities to rapidly return most migrants who had crossed into the U.S. illegally. Instead, the border has been relatively quiet, with roughly 4,200 migrants detained Saturday and 6,300 on Sunday. Thats a drop from peaks as high as 11,000 detentions earlier last week, just before the pandemic policys expiration.

But thats hardly solace for Chicago, where migrants have been sleeping shoulder-to-shoulder on police station floors and jammed into shuttered schools, Park District field houses and even an abandoned Streeterville hotel.

Many of the migrants are mothers traveling with toddlers and young children, all coping with the queasy angst of not knowing what happens next.

The crisis is both national and intensely local, and blame can be affixed to many players. It starts with Greg Abbott, the Republican governor of Texas, who resorted to the cynical ploy of using migrants as political pawns and shipping them with one-way tickets to Chicago, New York and other Democratic strongholds.

Former Mayor Lori Lightfoot, who justifiably has been harshly critical of Abbott, isnt altogether blameless. The first wave of migrants that Abbott dispatched came last fall. Then the flow of migrants coming into Chicago slowed, which should have given Lightfoots team ample time and opportunity to map out contingency plans for the next wave. One constant in this crisis has been Abbotts predictability, and Lightfoot could have done a better job bracing the city for this latest influx.

And then, of course, theres the inexplicable gridlock that has characterized Congress inaction on immigration reform for two decades.

One of the latest attempts at bipartisan immigration reform emerged late last year. Former Democrat and now independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema from Arizona teamed up with GOP Sen. Thom Tillis from North Carolina to craft a measure that would have tackled critical immigration issues such as improved processing of asylum claims, the creation of a pathway to citizenship for roughly 2 million so-called Dreamers (undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children), and the allocation of billions of dollars to better secure the southern border. It was a smart, comprehensive approach, and yet an ineffectual, divided Congress shelved it.

And if Vice President Kamala Harris has some effective new ideas on this emergency, we have yet to hear them.

In Chicago, the crisis is now in the hands of Mayor Brandon Johnson. The new mayor quickly made clear Chicagos compassion for the plight of migrants, saying during his inauguration speech Monday that the city will never close our doors to those who come here in search of a better life. One of his first official acts included an executive order creating a Deputy Mayor for Immigrant, Migrant and Refugee Rights, a post that will liaise with city departments to ensure support for asylum seekers.

On his first full day in office, he met with migrants at a police station in Pilsen and a Little Village park center, telling reporters Im here today because I needed to see it firsthand.

Thats laudable, but more than photo ops are needed for Chicago to cope with an ongoing migrant crisis that requires tangible support for asylum-seekers and a smart approach to finding ways to finance that support. Johnson can begin by fashioning a game plan for the crisis, and so far he hasnt shared that plan with the city.

Does he have one? He should.

Johnson has had weeks to prepare for what clearly is an urgent problem. This crisis isnt going away any time soon, and the mere fact that there are still migrant families including young children crammed into police stations should be ample incentive to move fast. Despite the lull in migrant activity at the border, more asylum-seekers are bound to get shipped to Chicago, and the city is already at capacity.

Smart thinkers in the city and surrounding suburbs have been talking up the merit of a regional approach toward solving metro area problems and crises. The current migrant plight can become the ideal litmus test for the city and suburbs commitment to regional problem-solving. Though Chicago has been struggling to find more adequate, humane shelter for incoming migrants, suburbia clearly has ample space and infrastructure.

New York Mayor Eric Adams has already tried sharing the burden of sheltering migrants by enlisting nearby suburbs. His attempt drew fierce blowback from those towns largely because he sprung the idea on them with little notice. Johnson could glean lessons from Adams experience and negotiate with Chicago suburban leaders so that the suburbs dont feel as if theyre simply being volunteered to help involuntarily. And Gov. J.B. Pritzker should lend his bully pulpit to the promotion of this cooperative approach.

The best solution, of course, is a permanent one and that will only happen when Congress, together with the administration of President Joe Biden, do what they were elected to do and hammer out genuine, lasting immigration reform. The Sinema-Tillis bill would be an ideal place to start.

Get opinion pieces, letters and editorials sent directly to your inbox weekly!

More:
WHAT OTHERS ARE SAYING: What's Chicago's migrant crisis plan - The Pantagraph

FAIR Take | May2023

Sanctuary New York City (NYC) Mayor Eric Adams is complaining loudly about the illegal aliens coming into his city saying the city is being destroyed by the migrant crisis. Ironically, just a couple of years ago, he put out the welcome mat for all illegal aliens to come to New York. In October 2021, Mayor Adams tweeted that NYC will remain a sanctuary city under the Adams administration, expressing that we should protect our immigrants. Now that NYC is shouldering the costs for the latest influx of illegal aliens, he is saying there is no more room at the inn and he is trying to send these unwelcome guests onto neighboringcounties.

As a result of the Biden administrations lax immigration policies, 61,000 illegal aliens have come to NYC over the past year and about 40,000 are on the taxpayer dole receiving housing, food, and other benefits. These illegal aliens are placing a tremendous strain on city resources and existing housing for the homeless is filled tocapacity.

Mayor Adams estimates that the Biden administrations immigration policies will cost the city $4.3 billion in 2023 and 2024. These costs were not included in a recent FAIR cost study that found New York was home to 1.8 million illegal aliens which cost taxpayers $9.9billion.

With existing facilities unable to house the 500 illegal aliens arriving daily and the expected influx of 300-500 additional illegal aliens with the lifting of Title 42, NYC has requested that all city agencies review their facilities to determine whether they can be repurposed into temporary housing for illegal aliens. Some of the locations being considered are hangars at JFK International Airport as well as local college gyms and parks including Central Park and ProspectPark.

One temporary facility currently being used to house illegal aliens is a former New York police department training academy (NYPDTA). While the NYPDTA is no longer in use, there is still a shooting range that is being used. The NYPDTAs gym was set up with rows of cots to house single males. However, the facility also had to admit families and children, prompting Mayor Adams to suspend NYCs Right to Shelter Policy which requires the city to house families in privaterooms.

Open borders advocates have complained about the housing situation, stating that [p]rivate sleeping quarters are required for families safety, for mothers to privately nurse newborns, to reduce the transmission of infectious diseases, and to prevent sexual assault.These advocates raise valid concerns regarding safety. It is estimated that one out of three women and children are sexually assaulted or raped crossing the border and it continues in the US with reports about rape trees and on sexual abuse in stashhouses.

In addition to re-purposing existing facilities in NYC to accommodate the influx of illegal aliens, Mayor Adams is trying to ship illegal aliens into other counties within the state. Mayor Adams notified Rockland, Orange, Rensselaer, and Oneida counties that illegal aliens would be sent to their locales for temporary housing, access to services, and connections to local communities as they build a stable life in New York state.He continued, Elected officials in New York and other parts of the country should do their part and emulate the humane and compassionate approach NYC has taken this pastyear.

Public officials in all of these counties have denounced Mayor Adams plan to send illegal aliens to their counties and have declared states of emergency. These are failures of the sanctuary city policy, and now, big city politicians want to have all of us pay the price for their misguided actions, stated Rensselaer County Executive Steve McLaughlin. We do not have the structure or the resources to take care of these people being forced out of NYC, he added. This is not the first time Rensselaer County has opposed sanctuary policies. In 2019, Rensselaer County filed a lawsuit against New Yorks Greenlight law that granted drivers licenses to illegalaliens.

Rockland County Executive Ed Day also denounced Mayor Adams attempt to ship the migrant problem elsewhere. Rockland County has filed legal action to stop Mayor Adams from sending illegal aliens into the county, and a judge issued a temporary restraining order to keep Mayor Adams from sending aliens to a Rockland County hotel. Commenting on the lawsuit, Mr. Day said, Rockland is not going to stand idly by as your administration which boasts itself as a sanctuary city diverts busloads of undocumented individuals to ourcounty.

Now New York Governor Kathy Hochul (D) is currently having her administration look into whether local governments can block NYC from sending illegal aliens into their communities. As the debate unfolds at the state and local level, the Biden Administration has remained quiet. Administration officials this week blamed Congress for not passing the mass amnesty legislation President Biden sent to Congress his first week inoffice.

Read more:
New York Citys Sanctuary Status To Cost Taxpayers Billions - Federation for American Immigration Reform