Archive for the ‘Immigration Reform’ Category

Migrant crisis stresses services in South Coast – The New Bedford Light

A flood of homeless migrants is pushing the states shelter system to its limit as Massachusetts officials plead for federal immigration reform.

Earlier this month, migrant families began arriving at hotels in New Bedfords suburbs, where the state is leasing rooms as overflow shelter space. Eight families are at the Seaport Inn in Fairhaven and 10 are in a hotel in Dartmouth.

Theyre among the 7,000 homeless families in Massachusetts emergency shelters. Many are seeking asylum from dangerous conditions in Haiti and Spanish-speaking countries in Latin America. They depend on the state for food and shelter because federal immigration law prevents them from legally working for months after they arrive in the U.S.

October 1, 2023October 1, 2023

Gov. Maura Healey has repeatedly asked the Biden administration to streamline the work authorization process so the migrants can support themselves. The states congressional delegation has made similar requests. But federal policy hasnt caught up to their demands.

Healey expects the states shelter system to reach its capacity of 7,500 families by the end of this month, she announced last week. At that point, she says, the state wont have the resources to guarantee shelter for every family, despite a 1983 right-to-shelter law that requires the state to shelter all homeless families with children and pregnant women.

Service providers have begun to help the sheltered migrants in Fairhaven and Dartmouth. They include Haitian families and Spanish speakers from Latin America, service providers said, but some have been living in the U.S. for years.

Its a whirlwind at the moment, said Pam Kuechler, executive director of People Acting in Community Endeavors, one of the organizations providing services to the migrants.

National Guard troops are staffing the Dartmouth and Fairhaven hotels to provide for the migrants day-to-day needs, including meals, access to medical care, and diapers and baby cribs. Healey deployed the National Guard to help at hotel shelters as demand there outpaced what local service providers could supply.

Staff from PACE are providing additional food at the hotels and helping migrants sign up for health insurance, Kuechler said.

The Immigrants Assistance Center, based in New Bedford, has offered to help the migrants with their immigration cases and is talking with the National Guard about how to do so, said Helena DaSilva Hughes, the centers president. The center hopes to help migrants with immigration court dates in other states to move their cases to Boston. Migrants who miss a court date risk deportation.

Fairhaven officials are working to enroll the newly arrived children in school, said Fairhaven Town Administrator Angie Lopes Ellison. She declined to say how many children there were for safety reasons. Dartmouth Town Administrator Shawn McInnes referred questions about the migrants to state housing officials. The state is providing school districts with $104 per day in emergency aid for each new students enrollment and transportation costs, a state spokesperson said.

Healey announced last week that her administration was stepping up efforts to transition families out of shelters. Those efforts include expanding re-housing and rental assistance programs for homeless families, as well as two new job training programs.

One program will allow businesses to provide job training to sheltered migrants who are still waiting for work authorization. The other new program connects businesses in need of workers with shelter residents who are ready and eligible to work.

Items can be dropped off at the Fairhaven Fire Department at 146 Washington St., Fairhaven.

Find more information on how to help families in crisis here.

DaSilva Hughes of the Immigrants Assistance Center was doubtful that the new programs would make much of a difference, since they dont address the underlying issue: the wait for work permits.

We can put people through trainings, but if they dont have the proper documents to get a job, employers are not going to hire you, she said.

Under federal law, migrants who file a claim for asylum in the U.S. arent eligible to apply for work permits until five months later. After that, application processing adds even more delays. In the meantime, the migrants depend on the state for food and shelter.

The bureaucratic hurdles are frustrating to DaSilva Hughes, who said the migrants want to work.

If you speed up the working permits, theyll be able to get a job and get out of the shelter, she said.

Since the federal government controls immigration policy, Massachusetts officials are pressuring the Biden administration for reform.

Healey sent a letter to U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas last month after a meeting with him. She asked for migrants to immediately receive provisional work authorizations when they apply for permits, rather than wait months for their applications to process. She also suggested logistical improvements to cut down on application processing times.

Since then, Healey has met with the White House chief of staff and welcomed a Homeland Security consultant team that visited shelters in Massachusetts.

The Massachusetts congressional delegation sent Mayorkas a letter in July asking for similar changes. They met with Mayorkas last week to discuss work authorizations and other requests.

U.S. Rep. Bill Keating, who represents the South Coast, South Shore, Cape, and Islands, told The Light in a statement that he shares the frustrations of other state and local leaders.

I strongly believe that those entering the U.S. should do so in a legal manner, Keating said, which is why it is so necessary to reform our countrys immigration system, so those seeking to provide a better life for their families and contribute to our country can come to the U.S. in a way that is both legal and efficient.

Healey and Keating say they also support President Joe Bidens recent request of $1.4 billion for migrant shelter services. The money is urgently needed for states like Massachusetts that are experiencing historic surges in migrant arrivals, Healey said in a statement.

But Congress hasnt passed the funding. Until Wednesday, the House of Representatives had been stalled for weeks without a speaker.

Healey has also asked the Massachusetts Legislature to pass $250 million in additional state funding for shelters.

MassHealth, the states Medicaid program, is seeking approval from the federal government to pay for up to six months of temporary housing for people on its health plans who are in the state shelter system. Many of the migrants in shelters have legal status that makes them eligible for MassHealth, and this would allow the state to use federal Medicaid funds for their housing.

DaSilva Hughes fears what will happen when the shelter system reaches capacity. She said she has never seen this many migrants in need. She said she hopes Healeys announcement will deter more migrants from coming to the state.

I hope the message is loud and clear: Yes, we have a right to shelter, but where are we going to put them? she said.

State Rep. Chris Markey, who represents Dartmouth, said he thinks the Healey administration is doing its best. Its important to welcome migrants who come seeking a better life, but the situation has become unsustainable, he said.

We cant become the place where everyone comes, he said. Its not affordable. Its not realistic.

Markey said it might be time to reevaluate the states right-to-shelter law. He reasoned that its better to give quality assistance to some than partial assistance to all.

State Rep. Bill Straus, who represents Fairhaven, and state Sen. Mark Montigny did not comment in response to requests from the Light.

Recent hate group activity in New Bedford has made service providers nervous about the migrants safety. But Lopes Ellison, the Fairhaven town administrator, said that the community has been overwhelmingly supportive and donations have been pouring in.

Im speechless at the level of volunteerism and humanitarian efforts that have come out of this process in helping the town, she said.

Email Grace Ferguson at gferguson@newbedfordlight.org

October 29, 2023October 29, 2023

October 23, 2023October 24, 2023

October 3, 2023October 4, 2023

Read more:
Migrant crisis stresses services in South Coast - The New Bedford Light

Letters editor must have fun | Letters to the Editor | chronicleonline.com – Citrus County Chronicle

It must be fun for the person who reads and publishes some of these letters. They must laugh for most of the day. I get a kick out of them, some make me laugh others I disagree with, but people express their thoughts and opinions. Some start off with their military experience. "Well I served as the Bla bla bla." So what? I'm a veteran myself. What does that have to do with immigration? The most important thing is to get the facts right, this takes accurate research.

A lot of people just believe what a politician says or what they want to hear on propaganda TV stations. They hear for example "Biden is going to confiscate your gas stove?" How ridiculous! "inflation" was big for awhile now that it's coming down it's immigration and fear of another "Invasion." What happened to the caravans of millions of illegals in 2018 election cycle? The blue wave came and Republicans lost. No invasion.

Now they're at it once again for 2024. Local radicals in government can't get the job done on roads, lower taxes, out-of-sight insurance rates, and wasteful spending. BTW mine is being canceled because Farmers is no longer insuring in Florida!

These people like Finegan would rather focus on silly resolutions, woke policies, attacking library officials and things that don't affect your pocketbook. "Look there goes a squirrel" kinda thing. We know better than thatmost of us anyway.

There's no invasion coming to Citrus County, OK? It's more hype than fact. According to the FBI and law enforcement, the No. 1 threat is right wing extremism, not illegal aliens, and gun deaths, massacres on a daily basis , and all that's done by Republicans is to loosen gun laws. Immigration has been around for decades with Bush and Reagan giving "amnesty" to thousands of illegals. In 2013 we had a bipartisan gang of eight to fix immigration, and Republicans scrapped it. Trump said he was all for immigration reform in 2017, then after conferring with radicals in the Freedom Caucus pulled out. Instead we got this fabulous wall that Mexico was supposed to pay for. We got fraudsters like Steve Bannon that took money for a wall and bought a yacht with it.

The fact is, Republicans have never been serious on immigration, drug reforms or anything else.

The rest is here:
Letters editor must have fun | Letters to the Editor | chronicleonline.com - Citrus County Chronicle

Capito says additional funding on immigration issues needs to focus … – West Virginia MetroNews

President Joe Biden has proposed additional funding to address a flood of immigration issues, and Senator Shelley Moore Capito says the proposal still needs work.

The full, $106 billion package from the White House also would provide aid for American allies Ukraine and Israel. A significant element is $14 billion for immigration enforcement.

Right now, the proposal includes $4.4 billion for the Department of Homeland Security and $3.1 billion for additional Border Patrol agents, asylum officers and processing personnel. It also includes $1.4 billion to help state and local governments with shelter and services for migrants. And the request seeks $1.2 billion in additional funding to boost narcotics detection and interdiction at the border.

Capito said senators are likely to write their own version of the allocations, and her preference would be to bolster the border security provisions while reducing the proposals emphasis on additional resources to process the immigrants who cross into the country.

There has to be something significant on the border, Capito, a Republican, said in a briefing this week with West Virginia reporters.

Last month alone, over 269,000 people were apprehended at the southern border, the highest number ever. I mean, we keep saying this, this is the highest number ever. And it keeps getting higher and higher and the administration is not making the significant moves to try to deter people from coming into this country.

Capito elaborated on how she views the balance after being asked by reporter Charles Young of West Virginia News.

I will not vote for something that only at the border provides more processing agents so that people can come in quicker, get processed and come into the interior of the United States more, Capito said. I will not vote for something that just throws money at a problem that needs to be deterred and curtailed in the numbers.

So if its more healthcare, if its more transportation, if its more soft-sided tents to do the processing, no. We need significant immigration reform that I think we could get in here.

That means, Capito said, quicker and more meaningful asylum claims. In other words, lets turn people back as they enter rather than waiting seven or eight years if their asylum claim is not legitimate.

Number two, the remain in Mexico policy, Capito continued, and that is saying to someone who comes in You can have your asylum claim heard, but you have to wait in Mexico. Youre not going to wait eight years in the United States of America. That is a deterrent because people want into this country; thats their goal.

More barriers is another piece, Capito said.

At least, barriers do prevent and where people are coming in is where we dont have significant barrier, she said. That could be wall; that could be more virtual types of barrier.

Congresswoman Carol Miller, R-W.Va., also says increased border security is necessary although she seemed critical of particular aspects of the Biden proposal.

We need to have the right people securing our border, Miller said Thursday on MetroNews Talkline.

Ive talked since 2018 about building the wall. But I believe, lets put back remain in Mexico. Let them stay there. If we are giving asylum to people, lets make it asylum. Weve got so many people leaking through our border.

She continued, I dont want to bring the judges in and all those people like that who are just gonna say, Sure, you can come over, yeah your left foot hurts, sure you can come on in. We have to be very careful who were letting in. Enoughs enough.

See original here:
Capito says additional funding on immigration issues needs to focus ... - West Virginia MetroNews

Sisters of Charity, BVM Celebrates 190 Years From Dublin to … – Global Sisters Report

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

Americans Concerned Mideast Terrorism Could Spill into the United … – Immigration Blog

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