Tag: Human migration

Migration is one of the defining political issues of our time, and all around the globe national politicians are seemingly unable to meet the challenge. Today there are more than 1 billion migrants in the world. But I fear that if we only contest notions of collective identity at the national level that we will be waiting a long time for any meaningful success. Such a politics could also deliver lessons that can be applied across the country, creating a platform of strong local and regional identities on which to build a meaningful national narrative. If we want to support the development of strong and inclusive local identities, we need to empower local leaders by giving them the tools they need. Last October, Bristol was proud to host the third annual summit of the global parliament of mayors. One of the key items on the agenda was migration and how cities can take the lead in implementing the UN global compacts on migration and refugees. Those on the left need to find ways to support and enhance the role of cities at the international level if we want to see progress globally on the treatment of migrants and refugees. The global compacts give us a great opportunity to do just that. Marvin Rees is the Labour mayor of Bristol.

The migration advisory committee report is a major antidote to dog-whistle politics, bringing much-needed facts about the impact of immigration into the national conversation. Brexit should end EU citizens' special access to UK, says report Read more But it recommends no preferential treatment for EU citizens after Brexit and retaining a salary threshold of £30,000 for migrants – which will alarm those in manufacturing, logistics and social care, where there is a high reliance on EU workers. Favour higher-skilled workers over lower-skilled workers post-Brexit. No special scheme for low-skilled workers, with the exception of agricultural workers. There is some evidence that it does in lower-skilled areas, but the impact is small. There is little or no impact on employment, wages or training. House prices Migration has increased house prices, mostly in areas with a squeeze on supply owing to restrictive planning where councils find it harder to increase stock in line with demand. Benefits Migrants pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits. Provision of public services Insufficient attention is being paid to the flow of public money to areas with increased demand for education and medical services. Low-skilled workers There is no need for special schemes outside farming.

Ask any CEO about immigration, and chances are they will respond with frustration, resulting from their inability to access a global talent pool. The difference between the view from Capitol Hill and the one from the boardroom of a Fortune 500 company? “It’s all about business, and the bottom line is that business needs immigrants,” says Stanley Bergman, CEO of healthcare distributor Henry Schein, No. 238 on the Fortune 500 list of America’s largest companies. Bergman tells Fortune that it’s important for companies to align business interests with the needs of society. “Millennials are driving change, and they’re becoming a key component of consumer dollars,” adds Bergman, who believes that meeting the needs of a more vocal population is a competitive advantage. But the issue is not just with consumers; to encourage greater diversity at the corporate level, companies must work to close the skills gap. Bergman believes that immigration is truly a bipartisan issue, and it starts with easing visa restriction laws in the United States. “It doesn’t make economic sense to train immigrants in university, and then a year later we tell them to leave the country—we’ll give you a visa for two years,” says Bergman. “It does make economic sense to treat all people equal; to treat diversity as a critical component of public policy.” He adds: “We have a higher ambition than simply to make money, and at the end of the day, our return on investment is pretty good.” Watch the video above for more from Fortune’s interview with Bergman.

Ever wonder what goes on in our immigration courts? Well here’s an embarrassing, albeit troubling vignette. The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) has filed a complaint with the Merit Systems Protection Board requesting disciplinary action against federal immigration Judge Carmene “Zsa Zsa” DePaulo for violating the Hatch Act. The Hatch Act prohibits partisan political activities by federal-government employees. OSC says that DePaulo “promoted then-Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s plan for immigration reform during a deportation hearing over which DePaulo was presiding in March 2016.” According to OSC, the subject of the hearing was facing not only deportation, but also a ten-year ban on reentry into the U.S. DePaulo opined that Clinton intended to change this “pretty harsh thing” (the ban on reentry) provided “the Senate becomes a Democratic body and there’s some hope that they can actually pass immigration legislation.” Republicans, DePaulo told the courtroom, “aren’t going to do anything” about immigration “if they can help it” other than to “try to deport everybody.” As the OSC’s Special Counsel Henry J. Kerner said, “When a federal immigration judge in a public setting uses her position to advocate for partisan campaign outcomes, that’s a real problem.” Kerner said the judge was in clear violation of the Hatch Act because she was engaging in political activity while on duty and using her official position to influence, interfere with, or affect the result of the election. The backlog of immigration cases increased dramatically during the Obama administration due in part to a substantial slowdown in the handling of individual cases by immigration judges. Many of these judges were appointed by President Obama and went to great lengths to delay hearings, granting frequent continuances to avoid finding that aliens in the country illegally were not entitled to remain in the U.S. How significant was the slowdown? According to the Government Accountability Office, it took around 42 days to complete a removal case in 2006. Immigration judges such as Carmene “Zsa Zsa” DePaulo who don’t want to actually enforce federal immigration law are part of the problem. She should not be an employee of the federal government, and she certainly should not be presiding over immigration cases.

The president was referring to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a law enforcement agency within the Department of Homeland Security that bears the responsibility of carrying out his hardline immigration agenda. The list of those calling for Ice to be abolished nonetheless includes at least some prominent Democrats, such as Senators Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, both regarded as potential contenders for the 2020 presidential race. A recent poll, conducted before the controversy over Trump’s family separation policy, found Democrats with a 14-point advantage over Republicans on each party’s handling of immigration. The US Customs and Border Protection, meanwhile, was tasked with enforcement along the US borders. But the Obama administration, immigration advocates said, shifted its focus in later years by having Ice concentrate on those who committed serious felonies or were considered security risks. The overall arrests in 2017, Trump’s first year in office, were 30% higher than the previous year. The “Abolish Ice” slogan among some progressives, Fitzgerald said, probably has less to do with the agency itself than “a general cry of protest against Trump’s draconian immigration policies”. Democrats in Washington, he pointed out, have largely adopted the position that Ice should be reformed rather than eliminated in its entirety. The agents wrote that the association of Ice with the Trump administration’s controversial detention and deportation policies had made it difficult for its investigative division to pursue threats to national security, organized crime, and drug and human trafficking. “The reality is, at the end of the day, we need to have an agency that enforces immigration law and the border.” “But we need an agency that operates with humanity, with compassion … It’s not about abolish Ice so much as it is about abolish the abuses, abolish the treatment of families like they’re something less than human.”

The conservative wing of the party, emboldened by President Donald Trump's approach, are pushing hardline measures, including limits on legal immigration and funding for a border wall, that they believe will turn out the base in November and re-elect Trump in 2020. Meanwhile, Trump continues to hammer the issue, tweeting Thursday, "Congress must pass smart, fast and reasonable Immigration Laws now. Many have also used his now-reversed policy that resulted in thousands of families being separated at the border as a further justification for pushing legislation. Conservative Freedom Caucus member Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pennsylvania, who voted against the compromise bill he helped negotiate, said the party was not staying true to Trump's campaign pledge with that bill. Moderates running in competitive districts, however, dismiss talk of "amnesty" in reference to DACA, saying they don't agree that the House majority rests on rejecting citizenship for undocumented immigrants and embracing hardline policies. "I don't know if the House majority is resting on just one issue, there's a lot of things going on, but I think solving the issue, securing the border, making sure the base is happy, but also addressing the issue of DACA is a good front. "It's dishonest and a lot of the people saying these things have a personal interest. Bannon, the President's former chief strategist, hammered the conservative message home in the lead-up to the House immigration bill vote. Bannon spoke to a gathering of conservatives on June 13 organized by Iowa Rep. Steve King, known for his outspoken anti-immigrant stance. As House Speaker Paul Ryan relayed Trump's support for an immigration compromise before most of his conference on a different floor of the Republican haunt just off the Capitol, Bannon whipped against the bills, King said.

“This isn’t a political statement,” said senior minister Jeanne Pupke, who cut short a conference in Kansas City, Mo., to get back to Richmond. Fifteen houses of worship have joined the Central Virginia Sanctuary Network and pledged to support the effort to create sanctuaries for immigrants. “What if we could get 100 churches to consider themselves sanctuaries? Her church appears to be the first in the state to actually provide sanctuary to an immigrant family, joining about 40 other churches doing the same nationwide. Both of Virginia’s U.S. senators, Mark R. Warner (D) and Tim Kaine (D), have requested that immigration authorities put Arevalo-Herrera’s deportation order on hold while she appeals her residency case. “But I had to do it to be safe and to be close to my family. Usually, immigrants can remain in the United States while their case is under appeal, said Alina Kilpatrick, a lawyer working with Arevalo-Herrera. After the Sessions decision, she was not. The lawyer put an air mattress in a church meeting room and stayed there for more than a week after Arevalo-Herrera arrived. Faith that the government of this country is going to change their ideas about us.” Worshipers at the church, who spent half of last year carefully considering whether to step into the immigration debate — and even turned away three requests for asylum before Arevalo-Herrera’s — say they now feel compelled to add action to their faith.

He fired off a tweet yesterday that said, quote, "we cannot allow all of these people to invade our country. The president's hard line on immigration plays well in certain conservative political circles, less well in others. JAMES LANKFORD: I would prefer the president would step out and say a lot of these are folks that are coming for economic reasons. MARTIN: Is immigration a good issue for Republicans this year? GOLDBERG: Well, look; there are people in the White House who are absolutely convinced that whenever the national conversation is on immigration it's good for Donald Trump and for the Republicans. GOLDBERG: ...That's a - just a very different message. And that's why the administration was so desperate to turn it into an MS-13, turn it into a gang violence sort of story because talking about these little kids who aren't MS-13 - they're not even MS-3, right (laughter)? MARTIN: Also, Republicans, though - some of these Republicans are in tough re-election districts... GOLDBERG: Yeah. MARTIN: Right. And this story, as it was playing out, was devastating for those congressmen.

President Trump backed down on Wednesday from his “zero tolerance” immigration policy, which separately detained parents and children who crossed the border illegally. The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast team discusses the fallout from the policy and how Trump is talking about immigration in the run-up to the midterms. Also, as record numbers of Democratic women run for Congress, the crew asks why there aren’t more Republican women running. You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button above or by downloading it in iTunes, the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen. The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Monday evenings, with occasional special episodes throughout the week. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.

The majority of the country favors the kind of comprehensive immigration reform that Congress took up in 2006, 2007, and 2013. They were defeated each time by a “hardcore opposition [that] is driven by demographic and racial panic” rather than by concerns about “border security or lawfulness.” I think this argument goes wrong from the first, with its reading of public opinion. Raising the level of legal immigration was a feature of those comprehensive bills. And while support for that policy has been rising, it’s still a minority view. In 2017, only 24 percent of respondents told Gallup they favored it. Polls have also found that while most Americans favor granting legal status to many illegal immigrants, they are willing to combine that policy with ideas, such as the end of the diversity-visa lottery, that are associated with restrictionists. The firmness and definitiveness of public opinion are easy to overstate. My own sense of the politics, from having covered immigration about as long as Hayes has, is that the main reason the bills of 2005-13 lost was that a significant number of Americans who are not in the grip of racial or demographic panic believed that one amnesty would simply lead to another one in the future: that the bills’ enforcement measures would not be followed for the long haul, and we would end up with a new batch of illegal immigrants in addition to the ones we had legalized. This seems to me an entirely reasonable view, and its prevalence argues for a step-by-step process in which trust is built up. I’ll concede, though, that Hayes’s view that one side of the debate has to be completely defeated and anathematized for any good to be done is more in keeping with the spirit of our age.