This NYT article, March 7, 2021, highlights the plight of Cristina Morales, a T.P.S. holder, and her daughter, Crista, who are the lead plaintiffs in the case seeking to prevent the U.S. government from terminating the program for Salvadorans. Their earlier Lawsuit Prevented 400,000 Deportations.
Now It’s Biden’s Call. Trump tried to end a 30-year program that shielded migrants, many fleeing conditions that U.S. foreign policy helped foster. What does America owe them?
This excellent article, in English and Spanish, shows the origins of this program and the attempts by the Trump political operatives to ignore the State Department advisors on this program, and terminate this program.
Here is the web site. There is also an audio recording available on this site.
Many Americans have never heard of this humanitarian immigration program.
Congress created Temporary Protected Status (TPS) in the Immigration Act of 1990. It is a temporary immigration status provided to nationals of specifically designated countries that are confronting an ongoing armed conflict, environmental disaster, or extraordinary and temporary conditions. It provides a work permit and stay of deportation to foreign nationals from those countries who are in the United States at the time the U.S. government makes the designation. There were approximately 411,000 TPS recipients residing in the United States as of October 2020.
“Immigrants will take American jobs, lower our wages, and especially hurt the poor.”
This is the most common argument and also the one with the greatest amount of evidence rebutting it. First, the displacement effect is small if it even affects natives at all. Immigrants are typically attracted to growing regions and they increase the supply and demand sides of the economy once they are there, expanding employment opportunities. Second, the debate over immigrant impacts on American wages is confined to the lower single digits—immigrants may increase the relative wages for some Americans by a tiny amount and decrease them by a larger amount for the few Americans who directly compete against them. Immigrants likely compete most directly against other immigrants so the effects on less-skilled native-born Americans might be very small or even positive.
Our attitudes about immigrants are wrapped up not only with our personal characteristics, life experiences, and beliefs about a wide range of other issues, they are also integrally shaped by our social identities. For instance, we are galvanized when a social group that we feel a part of is under threat. Amidst today’s toxic polarization, for example, both liberals and conservatives feel threatened by the other. We are also influenced by the emotions and stances our social groups have or take towards an issue (group norms). People often think and act in accordance with perceived group norms rather than rely on their own individual attitudes or beliefs. Lastly, both threat and the influence that group norms have on us feel even more powerful when our group affiliations overlap (e.g., say one is white, evangelical, and conservative, and that each of those groups shares the same life situations, threat perceptions and policy stances).
At a time when people have more information at their fingertips than ever, it feels as though it has become equally easy to share it widely or to ignore, discount, and discredit it. Several factors have contributed to this state of affairs. New technologies have given a platform to a wider range of voices, but this has also meant that unvetted information and politically motivated “fake news” find their way more easily into the bloodstream of public debate. Human nature also shapes how people consume and recall information, making them more likely to resist information that contradicts their existing beliefs and personal experiences.
A NATION OF IMMIGRANTS”—THESE FOUR WORDS, (The phrase was popularized by John F. Kennedy, who used it as the title of his 1958 book), genius in their concision, mask the messiest of histories. People like to recall that George Washington wanted America to “be an Asylum to the persecuted of the earth.” Less often praised: Ben Franklin’s contention that immigrants are “the most ignorant Stupid Sort of their own Nation.” Americans have been having some version of this argument ever since. And for much of the country’s existence, public opinion towards immigration has ranged from tepid to hostile. As Daniel Tichenor, author of the comprehensive history, “Dividing Lines,” puts it, “We love the immigrant past and dread the immigrant present.”
Mexico is the largest importer of U.S. pork, and a new report from the National Pork Board (NPB) shows there is an opportunity to capitalize on the U.S. Latino market.
The report called Time to Tango: Latinos are Pork’s Future, is the largest Insight to Action research from the Pork Checkoff. According to Bill Even, CEO of the NPB, Latinos have $1.7 billion in buying power, spending $95 billion each year on consumer-packaged goods, like groceries.
We are at a critical moment in the coffee industry. The New York Coffee “C” Contract price—which is basically the benchmark for determining price between producers and buyers—dropped from around $2 a pound in 2014 to 89 cents in 2019—a more than 50 percent drop and a 14-year low. At this price, coffee farmers are unable to cover even the most basic costs associated with coffee production.