 |
|
|
|||||
The Trump administration has repeatedly said it wants to deport as many people as possible. What that means for the estimated 8.3 million unauthorized immigrants in the American workforce is unclear. It is also unclear whether those mass deportations will happen. The deportations recorded so far arent on track to meet Trumps goal. And the economic reality is that deporting huge numbers of immigrants could cause severe labor shortages. As many as 1 in 20 U.S. workers are unauthorized immigrants. If they all were forced to leave or were too scared to show up to work, it could harm the economy. In some cases, the labor rights of unauthorized workers could be another obstacle. I am a professor who has spent more than two decades researching immigrant labor organizing. In Scaling Migrant Worker Rights, a book I coauthored with sociologist Shannon Gleeson, we explained that unauthorized workers in the U.S. have labor rights and how those workers can defend them. While challenging, in some cases, labor laws have protected some unauthorized immigrants from deportation, at least temporarily. Legal protections Federal and state laws guarantee some basic protections for all workers, regardless of their immigration status. That includes the right to have a safe workplace and to earn the prevailing minimum wage where theyre employed, as well as overtime pay. Workers can report labor violations to the government, even if they are foreign-born and lack the legal authorization to work in the U.S. Its illegal for employers to retaliate for labor organizing at the workplace or for reporting minimum wage or overtime violations, unsafe working conditions, sexual harassment, or racial discrimination. To be sure, ensuring that these rights are respected is hard for workers who fear deportationespecially during an extremely anti-immigrant administration like the one Trump leads. And unauthorized workers dont have all the labor rights of citizens and permanent residents. For example, if an unauthorized worker is illegally fired for trying to form a union, they arent entitled to back pay or reinstatement as a citizen or an immigrant who has obtained the requisite authorization to work in the U.S. would be. This limitation essentially renders the right to organize a union meaningless for unauthorized immigrants if their employers retaliate. Obstacles and intimidation Enforcing immigrants rights is, of course, hard to do. Many immigrants dont speak English well. They may distrust the government. They could have trouble affording a lawyer or finding one who will represent them for free when faced with a labor law violation. Labor standards enforcement for unauthorized workers relies heavily on worker complaints, placing the burden on victims to speak out and submit a claim when faced with a violation. But they find it difficult to navigate through many layers of bureaucracy to file complaints with the proper authorities. Many undocumented workers also face intimidation from their employers, who might threaten to report them to immigration authorities if they complain to the Labor Department about unfair treatment or unsafe working conditions. This fear of deportation keeps many vulnerable workers silent about their exploitation. With only 650 investigators on staff at the Department of Labor in charge of enforcing minimum wage, overtime, and child labor lawsas of late 2024enforcement is mostly reactive. Only 1% of all farm employers were investigated annually, even before the second Trump administration began. Those numbers could climb if the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, or ICE, were to resume the large-scale enforcement raids the Biden administration halted in 2021. Previously, ICE had visited meatpacking plants and other employers from Texas to Tennessee that rely heavily on immigrant labor, in order to verify employment authorization documents. The authorities detain workers without valid papers, possibly deporting them. Their employers may face criminal fines and penalties and be ordered to stop hiring unauthorized immigrant workers. By early March 2025, the second Trump administration has not raided any large businesses. Instead, it has emphasized traffic stops and visits to small employers in communities with large numbers of unauthorized immigrants. But many big employers and communities are bracing for a wave of those operations. Wage theft and contributions to fund benefits they cant get Working conditions for immigrants without authorization were already difficult before Trump took office for a second time. Partly due to fear that their employers will report them to federal immigration enforcement authorities if they speak up, many of them experience wage theft, meaning that they dont get all of their pay and benefits, or their compensation falls below the minimum wage where they reside. Despite their typically low earnings, immigrants living without authorization who are employed in the U.S. pay more than $96billion in federal, state, and local taxes per year. They also contribute to the Social Security system even though they cant access these benefits when they retire, which the Internal Revenue Service requires of employers. Deferred Action for Labor Enforcement program Yet, over the years, many undocumented workers have come forward to defend their labor rights with the support of worker centers, labor unions, migrant-led organizations, and consulates from their countries of origin. Decades of increasingly visible grassroots advocacy for immigrant workers without authorization paid off in January 2023, when the Department of Homeland Security launched the Deferred Action for Labor Enforcement program. Known as DALE, it protects immigrant workers from exploitation and encourage reporting labor violations without fear of immigration consequences. This government program provides temporary deportation protections and work permits to eligible workers, with more than 7,700 work permits issued by October of 2024. The DALE program has encouraged many workers to come forward and report labor violations without fear of retaliation for speaking up, thus increasing minimum labor protections for all workers at thousands of workplaces. DALEs fate, however, is unclear now with Trump back in the White House. Xóchitl Bada is a professor of Latin American and Latino studies at the University of Illinois Chicago. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
Scores of wildfires broke out across North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia in early March 2025 as strong winds, abnormally dry conditions and low humidity combined to kindle and spread the flames. The fires followed a year of weather whiplash in the Carolinas, from a flash drought over the summer to extreme hurricane flooding in September, and then back to drought again. Storms on March 5, 2025, helped douse many of the fires still burning, but the Southeast fire season is only beginning. Wake Forest University wildfire experts Lauren Lowman and Nick Corak put the fires and the regions dry winter into context. Why did the Carolinas see so many wildfires? Most of North and South Carolina have been abnormally dry or in moderate drought since at least November 2024. Consistently dry conditions through the winter dried out vegetation, leaving fuel for wildfires. When the land and vegetation is this dry, all it takes is a lightning strike or a man-made fire and wind gusts to start a wildfire. Hurricanes did flood the region in late summer 2024, but before that, the Carolinas were experiencing a flash drought. Flash droughts are extreme droughts that develop rapidly due to lack of precipitation and dry conditions in the atmosphere. When the atmosphere is dry, it pulls water from the vegetation and soils, causing the surface to dry out. In August and September, Tropical Storm Debby and Hurricane Helene caused extensive flooding in the two states, but the Carolinas received little rainfall in the months that followed, leaving winter 2025 abnormally dry again. How unusual are fires like this in the region? Fires are historically fairly common in the Carolinas. Theyre a natural part of the landscape, and many ecosystems have evolved to depend on them. Carnivorous plants such as Venus flytraps and pitcher plants rely on frequent fire activity to remove shrubs and other plants that would grow over them and block the light. Even some wildlife depend on fire for their habitats and for food from the mix of native plants that regrow after a fire. The expected return periods for wildfires (how often fires have historically burned in a region) range from 1 to 10 years for the Piedmont and Coastal Plains in the east and 10 to 40 years in the Appalachian Mountains. However, many unplanned fires today are put out. That means underbrush that would normally burn every decade or so can build up over time, fueling more intense fires when it does burn. To avoid that overgrowth, land managers conduct annual prescribed fires to try to mimic that natural fire activity in a controlled way. These controlled burns are critical for removing vegetation that otherwise could provide additional fuel for more intense and damaging wildfires. Is dryness like this becoming more common? Extreme weather events are becoming more common across the U.S., including in the Southeast and the Carolinas. Increasing temperatures mean the atmosphere can hold more moisture, amplifying how much water it can draw from the land surface and eventually drop in heavier storms. That can lead to more extreme storms and longer dry periods. In humid regions like the Southeast, where there is an abundance of dense vegetation, periods of warm, dry conditions that dry out that vegetation will increase the risk of wildfire. According to the U.S. Drought Monitor, the southeastern U.S. experienced more droughts than other regions in the country in the first two decades of the 21st century. The weather variability also makes it harder to clear out forest undergrowth. Prescribed burns require that vegetation be dry enough to burn but also that winds are calm enough to allow firefighters to manage the flames. Studies show those conditions are likely to become less common in the Southeast in a warming world. Without that tool to reduce fuel, the risk of intense wildfires rises. Lauren Lowman is an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at Wake Forest University. Nick Corak is a PhD candidate in physics at Wake Forest University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
President Donald Trumps dramatic cuts to U.S. government grants are destabilizing every corner of the nonprofit sector, leaving organizations scrambling to adapt. Stacy Palmer, CEO of The Chronicle of Philanthropy, explores how organizations can adjust to the unpredictable philosophy of the new administration, the cuts relationship to Trumps war on diversity, equity, and inclusion, and why this moment could further fracture the ties that bind Americans together. This is an abridged transcript of an interview from Rapid Response, hosted by Robert Safian, former editor-in-chief of Fast Company. From the team behind the Masters of Scale podcast, Rapid Response features candid conversations with todays top business leaders navigating real-time challenges. Subscribe to Rapid Response wherever you get your podcasts to ensure you never miss an episode. Thousands of not-for-profits, aid groups, universities, and hospitals rely on government grants. The Trump administration has targeted that aid, first announcing a full-on freeze of grants and loans in late January, later rescinded, but many subsequent cuts. Then in his recent address to Congress, he name-checked a litany of what he framed as wasteful, absurd grants. What’s going on? What is the mood like in the philanthropy world? Is it anger, is it fear? Are there any cheers? Nonprofits and foundations are mostly terrified, for a lot of different reasons. One is about just the philosophy of cutting off this aid. One is about the direct impact on their organizations. The other is that there’s fear for the safety of their staffsa lot of concern about whether all of this targeting of nonprofits might lead to physical or cybersecurity or other kinds of threats. So I would say most people in the nonprofit world are in a very bad state, worse than I’ve seen before in my history of covering these organizations, and worse than it was in the Reagan administration when we saw a lot of cuts. Even the conservatives who feel strongly about cutting government and see that there’s waste are very upset about the fact that this seems so haphazard, that there’s not a philosophy of the idea that we should ask philanthropy to take up the charge and we should be organized about how we think about that. This all seems very random. It comes, it goes. It means that nonprofits can’t make payroll. It means that foundations can’t figure out what the smartest strategy is to do. So it’s a pretty rough time in the nonprofit and foundation world. Beyond the funding, you mentioned concerns for physical safety. Are there examples of that or stories of that? Are you hearing that from certain kinds of organizations? I’ve talked to several grantmakers who said that the first request they’re getting for extra funding is to beef up security, and that organizations that deal with the most controversial issuesimmigrants, LGBTQ rights, those kinds of thingsfeel threatened. They say that they’re concerned about doxxing, and I don’t have any examples, but I can’t tell whether they’re withholding the examples because of fear. Things are moving so fast. I know youve launched special coverage to try to keep up with the Trump agenda. Is money still flowing but nobody knows for how long? Or has it been cut off, and is that what were talking aboutlike a faucet being turned all the way off? Some groups, even though a court said the money has to keep flowing, say that the money isn’t flowing and that they’ve suffered freezes. Environmental groups, for example, say that they can’t figure out what’s going on with their banks not releasing the money to them, and so there have been disputes over that. It’s not that no aid is flowing. I think some is, but it’s in no organized way that you can figure out why is it coming from some agencies and not others. And when you think about it, all the federal workers who have been laid off, those are the people who would turn on the spigots and make sure that things are flowing and happening. Well, you can’t call the person in the federal government who you used to call. They’re not there anymore. I’m curious how you would describe the sort of role of philanthropy and of nonprofit organizations overall in our economy and our society. One of the things that people don’t really understand is they see billionaires who are incredibly wealthy, and they see them giving away moneypeople like Bill Gates and Melinda [French] Gates, Warren Buffettand the dollars are striking. They give more than any of us could think about giving, but they are tiny compared to what the federal government spends. The Gates Foundation could spend all of the money in its coffers, and it would just keep the government operating for a day. It’s just the scale is quite different. So it’s very important to understand the role that government plays, and it’s twofold. One is direct funding of nonprofits. The second is when the federal government and the state and local governments pull back, there are more people in need. That means they turn to nonprofits for extra help. So often what happens in these cutbacks is not just that the nonprofits lose the support they need to provide services, but they have more people at their doors. So the scale of what philanthropy can do versus the federal government is really important to understand. Now, that’s not to say that philanthropy can’t pick up more. There has been an enormous run-up in wealth, as we all know. There are many billionaires who could give very generously and make a difference. So nonprofits are certainly calling on them to do more and calling on the nation’s foundationsFord, Rockefeller, all the names that you all knowasking them to step up. But it would be foolish to think that any private entities can make up for what the government’s doing. I have to ask you about Elon Musk. What do folks think of him in the philanthropy world? I mean, there is a Gates Foundation. Bloomberg has a foundation. Musk is not necessarily known for that, and he’s having kind of a different impact. Elon Musk, along with President Trump, said some of the most destructive things about nonprofits themselvesthat they are horrible organizations that are just sleazy and just trying to make money off of things like homelessness. So there’s been a lot of nonprofit-bashing by both Musk and Trump, and that’s incredibly damaging. If they don’t believe in the value of these organizations, it’s going to cause damage in the short term in terms of resources. But if you were a young person trying to decide where you were going to have a career, if you were motivated to want to be a nonprofit or philanthropy worker, why would you do that after somebody has made it sound like it’s the dirtiest profession ever rather than a call to public service? And I guess in the corporate and the nonprofit reactions in their programs, on attacks on things like DEI or environmental, how much of that is a shift in semantics versus a shift in mission? I’ve seen the term green-hushing rise, sort of the opposite of greenwashing. So hiding sustainability efforts, renaming things that had been DEI to be somethingelse. What about this is semantics versus mission? I know pretty much every foundation we’ve talked to said that they’re looking at every word on their website and seeing whether there are trigger words. Just as you see in the federal government, lawyers are reviewing absolutely everything a foundation does to make sure things are okay. In the absence of really clear guidance from the administration, you can imagine why that’s taking a really long time, but it is not leading anybody to move quickly. Is there any time in history that you’re looking to as you cover this shifting dynamic in the White House and beyond, or is this so unprecedented that there’s really no place to look? The Reagan administration is the one that comes closest because there were these very serious cutbacks, and there was this whole discussion about what is the role of philanthropy and what is the role of nonprofits and how should we do it. So we have asked experts about what kinds of things they have to say. I have two conservatives and two liberals who were involved at that moment who were working in the nonprofit arena, and they all agreed it was unprecedented. And the reason they said that it is this haphazardness, and what one said, who is a very strong conservative, said, “We’ve just never seen something this nasty.” The anger, the kind of feeling that none of this aid matters, it’s deeply disturbing to people really of any ideology because they [Trump and Musk] don’t see that there is an ideology. They want to talk about the view of government. There can be robust debates on that, but this seems unprecedented to the people who have watched this over a long period, which is making it hard to have a playbook. And I think that’s why nonprofits and foundations are struggling. What do you do when you can’t look to history and you have to figure out fresh what’s happening and how to come together? Philanthropy and the work of nonprofits, in a lot of ways, is inherently optimistic. Is there anything thats making you optimistic right now? I think as long as we continue to have nonprofits that are willing to work collectively to make a difference, that does make me optimistic, because sometimes nonprofits just worry about their own communities, their own causes, their own coffers, and don’t take collective action. But if they will come together and continue to do that and stay strong, that could make a big difference.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||