LAN

The Latino Action Network is a grassroots organization composed of individuals and organizations that are committed to engaging in collective action at the local, state and national levels in order to advance the equitable inclusion of the diverse Latino communities in all aspects of United States society.
Showing posts with label Trump. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Trump. Show all posts

Thursday, October 18, 2018

Latino Action Network PAC Announces Congressional Endorsements; Senator Menendez Praised as Champion of Immigrant Rights

NEWARK: The Latino Action Network Continuing Political Committee (LAN-PAC) today released their 2018 Congressional endorsements after weeks of careful review and study. The endorsements were based in part on personal interviews and an analysis of the career and in some cases voting records of the candidates.

“We believe that we need to send a clear message to Donald Trump and elect Democrats to Congress,” said LAN President Christian Estevez. “Donald Trump has spent the last few years scapegoating Latinos and the immigrant community in general. Many of those running on the Republican side have done nothing to distance themselves from the President’s objectionable remarks and hatred.”

Estevez continued: “Trump’s hateful rhetoric, incarceration of immigrant children and demagogic appeals to build a border wall speak volumes about the GOP agenda. Anyone who stand with Trump does represent us.”

US Senate: Bob Menendez

During his career in Congress, Menendez has proven himself to be a champion of comprehensive immigration reform and a voice of reason in the US Senate. Several years ago, the Senator worked with LAN to insure affordable housing would be part of the Superstorm Sandy recovery plan. In stark contrast, his opponent is an unethical businessman, who as a pharmaceutical executive, was responsible for a steep cost increase in badly needed medicine. Now he wants to use his wealth to buy a U.S. Senate seat, all the while lying about his close ties to Trump.

District 1: Donald Norcross:

Congressman Norcross has shown himself to be a progressive champion of labor rights while in Congress. We are especially happy to see him advocate for a $15 an hour minimum wage.

District 2: No recommendation:

District 3: No recommendation:

District 4: No recommendation:

District 5: No recommendation:

We are very disappointed with Congressman Josh Gottheimer. Despite being elected as a Democrat, he has sided with the Republican majority far too often in his short time in Congress on key issues such as immigration and health care. His Republican opponent adheres to the same anti-immigrant principles as Donald Trump.  Therefore, we cannot recommend that anyone vote for either of these candidates.

District 6: Frank Pallone

Congressman Pallone has been a champion of expanding health care which has benefited countless Hispanic and working poor families in New Jersey and across the United States during his tenure in Congress and deserves to be sent back to continue his advocacy.

District 7: Tom Malinowski:

As an immigrant himself, Tom Malinowski understands the struggles that our community often goes through. Malinowski has shown himself to be a progressive and believes in causes such as the $15 an hour minimum wage.

District 8: Albio Sires:

Albio Sires is another champion of comprehensive immigration reform. We strongly endorse his re-election.

District 9: Bill Pascrell:

Congressman Pascrell is a consistent supporter of progressive issues and has used his senior position in Congress to benefit Latino and working poor communities.

District 10: Don Payne, Jr.:

Congressman Payne has called out the lack of progress rebuilding Puerto Rico in the wake of Hurricane Maria and Trump’s poor response to it. For that, and his progressive stance on the issues, he deserves to be re-elected.

District 11: Mikie Sherrill

We believe Mikie Sherrill would be a welcome change over incumbent Rodney Frelinghuysen and her opponent Jay Webber. Sherill served with distinction in the U.S. Navy and has been superb as a lawyer in tackling criminal justice issues. She will bring new energy and a bipartisan approach to Congress.

District 12: Bonnie Watson Coleman


Bonnie Watson Coleman has been a staunch supporter of issues that are important to Latinos and the working poor living in New Jersey. She has been at the forefront in the fight to ensure Dreamers are guaranteed a pathway to citizenship. Furthermore, Congresswoman Watson Coleman has expressed her strong displeasure with the Trump administration’s policies regarding separating families at the Mexican border.

Thursday, August 31, 2017

Ending DACA harms N.J.'s economy, wastes future of Americanized immigrants | Opinion


By Erika J. Nava 

Ending the common-sense 2012 immigration initiative that has allowed more than 20,000 young New Jerseyans realize the promise of the American Dream and contribute to the state's economy would waste the potential of these young striving immigrants -- and cause serious harm to the Garden State's economy. 

In fact, New Jersey would be one of the hardest hit states -- with the fifth largest economic loss -- if this successful program is ended.  

The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program allows some undocumented young residents who were brought to the United States as minors to stay in the country and work legally. Since its inception, it has given 800,000 young people across the nation a better shot at success. And its recipients have capitalized on the opportunity, getting better jobs, earning higher wages, increasing their participation in the consumer economy and paying taxes. 

But now DACA is under attack and President Trump has only until Sept. 5 to either end the program or fight a lawsuit from 10 state attorneys general; rumors are swirling that he may end the program at any moment. Doing so would disproportionately harm communities across immigrant-rich New Jersey and would be a huge step backward for the country.  

To many undocumented youth who were brought to the U.S. as young children, DACA was the first real opportunity to pursue the American Dream and show their potential in ways that had been denied to them solely because of their legal status. DACA permitted many of them to obtain a driver's license, secure a job that matched their skillset, purchase their first car, travel abroad, attend college and - most importantly - feel less fear that they'd be separated from their families and communities via deportation.  

By stifling these young immigrants' opportunities, ending DACA would also harm New Jersey's economy.  

When more people are able to work legally in higher paying jobs that match their skills, they are less vulnerable to wage theft, workplace exploitation, and less likely to suffer from discrimination due to their legal status. All of these factors help the economy of our state and the nation, as they are translated into higher tax revenue and more economic productivity.  

With 22,000 DACA recipients, only eight states have a higher number than New Jersey. Of these young New Jerseyans, 87 percent are working. They contribute $66 million in state and local taxes each year, the seventh highest level of all states. Ending DACA would cause an immediate 32 percent reduction in those tax payments. 

But the potential harm to New Jersey's economy is much broader than the reduction in tax collections. In fact, if DACA is repealed, the Garden State would lose an estimated $1.6 billion each year in state Gross Domestic Product - the fifth largest dollar loss of all states.  

Ending DACA would also create economic uncertainty for many families.

Many of the young DREAMers -- armed with the slightest bit of economic security -- have been able to take out loans to buy a car or a home, to pay for college or to open a small business. If the program ends, many of these young immigrants will either lose their job altogether, or be forced back into the shadowy low-wage underground, seriously limiting their ability to keep up with loan repayments and starting a cycle of economic distress.   

New Jersey's Congressional Republicans -- who played an outsized role in ensuring that the Trump administration failed to strip health care from millions -- must step up again and put the best interests of the state and country ahead of political party.

Menendez: ending program for immigrant children would be 'heartless'

Sitting on the sidelines and watching as the lives of enterprising immigrant youth are turned upside down is not OK. Our state's moderate voices must join their GOP colleagues from both blue and red states who are voicing their support for DACA and urging President Trump to keep the program intact.  

Despite the myths and xenophobic falsehoods spread by some, we know that once young immigrants are given the chance to participate in America's economy and society, they capitalize on the opportunity.

And we all benefit. Lawmakers should be focused on providing these -- and other -- striving immigrants a real shot at the American Dream, not on stealing their economic futures and dimming ours.  

Erika J. Nava is a Policy Analyst at New Jersey Policy Perspective, a liberal think tank, which drives policy change to advance economic justice and prosperity for all New Jerseyans.

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/08/ending_daca_would_harm_njs_economy_waste_potential.html

Monday, March 27, 2017

If Trump defunds 'sanctuary cities,' N.J. will pay more for mass deportations | Opinion

President Trump is threatening to take federal money from towns -- including many in New Jersey -- that refuse to join his extremely costly mass deportation system. 

If Trump defunds 'sanctuary cities,' N.J. will pay more for mass deportations | Opinion

Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced Monday that the Trump administration will "claw back" funding to so-called "sanctuary cities" if they refuse to inform Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials after placing an unauthorized immigrant in custody. (Photo by Shawn Thew | EPA)

By Rudy A. Rodas 

President Trump is threatening to take federal money from towns -- including many in New Jersey -- that refuse to join his extremely costly mass deportation system. 

Let's be clear. The issue of "sanctuary cities" is not a problem because towns want to protect noncriminal immigrants.  The problem is that Trump is forcing towns to spend their money and resources on his deportation force. 

Taking federal funds away from municipalities that do not comply could put the jobs of local police officers and teachers at risk. This is a bad policy by the federal government -- a problem that needs an immediate bipartisan response from New Jersey elected officials.

Democratic State Sen. Brian Stack has proposed legislation to help municipalities pay their bills if Trump withholds federal funds. A separate state fund would replace these losses. Unfortunately, Republicans across the board have refused to support this legislation.

Gov. Chris Christie threatened to veto the bill. Gubernatorial candidate and Assemblyman Jack Ciattarelli stated that he believes in compassionate immigration reform, but he also stated he is against this legislation. He claims towns that adopt policies like sanctuary cities place public safety at risk and cost New Jersey taxpayers billions.

Criminalizing our best neighbors in Trump World | Editorial

Ciattarelli's reasoning does not make sense. Towns do not want to help Trump because it is a waste of their money and resources to focus on people who are not a threat to public safety. They want to spend money on education, community activities, road improvements, and local public safety initiatives. They also want to maintain the trust between police and the undocumented communities that help keep their neighborhoods safe.  

This fiscal year, municipalities in the state are expected to receive $15.7 billion in federal funds. Trump is threatening towns to either spend time and money on helping him deport people or lose these federal funds. Either way, these towns will not be able to use this money to make positive improvements in their community.

It actually is more expensive for taxpayers if towns agree to become a part of Trump's mass deportation system. 

There are 500,000 unauthorized immigrants in New Jersey. Many have been in New Jersey longer in their countries of birth. Many are married to U.S. citizens and have U.S. citizen children. They haven't applied for legal status for risk of being separated from their family. Despite their challenges, they work hard at their jobs, start businesses, coach their kids' sports teams, volunteer at their churches, and pay their taxes. (According to the Institute on Economic Policy and Taxation, New Jersey's undocumented immigrants contribute nearly $600 million in state and local taxes).

It is state taxpayers and the economy that will face the financial consequences of the federal government's plan to uproot thousands of families. U.S. citizen children left behind will become wards of the state. They will require additional government, social, and educational resources. 

Multiple sectors of the economy will suffer from the labor shortage.  A study by the Center for American Progress showed that if all unauthorized immigrants from New Jersey were deported, the state economy would lose almost $26 billion in annual gross domestic product.

In its entirety, Trump's mass deportation program of raiding, arresting, and jailing will destabilize our state economy and cost New Jersey taxpayers more money than we have to spend.

New Jersey lawmakers should draw lessons from their recent bipartisan efforts to treat wide-spread opioid addiction in the state.  

Christie chose to spend state funds on rehabilitating nonviolent offenders because it costs more to incarcerate them. He also recognized the emotional hardships families suffered and wanted to focus on keeping families together.

Along the same lines, it will cost less taxpayer money for the state government to support towns that want to spend funds on improving their communities instead of causing hardships to thousands of families.  

Last November, the majority of New Jersey voters did not vote for Donald Trump. We proved our belief in compassion, equality, and strong family values.

Now, the Trump administration challenges our values. Trump believes in wielding a heavy hand. He wants to arrest and jail his way out of problems no matter the cost to taxpayers. 

This is bad policy for New Jerseyans, it's a bad idea for the nation.

Rudy A. Rodas is chairman of the Immigration Committee at the Latino Action Network, a New Jersey coalition of Latino organizations dedicated to political empowerment, the promotion of civil rights, and the elimination of disparities in the areas of education, health, and employment. 

 

Bookmark NJ.com/Opinion. Follow on Twitter @NJ_Opinion and find NJ.com Opinion on Facebook.


Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Latino Action Network Denounces Muslim Ban and Wall of Hate along the Mexican Border

Latino Action Network Denounces Muslim Ban and 

Wall of Hate along the Mexican Border

 

Actions are “anti-democratic”

 

For Immediate Release: January 31, 2017

Contact:

Christian Estevez, President – 973-418-7012

 

The Latino Action Network [LAN] today denounced the discriminatory policies of the Trump Administration and pledged to support efforts to challenge the partial ban on Muslims entering the country. The religious ban coupled with the recent proposal to construct a wall of hate along the southern border are “anti-democratic and undermine the core principles of our nation.”

 

“The Trump Administration is sowing seeds of hate and division across the nation,” said LAN President Christian Estevez. “We will do all we can in the months and years ahead to support our Muslim and Mexican sisters and brothers. The LAN pledges to take part in all efforts in the courts and in the streets to oppose our hateful and narcissistic president.”

 

President Trump signed an executive order on January 25 promoting the construction of a wall along the Mexican border as part of his ongoing smear campaign against the Latino community who at various times he has linked to rapists and criminals. It is important to note that for the first time in 20 years there are no Latinos in the federal cabinet.

 

The border wall executive order was followed on January 27 by the equally offensive order imposing a partial Muslim entry ban from seven different nations. It is important to note that countries where Trump owns properties were not included in the list of Muslim nations in the executive order. 

 

Trump represents the greatest threat to American democracy since the Nixon Administration,” Estevez continued. “He is a narcissist and a racist and we will not sit idly by and watch him dismantle our democratic traditions.”

 

LAN is a broad, statewide coalition of Latino organizations dedicated to political empowerment, the promotion of civil rights, and the elimination of disparities in the areas of education, health, and employment. It was founded in 2009.

 

Tuesday, August 11, 2015

New Jerseyans Largely Support a Pathway to Citizenship, Show Increasingly Positive Views on Immigration


August 10, 2015

NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. – As the immigration debate rages on in the race to 2016, New Jerseyans increasingly support a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants currently working in the United States, according to the latest Rutgers-Eagleton Poll. Sixty-four percent of residents now believe undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay and apply for U.S. citizenship, an increase of 12 points since last asked by the Rutgers-Eagleton Poll in 2012. Another 15 percent say they should be allowed to stay as temporary guest workers but not be able to apply, down seven points. Eighteen percent think they should be required to leave the country, a decline of four points.

“Last night, Donald Trump claimed no one was talking about immigration until he did, but here in New Jersey, immigration – both legal and not – has been a hot topic for years,” said Ashley Koning, assistant director of the Eagleton Center for Public Interest Polling at Rutgers University. “In Rutgers-Eagleton polls in the past two decades, New Jerseyans have solidly supported legal status and then citizenship for immigrants. This is not surprising, given that New Jersey is one of the most diverse states and that one in five residents is an immigrant.”

The personal importance of immigration to New Jerseyans has increased over time as well: 14 percent now say it is the most important issue to them, up nine points since 2012, and another 29 percent say it is one of a few very important issues. Thirty-nine percent say it is somewhat important (down seven points), and 17 percent say it is not important to them at all (down three points).

More New Jersey residents also have a positive opinion of immigrants’ impact on everyday life today than they did in 2012.



Photo: Eldar Kamalov

But even with these increases, 41 percent say the number of immigrants in the Garden State is too high, up five points since 2012; another 44 percent say it is just right. Moreover, immigration remains a partisan issue, with notable differences between the two parties and even among Republicans, specifically among Donald Trump supporters compared to the GOP as a whole.

Results are from a statewide poll of 867 adults contacted by live callers on both landlines and cell phones from July 25 to August 1. The sample has a margin of error of +/-3.9 percentage points. Interviews were done in English and, when requested, Spanish.

Importance of citizenship influenced by demographics

Immigration is an especially personal issue within certain demographics. Three-quarters of residents who identify as Hispanic support citizenship, compared to 61 percent of non-Hispanics. Similar patterns exist for those not born in the United States and those whose parents immigrated to this country.

These same groups are also more likely, by double digits, to say immigration is personally important to them: 40 percent of Hispanics, 30 percent of foreign-born residents and 21 percent of those with foreign-born parents say it is the most important issue, with the majority of each group saying the issue is at least one of a few of their top concerns.

Interaction with immigrants in daily life also has an impact: support for citizenship and personal importance increases along with frequency of interaction. Over seven in 10 who say immigrants make their neighborhood, workplace, or the state a better place also favor citizenship.

Younger generations are much more supportive of citizenship – though not more likely to say the issue is important – than older ones, as support steadily declines with age.

Importance of immigration does not necessarily imply support of citizenship, however. Among supporters, 15 percent say it is the most important issue for them, and another 25 percent say it is one of few. But those who favor deportation also feel strongly about it, with 16 percent saying immigration is their top issue and another 38 percent saying it is one of the most important.

Republicans now support citizenship, but dividing lines persist

Partisans of all stripes support a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants in the United States, though to varying degrees: Democrats at 78 percent, independents at 57 percent and even Republicans at 51 percent. But Republicans and independents are also more likely to say undocumented immigrants should be forced to leave the country, at 28 percent and 21 percent respectively, while just 10 percent of Democrats say the same.

Those favorable toward former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton resemble Democrats in general, with 72 percent supporting citizenship. Those who like Gov. Chris Christie likewise resemble Republicans in general. But Donald Trump supporters are notably more negative about welcoming immigrants: 46 percent favor citizenship, 17 percent prefer legal status, and 35 percent choose deportation – the highest of any demographic.

“Republicans as a whole have come a long way on the issue since we last polled this in 2012, when they were mostly split over citizenship, with 37 percent expressing support and another 33 percent favoring deportation,” said Koning. “The double-digit increase to majority support in two years is remarkable. But of course, there are many different views about immigration reform on the national stage right now – especially among contenders on the Republican side like Donald Trump. And we see these differences play out when we specifically look at Trump supporters’ attitudes on citizenship, which are more conservative than the rest of the party.”

Republicans are slightly more negative regarding other aspects of the immigration issue. While there are minimal party differences in personal importance, just over half of Republicans feel the number of immigrants in the Garden State is too high, compared to 35 percent of Democrats and 39 percent of independents. Those in Trump’s corner are especially likely to say the number of immigrants in the state is too high, at 58 percent, compared to Christie supporters or the GOP as a whole.

Republicans are also less likely to say that immigrants have a positive impact on different parts of daily life. Nineteen percent say immigrants make their neighborhood better, compared to 39 percent of Democrats and 31 percent of independents. GOPers feel somewhat similarly about the workplace, with about a quarter believing immigrants make it better, versus almost four in 10 of other partisans. As for New Jersey itself, 29 percent of Republicans view immigrants’ influence positively, compared to 40 percent of independents and 49 percent of Democrats. Republicans say they interact with immigrants on a daily basis to a lesser extent than other partisans – at 52 percent, versus 59 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of independents.

Increased interaction and perceptions of immigrants’ positive effects

The overall increase in support for immigration and importance of the issue among New Jerseyans may stem from their frequent interaction with immigrants and their increased belief that immigrants have a positive effect on society. Six in 10 say they interact with someone from another country every day; another two in 10 say a few times a week. The remaining two in 10 interact with immigrants a few times a month or less.

Thirty-two percent feel people born outside the U.S. have made the quality of life in their neighborhoods better (up six points), while 49 percent say immigrants have not had much of an impact (down 12 points); another 13 percent say immigrants have actually made their neighborhoods worse (up three points). New Jerseyans feel similarly about their place of work, with 36 percent saying immigrants have made it better, a 10-point increase since 2012. Another 43 percent say they have had no effect here (down 11 points), and just nine percent say they have made the workplace worse.

Forty-one percent of residents believe immigrants have made New Jersey as a whole better, a nine-point increase. Twenty-nine percent say they do not have an impact on the state (down six points), and 21 percent say immigrants make the state worse, a drop of four points.


EDITOR’S NOTE: ATTENTION POLITICAL, ASSIGNMENT EDITORS, Poll Assistant Director Ashley Koning may be contacted at 908-872-1186 (cell), 848-932-8940 (office), or akoning@rutgers.edu. Poll Director David Redlawsk may be reached at 319-400-1134 (cell) or redlawsk@rutgers.edu. Questions and tables are available at http://eagletonpoll.rutgers.edu/rep-immigration-Aug2015. Find all releases here. Visit our blog at http://eagletonpollblog.wordpress.com for additional commentary. Follow the Rutgers-Eagleton Poll on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/RutgersEagletonPoll and Twitter @EagletonPoll.

For more Research News, click here.