EXCLUSIVE VIDEO: Mexican Cartels Control the U.S. Border, Says Rep. Chip Roy
The ongoing immigration crisis is caused by Mexican cartels and the federal government is turning a blind eye, Texas Congressman Chip Roy argues.
“The most important thing for the American people to understand is that cartels control the border,” Congressman Roy said. “This administration is allowing it to happen, they are doing it in the name of illegal immigrants and is not compassionate to be forcing people to have to go through the chains of cartels to come to the United States.”
Breitbart Texas spoke with Congressman Roy during a series of border trips where he has been trying to learn from agents on the ground and, at times, migrants themselves about the realities of the immigration crisis. According to Roy, bad policy decisions followed by poor messaging from the Biden Administration triggered the latest surge. The Gulf Cartel and the Cartel Del Noreste faction of Los Zetas have operational control of the border in their respective territories and are profiting since nothing crosses without their permission.
One of the most shocking revelations is that the vast majority of migrants who reach the Texas border have suffered through threats, extortion, abuse, kidnappings, rapes, and other types of horrors at the hands of cartels, he said.
“It’s horrific,” Roy said. “I understand people that want their children to have an opportunity in the United States–I mean who wouldn’t–I get it. But let’s also keep in mind what we are doing to our neighbors to the south.”
The current path is increasing the power of cartels in Mexico who are profiting immensely, while the country’s government is getting weaker, Roy said adding that the crisis is causing a labor and brain drain in Central America.
“We should be working to have a strong Western Hemisphere, where we have strong countries and neighbors to the south,” Roy said. “We should be improving the conditions of countries to the south by working with them rather than empowering cartels.”
Ildefonso Ortiz is an award-winning journalist with Breitbart Texas. He co-founded Breitbart Texas’ Cartel Chronicles project with Brandon Darby and senior Breitbart management. You can follow him on Twitter and on Facebook. He can be contacted at Iortiz@breitbart.com.
Brandon Darby is the managing director and editor-in-chief of Breitbart Texas. He co-founded Breitbart Texas’ Cartel Chronicles project with Ildefonso Ortiz and senior Breitbart management. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook. He can be contacted at bdarby@breitbart.com.
Gerald “Tony” Aranda is a contributing writer for Breitbart Texas.
Joe Biden’s Push on Gun Control Distracts from Historic Border Crisis
President Joe Biden’s push for gun control Thursday distracted the media from new alarming numbers detailing the historic migrant crisis on the Southern border.
The president’s Rose Garden event highlighted the administration’s planned executive actions on gun control. The president also emphasized the dreams of gun control advocates, including a new assault rifle ban and reversing liability protections for gun manufacturers.
Biden’s gun control proposals were enough to distract reporters at the White House press briefing Thursday afternoon, who did not ask press secretary Jen Psaki a single question about the border crisis. There was also no mention of the record-breaking numbers of migrants apprehended at the border.
Agents apprehended nearly 170,000 migrants in March, a nearly 72 percent increase in a month. That included a record 18,663 unattended minors in a single month, more than twice the number apprehended in February.
Psaki ignored the crisis during the briefing, bringing in Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm to discuss President Biden’s dramatic spending proposals to increase green energy.
The White House has resisted commenting on the crisis after Biden insisted during a press conference in March that the rise in apprehensions were seasonal.
“It happens every single, solitary year: There is a significant increase in the number of people coming to the border in the winter months of January, February, March. That happens every year,” Biden said.
The latest numbers, however, triggered corporate media fact-checkers to point out the administration’s messaging failure on the issue:
Well, I guess the Biden White House line that this is the usual annual migration surge at the border is no longer operative. pic.twitter.com/VNLIOZffsv
— Glenn Kessler (@GlennKesslerWP) April 8, 2021
Vice President Kamala Harris, despite taking charge of the “root causes” of the border crisis, has focused her travel domestically to promote the coronavirus vaccine and the administration’s proposed $2.5 trillion infrastructure spending plan.
On Wednesday, during the White House press briefing, Psaki declined to detail any trips to the border by the president or the vice president to draw attention to the issue.
“I don’t have any trips to outline or preview,” she said. “What our focus is, on is solutions.”
Kamala Harris gets 'a snack'
So where's Kamala Harris, Joe Biden's border crisis project manager?
Looks like she's in Chicago, getting "a snack," according to White House spokesweasel Jen Psaki.
Such is the simplified summary of the state of things, based on a snapping, flippant reply by the latter to a question from a New York Post reporter. According to the Daily Mail:
New York Post reporter Steven Nelson acknowledged during Wednesday's press briefing: 'As we discussed here today, Vice President Harris is put in charge of addressing the root causes of the border crisis.'
'She hasn't visited the border or Central America or spoken with leaders of El Salvador or Honduras,' he noted. 'She was traveling this week, took time to visit a bakery in Chicago. I'm wondering, is she still working on this and can you address the perception that she's sort of quietly backing off while Secretary Mayorkas is pursuing some Trump-era policies?'
He is referencing Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas appearing to take a hard-line lead on the border crisis despite Harris' role.
Psaki replied: 'The vice president was visiting Chicago, actually, to talk about COVID and the importance of communities getting the vaccine when it's available and accessible to them.'
'So, while she was there, like many Americans, she got a snack.'
Which is a crap answer. For a vice president to "get a snack" (food police note: a non-nutritional one she probably wouldn't eat in private) takes a lot of pre-planning and time coordination from the Secret Service, the White House schedulers, the limo drivers, the press and other organs of administration. She can easily 'get a snack' just by commanding one of her aides to procure it as is normally done, just ask Amy Klobuchar about that one.
It was obviously done for the cameras, given that it was a South Side Chicago bakery, which was likely black-owned. The idea, of course, was to demonstrate that Harris, far from being a rich elitist scion of a Jamaican-origin Stanford professor dad, and an India-born professor/researcher mom who moved her from rabidly leftist fever-swamp Berkeley, California, to spend the other parts of her childhood in Canada, was actually a down-with-it African-American who always eats sugar-bomb treats same as much of the rest of the community (but somehow doesn't get fat). It was Potemkin theatre to whip up black voters, same as she did with those pork things campaigning in lily-white Iowa, and apparently little else.
In light of what's on her plate, it seemed rather low-priority, actually, given that the presidential campaign won't start until 2023. But as has been famously said of Kamala, she's always campaigning for her next job.
Being busy with that, she's AWOL on the job she's actually being paid to do.
Last March 24, Biden named Harris as his point person to lead the effort to stanch the human waves flooding the U.S. border.
The flood is getting very big indeed, with some 50,000 unaccompanied minors now in the U.S., the highest rate in nearly 20 years, and illegal migrant arrests hitting 170,000 in March alone, with even more expected for April as this Wall Street Journal report noted. Catch and release is back, migrants with COVID are being released to walk about the country, often without court dates, and Biden has incentivized the smuggling of children with the sweetener that no child will ever be sent back (to starve, as he falsely claimed), which has triggered a huge wave of small children traveling alone, many dumped and abandoned in the desert by smugglers as inconvenient baggage. Families are being smashed to smithereens in monster border crashes on remote California and Texas highways, the recent mass-death incidents in overstuffed trucks and trailers not even chases with lawmen hot on their tail. Border detention facilities, formerly known as 'cages' on the left, are at 1,600% capacity.
Biden's blundering policy also stripped the U.S. of its treaties with Central American countries which had significantly halted the human waves earlier. A flood began in November, and has yet to crest.
Meanwhile, cartels and professional human smuggling rackets have flooded Facebook with ads targeted at would-be illegals promising "guaranteed" entry for a $8,000 or so price, ads that have yet to be ripped down as they violate Facebook's claimed policies against facilitating human trafficking. I found some and wrote about them here. Team Biden has focused on radio ads for dissuading illegal migrants, another useless policy which has had no effect as most migrants are using Facebook and its subsidiary, WhatsApp, for information about how to migrate illegally, as this study found here. And day after day, the sad stories about migrants abandoned, brutalized, raped, blackmailed, or callously killed by this inhuman trade continue.
Arizona's attorney-general says that Kamala Harris hasn't responded to his invitation to tour the border.
You'd think any one of these things might just keep Kamala focused on her big task as border czar. You'd think at least some of that topic would be in her team's purview.
Nope, she's all about diplomacy, as the Biden administration has since hastened to add, looking for all those "root causes." After all, she does take Joe's calls from foreign leaders. But apparently, not the Central American ones where the migrant waves are coming from.
Taking phone calls to negotiate with Central American or Mexican officials? Nope, no record of any so far, as it happens.
We have heard about her leaked concerns about the slow pace of her home-decorating at the White House vice-presidential mansion, and the rigors of living at Blair House, where she was stationed despite having her own condo near Dupont Circle, with all its beauty parlors and swimming pools.
Her schedule, according to the New York Post, shows no meetings scheduled on the border surge.
And her 'diplomacy'? Well, thus far, the Biden administration has left U.S. diplomats with little with which to persuade their Central American counterparts with. I wrote about the insipid tools they were reduced to using, basically, lecturing Central American states about 'democracy' as reported in the untranslated Central American press here. They're heard it a million times.
Unlike Kamala, though, these nations certainly haven't been doing nothing.
Mexico, for one, is pinning the blame for the border surge right where it belongs, on the Biden/Harris administration. How's Kamala going to negotiate that one?
Or how's Kamala handling this bunch, from Honduras, which already has its hand out for U.S. aid to eliminate all those the "root causes" of why Hondurans can't stand living in Honduras? They're claiming that showering the Honduran government, (whose president has been accused by prosecutors in New York of taking big bucks from a drug dealer), will end all the "root causes" of why Hondurans want to get the hell out of Honduras. Will giving these particular foreign bureaucrats cash end all the root causes? Don't count on Kamala to figure out any of the potential problems with showering likely corrupt governments with big U.S. bucks. Notice that nobody from Honduras, based on the reporting seen, has bothered with contacting Kamala in any case. They go where they might actually get some money, correctly reading that she's AWOL.
How's Kamala going to explain the shifts and surges and backtracks in Joe Biden's inchoate border policies to these counterparts? One can just imagine.
What this lazy, disgraceful scenario, of a vice president more preoccupied with home decorating, snacks, and photo ops, is the Biden administration in action. Joe didn't want the problem pinned to him, so he fobbed it off to the inept Harris. Harris has talked dreck on the matter, and carried on with her priorities, which mainly amount to camera photo shoots, like some celebrity influencer with politics added. Neither cares in the least what goes on at the border, what they want is for the illegals to roll in, the money to flow, and the problem to go away. Holding Kamala at least accountable, as Fox News and the New York Post are doing, is a pretty good way for voters to get a whiff of the real agenda here. The Bidenites, particularly Harris, are feathering their nests. The border can do what it is going to do, to paraphrase their ally, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. That's "who they are."
Elite Academics Hide Amnesty’s Wage Hit Against Americans
Up-by-his-bootstraps lawyer and would-be political candidate J.D. Vance has an answer to the academic economists who argue amnesties will not harm Americans’ wages and wealth.
“One of the things I had no idea about, coming from a working-class background, is that America’s ruling class loves to celebrate how much power and money it has,” Vance wrote in a March 18 Newsweek op-ed:
I call these “masters of the universe” events, and they’re held all over the country in fancy hotels, ski lodges and beach resorts. On this particular evening, my wife and I found ourselves at a roundtable with the CEO of a large hotel chain on our left, and a large communications conglomerate on our right.
The Republicans, we’re often told, are the party of the rich and famous. Yet nearly everyone assembled at this dinner simply loathed Donald Trump. He was the focus of nearly every conversations. And then the hotel CEO announced, “Trump has no idea how much his policies are hurting business. I mean, we can’t keep people for $18 an hour in our hotels. If we’re not paying $20, we’re understaffed. And it’s all because of Donald Trump’s immigration policies.”
Let’s pause for a second to appreciate one of the wealthiest men in the world complaining about paying hard-working staff $20 an hour. The only thing he was missing was the Monopoly Man hat and cane. His argument, while vile, was at least intellectually honest: “Normally, if we can’t find workers at a given wage, we just get a bunch of immigrants to do the job. It’s easy. But there are so few people coming in across the border, so we just have to pay the people here more.” This is why the American labor movement opposed immigration expansion for much of the past century—until recently, when many labor unions decided that being woke took priority over protecting workers.
Vance followed up with a March 18 tweet, saying, “We have a border crisis because Democratic donors love cheap labor.”
Vance’s story about wages is timely because business groups are pushing amnesty bills amid a barrage of PR that suggests amnesties are no threat to the wages of ordinary Americans.
For example, Mark Zuckerberg’s FWD.us advocacy group posted a multipage letter on February 12 by numerous economists who argued that Americans would gain from the flow of cheap, migrant labor.
OVERNIGHT: over 60 of the country’s most prominent economists released a letter urging the President & Congress to ensure a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants like Dreamers, TPS Holders, Farmworkers, Essential Workers in recovery package. https://t.co/7IB7xrMHQ3
— Todd Schulte (@TheToddSchulte) February 12, 2021
The February 11 letter by academic and activist economics started with the obvious “Prior research by the U.S. Department of Labor and independent academic analyses demonstrate that granting legal status raises the wages of beneficiaries.”
But the letter also claimed that other economists believe amnesty makes Americans’ wages go up:
A White House Council of Economic Advisers analysis of DAPA [President Barack Obama’s 2014 Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents quasi-amnesty] and other reports authored by economists … concluded that beyond the wage gains of program beneficiaries, legalization would increase the average wages of all Americans.
The letter’s claim of evidence for American wage gains rests on a thin, weak, and skewed base: A 2014 report by President Obama’s economic advisers — which concluded, “deferred action for low-priority [lower skilled] individuals would increase the wages of all native workers by 0.1 percent on average by 2024.” — plus two reports by the pro-migration Center for American Progress (CAP).
In turn, the two CAP reports rest on a few papers by a handful of pro-migration economists, chiefly “Gianmarco I.P. Ottaviano and Giovanni Peri.”
But in a March 2020 interview on BBC, Peri acknowledged reduced immigration helps to raise Americans’ wages. The BBC interviewer asked, “It may lead to wage growth, but this could be an overall economic problem for the United States?” Peri answered, “Indeed, indeed,” before arguing higher wages would curb companies’ ability to launch new projects.
The February 11 economists also argued amnestied migrants would enlarge the economy, raise total payroll for all U.S. workers, and boost tax revenues for governments. But those claims say nothing about average wages for individuals Americans.
“It’s like arguing that a town with 100 people is much richer when 50 new people move in because the economy is bigger,” responded Steven Camarota, the research director at the Center for Immigration Studies. “The original 100 people [may not] get any richer because a bigger economy doesn’t [automatically] mean that people make higher wages,” he told Breitbart News.
“If it did, Bangladesh would be considered a more wealthy country than New Zealand,” he added.
The February 11 economists also say amnesties will restore valuable workplace protections for Americans.
Those workplace conditions and rights have been damaged by employers hiring many illegal aliens, the economists admitted. But the proposed amnesties contain no safeguards against future illegal migration, so Vance’s story shows how employers will continue to undermine workplace rights by hiring waves of illegal aliens.
In fact, President Joe Biden’s main amnesty proposal would expand the inflow of blue-collar and white-collar foreign workers and would include no new curbs against the inflow of additional illegal aliens.
Representatives for FWD.us and for the lead author of the February 11 letter, Eileen Applebaum, declined to answer questions for Breitbart News.
Other pro-migration groups bombard legislators with claims amnesties and migration boost the economy — as if a bigger economy automatically translates into more wages for their voters. For example, Douglas Holtz-Eakin is president of the American Action Forum. He posted a March 9 op-ed at TheHill.com, arguing, “immigrants generally add to job creation and wage growth in the United States.”
A legal brief by economists for a 2015 lawsuit in Texas also touted gains for migrants, saying, “These benefits include increasing the ability of workers, immigrant and native alike, to access worker protections … there is little reason to predict countervailing economic harm to native-born workers and U.S. businesses.”
Sometimes, the academic economists who are recruited for these pro-amnesty letters sometimes include admissions that work against the lobbyists’ claims. Mike Bloomberg’s New American Economy group produced a 2017 letter from “1,470 economists” touting the economic benefits of immigration. But a close read of the 2017 letter shows the economists admitted wage losses:
Immigration undoubtedly has economic costs as well, particularly for Americans in certain industries and Americans with lower levels of educational attainment. But the benefits that immigration brings to society far outweigh their costs [to those Americans].
Sen. Mike Crapo steps back from his support for the House farm amnesty.
The deal would hammer rural towns in Idaho & elsewhere by replacing Americans with low-wage visa workers who take their wages home each year.
Local GOPers know where the votes are. https://t.co/zsEF4BLTfM— Neil Munro (@NeilMunroDC) March 24, 2021
But this barrage of credentialed PR does have an impact on media coverage: Few editors or reporters cover the economic impact of legal or illegal migration, despite its central impact on their readers’ and viewers’ wages, training, and housing prices.
Instead, many elite editors and reporters avoid dramatic fights over migration and money and prefer to showcase the interests of migrants.
“Research shows that immigrants strengthen the economy and typically don’t compete with U.S.-born workers for jobs or lower their wages,” says the August 2020 article in the Los Angeles Times by Molly O’Toole. She won the media industry’s Pulitzer award in 2020 for sympathetically covering migrants who were kept out of the United States and its labor market.
Three New York Times reporters, led by White House reporter Michael Shear, wrote on April 2020:
While numerous studies have concluded that immigration has an overall positive effect on the American work force and wages for workers, Mr. Trump ignored that research on Tuesday, insisting that American citizens who had lost their jobs in recent weeks should not have to compete with foreigners when the economy reopens.
Shear and his two peers linked to just one paper by one author to justify their claim. But the linked pro-migration author admitted in her 2018 paper that “research suggests that an increase in the share of low-skilled immigrants in the labor force decreases the price of immigrant-intensive services, such as housekeeping and gardening, primarily by decreasing wages among immigrants.”
Similarly, a three-byline article in Politico about President Biden’s immigration strategy ignored the economics. Biden’s deputies “want to change the very way Americans view migration.” The authors, Laura Barrón-López, Sarah Ferris, and Christopher Cadelago, even ignored the billions of dollars in remittances that migrants send home to support their families — even though that money is also used by corrupt governments to avoid political and economic reform. The article also avoids the U.S. side of the extraction-migration equation, even though many U.S. companies and donors gain from the induced inflow of poor workers and consumers.
In the fight over migration and wages, “it is extremely common for politicians, opinion writers, and reporters to claim ‘virtually all’ economists agree that immigration creates only winners, not losers,” Camarota wrote in a spring 2021 report for the National Association of Scholars. “There are some economists who say things like that, but that is not what the research shows … It is simply wrong to argue that economic research shows immigration has no negative effect on workers.”
Breitbart News asked Camarota to explain this widespread skew in reporting. “The people who lose [wages from immigration] tend to be younger, less educated, and less skilled,” he responded. “In other circumstances, we are often very concerned about that population because we recognize that they are already the poorest, the least likely to work, and haven’t seen very little wage increases in recent decades … But when the topic turns to immigration, we’re not supposed to worry about it.”
Breitbart News has reported many statements from CEOs and business groups saying that the federal policy of inflating the new labor supply with legal and illegal migrants does help to cut Americans’ wages.
For example, on page 171 of its September 2016 report, a pro-migration panel picked by the government-backed National Academies acknowledged “immigration imposes a tax on Americans” wages: “Immigrant labor accounts for 16.5 percent of the total number of hours worked in the United States, which … implies that the current stock of immigrants lowered [Americans’] wages by 5.2 percent.”
The admissions also come from independent academics, the National Academies of Science, the Congressional Budget Office, executives, The Economist, more academics, the New York Times, the New York Times again, state officials, unions, more business executives, lobbyists, the Wall Street Journal, federal economists, Goldman Sachs, oil drillers, the Bank of Ireland, Wall Street analysts, fired professionals, legislators, more economists, the CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 2015 Bernie Sanders, the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board, construction workers, New York Times subscribers, a former Treasury secretary, a New York Times columnist, a Bloomberg columnist, author Barack Obama, President Barack Obama, and the Business Roundtable.
Even the Wall Street Journal admitted in 2016:
Congress has failed to reach a compromise policy on immigration to address employer needs for a steady, legal workforce.
On the ground in the U.S., many employers report the worker shortage is driving up wages, which is good news for low-skilled workers. It is also driving up costs, however, which could hamper investment and fuel inflation.
Much of the academic debate over migration and wages get dragged into micro-economic arguments about wages in Florida during the 1980s. But there is much macro-economic evidence for wage damage, said Camarota:
The main concern there that people often cite is long-term, the productivity gains seem to have all gone to owners of capital … [as]you would expect if immigration is transferring bargaining power from workers to business owners. That’s one piece of evidence. A related piece of evidence is the general lack of wage growth in real terms for most workers …
Wages for people with incomes halfway between top and bottom grew a total of just 8.8 percent from 1979 to 2019, according to a December 2020 report by the Congressional Research Service.
U.S. Census Bureau
Median earnings of full-time, year-round workers, 15 years and older, 1960 to 2016.
Also, immigration drives up housing costs, cutting the disposable income in Americans’ pockets, especially for lower-income Californians. For example, retail workers must stay on the job for 94 hours per month to pay rent in California, according to Business.org. In low-migration West Virginia, retail workers can pay their rent with 43 hours of work. Similarly, nurses work 24 hours to pay their rent in West Virginia but 30 hours in California.
Some investors — such as Napster founder and FWD.us founder Sean Parker — are hoping to use immigration to drive up housing costs.
Migration also shifts investment and wealth from many interior states to a few coastal states. The shift happens because most investors live on the coasts, and they prefer to put their investment close to home. They face little pressure to put investments into the interior states because the government flies new white-collar and blue-collar immigrants into the coastal worksites each day. From 1995 to 2016, “the Bay Area actually increased its share of venture capital investment from 22 percent in 1995 to 46 percent in 2015 …. [New York] grew from just 3 percent in 1995 to more than 12 percent,” Bloomberg.org reported.
Camarota continued:
The third piece of evidence at a macro level is more of a question of political economy: Why do employers advocate for [more immigrant] workers so much? Whether you’re talking about farmers or owners or billionaire owners of a software company, or everything in between, they’re all advocating for immigration in the belief that it holds down wages for them. Their behavior is inexplicable if immigration doesn’t hold down wages.
For example, the February 11 letter was touted by FWD.us, which is playing a leading role in pushing for a 2021 amnesty.
Former President Donald Trump’s policies provided real-world evidence that reduced migration helps to raise the wages, working conditions, and the workplace authority of Americans.
In 2020, for example, the Census Bureau reported that median household wages rose by seven percent during 2019, following decades of minimal gains. A September 2020 report by the Federal Reserve concluded that the family median income level of high school graduates rose by six percent in 2019.
The amnesty bills being pushed by the investors at FWD.us do not include any useful measure to protect Americans, blue-collar or white-collar, from the next wave of illegal migrants, legal immigrants, or visa workers. In fact, the bill would help the business groups to import many white-collar workers for the jobs sought by the future American students of the pro-amnesty academics.
For years, a wide variety of pollsters have shown deep and broad opposition to labor migration and the inflow of temporary contract workers into jobs sought by young U.S. graduates.
The multiracial, cross-sex, non-racist, class-based, intra-Democratic, and solidarity-themed opposition to labor migration coexists with generally favorable personal feelings toward legal immigrants and toward immigration in theory — despite the media magnification of many skewed polls and articles that still push the 1950’s corporate “Nation of Immigrants” claim.
The deep public opposition is built on the widespread recognition that migration moves money away from most Americans.
It moves money from employees to employers, from families to investors, from young to old, from children to their parents, from homebuyers to real estate investors, and from the central states to the coastal states.
Bloomberg exposes the OPT-worker program that CEOs use to push many US graduates out of tech & Fortune 500 careers.
You'd think estb. journos would care about their kids' futures. But corporate media won't follow the $$ in migration politics.#H1B #OPT https://t.co/4PWGwSiXjq— Neil Munro (@NeilMunroDC) March 13, 2021
The economists who signed the February 11 letter were described as:
Eileen Appelbaum, Co-Director, Center for Economic and Policy Research
Leah Boustan, Professor of Economics, Princeton University
Clair Brown, Professor; Director, Center for Work, Technology and Society, UC Berkeley
Paul Brown, Professor of Health Economics, UC Merced
Brian Callaci, Postdoctoral Scholar and Economist, Data & Society Research Institute
Stephanie L. Canizales, Assistant Professor of Sociology, UC Merced
Katharine Donato, Donald G. Herzberg Professor of International Migration, and Director of the
Institute for the Study of International Migration, Georgetown University
Indivar Dutta-Gupta, Co-Executive Director, Georgetown Center on Poverty and Inequality
David Dyssegaard Kallick, Director of Immigration Research Initiative, Fiscal Policy Institute
Charlie Eaton, Assistant Professor of Sociology, UC Merced
Ryan D. Edwards, Associate Adjunct Professor, Health Economist and Demographer, UCSF
Edward Orozco Flores, Associate Professor of Sociology, UC Merced
Jason Furman, Professor of Practice, Harvard University
Fabio Ghironi, Paul F. Glaser Professor of Economics, University of Washington
Shannon Gleeson, Associate Professor, Department of Labor Relations, Law, and History,
Cornell University, School of Industrial and Labor Relations
Clark Goldenrod, Deputy Director, Minnesota Budget Project
Laura Goren, Research Director, The Commonwealth Institute for Fiscal Analysis
Matt Hall, Associate Professor of Policy Analysis & Management, Cornell University; Director,
Cornell Population Center
Stephen Herzenberg, Executive Director, Keystone Research Center
Gilda Z. Jacobs, President & CEO, Michigan League for Public Policy
Sarah Jacobson, Associate Professor of Economics, Williams College
Vineeta Kapahi, Policy Analyst, New Jersey Policy Perspective
Haider A. Khan, John Evans Distinguished University Professor; Professor of Economics,
University of Denver
Sadaf Knight, CEO, Florida Policy Institute
Sherrie Kossoudji, Associate Professor, Ret., The University of Michigan
Adriana Kugler, Professor of Public Policy and Economics, Georgetown University
Charles Levenstein, Professor Emeritus of Work Environment Policy, UMass Lowell
Margaret Levenstein, Research Professor; Director, Inter-university Consortium for Political
and Social Research, University of Michigan
Laurel Lucia, Health Care Program Director, UC Berkeley Labor Center
Robert G. Lynch, Young Ja Lim Professor of Economics, Washington College
Rakeen Mabud, PhD, Director of Research and Strategy, TIME’S UP Foundation
Gabriel Mathy, Assistant Professor of Economics, American University
Darryl McLeod, Associate Professor of Economics, Fordham University
Joseph McMurray, Associate Professor of Economics, Brigham Young University
Edwin Melendez, Professor of Urban Policy and Planning, Hunter College-CUNY
May Mgbolu, Assistant Director of Policy and Advocacy, Arizona Center for Economic Progress
Ruth Milkman, Distinguished Professor, CUNY Graduate Center; Former President, American
Sociological Association
Tracy Mott, Professor of Economics, Ret., University of Denver
Francesc Ortega, Dina Axelrad Perry Professor in Economics, Queens College of the City
University of New York
Ana Padilla, Executive Director, Community and Labor Center, UC Merced
MarÃa del Rosario Palacios, Executive Director, GA Familias Unidas
Lenore Palladino, Assistant Professor of Economics & Public Policy, University of
Massachusetts Amherst
Manuel Pastor, Director, Equity Research Institute, University of Southern California
Mark Paul, Assistant Professor of Economics, New College of Florida
Giovanni Peri, Professor of Economics, UC Davis
Diana Polson, Senior Policy Analyst, Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center
Steven Raphael, UC Berkeley Professor and James D. Marver Chair in Public Policy, Goldman
School of Public Policy
Martha W. Rees, Professor Emerita of Anthropology, Agnes Scott College
Juliet Schor, Professor of Sociology, Boston College
Heidi Shierholz, Senior Economist and Director of Policy, Economic Policy Institute
Taifa Smith Butler, President & CEO, Georgia Budget & Policy Institute
Dr. Ashley Spalding, Research Director, Kentucky Center for Economic Policy
Anna Stansbury, Economics PhD Candidate; PhD Scholar in the Program in Inequality and
Social Policy, Harvard University
Marc Stier, Director, PA Budget and Policy Center
Edward Telles, Distinguished Professor of Sociology; Director, Center for Research on
International Migration, UC Irvine
Esther Turcios, Legislative Policy Manager, Colorado Fiscal Institute
Eric Verhoogen, Professor of Economics and of International and Public Affairs; Co-Director,
Center for Development Economics and Policy, Columbia University
Christian Weller, Professor of Public Policy, University of Massachusetts Boston
Meg Wiehe, Deputy Executive Director, Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy
Barbara Wolfe, Richard A. Easterlin Emerita Professor, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Yavuz Yasar, Associate Professor of Economics, University of Denver
Marjorie S. Zatz, Professor of Sociology, UC Merced
Naomi Zewde, Assistant Professor of Public Health, City University of New York
The economists who signed the submission for the 2015 lawsuit were described as:
Jared Bernstein is an economist in Washington, DC. From 2009 to 2011, he was the Economic Adviser to Vice President Joe Biden, executive director of the White House Task Force on the Middle Class, and a member of President Obama’s economic team. Prior to that, he served in the Labor Department during the Clinton Administration.
Leah Boustan is an Associate Professor of Economics at the University of California, Los Angeles, and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research.
Katharine M. Donato is a Professor of Sociology at Vanderbilt University. Shannon Gleeson, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Labor Relations, Law, and History at the School of Industrial and Labor Relations at Cornell University.
Matthew Hall is an Associate Professor of Policy Analysis and Management at Cornell University. His research includes a focus on the incorporation of low-skill and unauthorized immigrants into the United States labor and housing markets.
David Kallick is a Senior Fellow at the Fiscal Policy Institute, where he directs the Immigration Research Initiative.
Adriana Kugler is a Professor of Public Policy at Georgetown University.
Robert Lynch is a Professor of Economics at Washington College.
Douglas Massey is the Henry G. Bryant Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University.
Manuel Pastor is a Professor of Sociology and American Studies & Ethnicity at the University of Southern California.
Steven Raphael is a Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley.
Audrey Singer is a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution.
Jobless Claims Unexpectedly Jump to 744,000, Much Worse Than Expected
New weekly jobless claims rose to 744,000 for the week that ended April 3rd, the Department of Labor said Thursday.
Economists had forecast a decline to 680,000 from the previous week’s 719,000. This is the second consecutive week in which initial jobless claims moved up in contradiction to expectations. The upper end of the range of forecasts in the Econoday survey was 705,000.
Jobless claims can be volatile week to week so economists like to look at the four-week average. This rose by 2,500 to 723,750.
Continuing claims, which get reported with a week’s lag, fell to 3,734,000, a decrease of 16,000, in the week ended March 27.
Including new programs for gig workers and small business owners, the total number of continued weeks claimed for benefits in all programs for the week ending March 20—the most recent data available—was18,164,588, a decrease of just 50,862 from the previous week.
Claims hit a record 6.87 million for the week of March 27, more than ten times the previous record. Through spring and early summer, each subsequent week had seen claims decline. But in late July, the labor market appeared to stall and claims hovered around one million throughout August, a level so high it was never recorded before the pandemic struck. Claims moved down again in September and had made slow, if steady, progress until the election and the resurgence of Covid-19 infections when they rose again. In the last few weeks, however, claims have once again been moving steadily downward.
Many states eased or eliminated restrictions on businesses, including restaurants and bars, in March. Forty-three states are now mostly open. This has led to a surge of economic activity. As well, the American Rescue Act authorized $1.9 trillion of stimulus money, although only a small fraction of that has been spent so far.
But infections have recently been rising, which could be a drag on workers seeking employment and hiring.
No comments:
Post a Comment