Shift to “Demand Driven” Immigration

The COVID-19 crisis initially affected the U.S. immigration system by prompting the shutdown of immigration courts and suspension of routine visa processing services. These actions were more or less in line with broader economic shutdowns and closures. The Trump administration, however, has seized on the COVID-19 crisis as a fresh pretext for enacting a cruel and radically restrictive immigration agenda that slows economic recovery, hurts the United States in the long-term, and is out of step with what Americans support.

In June, for example, President Trump announced an extension, through the end of the year, of his “temporary” ban on new work visas. This includes high-skilled workers, executives, and seasonal workers who are critical to U.S. innovation and growth. While small modifications to the order have been made—and lawsuits have been brought—it still places serious limitations on America’s ability to act as a magnet for talent. Immigrant workers already in the country have also faced disproportionate exposure to the pandemic at, for example, meatpacking plants, thanks to the administration’s lax approach to occupational safety.

The administration’s actions are bad policy at any time; today they make life even more difficult for immigrants and dig the pandemic-created economic hole even deeper. They also follow three years of immigration policymaking that has made our labor markets less flexible and our economy less dynamic and less innovative.

Yet it must also be said that America’s immigration system was not in the best shape even before the Trump administration’s detour into nativism and wall-building. Despite some progress made by President Obama, U.S. immigration policy had been growing misaligned with the nation’s changing economic needs. For progressives, the challenge is not merely to undo what Trump has done, but to make our economy more dynamic and resilient by bringing our immigration laws into the 21st century.

The key change is to make U.S. immigration laws more “demand-driven” and responsive to labor market needs as America ages, our workforce grows more slowly, and labor shortages hamper production from agriculture to high tech.

Two-thirds of green cards issued each year are for family reunification, with about one in six being employment-based. A large share of employment-based green cards, moreover, are issued to family members of workers. While family reunification is the broad superhighway by which most legal immigrants enter the United States, we also have an alphabet soup of visa programs which offer certain workers narrow routes of entry. There are, for example, nearly two dozen different types of visas for “temporary nonimmigrant workers.” Some of these programs function fairly well but taken as a whole they make work-based immigration unduly fragmented and complex, and subject to industry capture.

Family reunification should remain an important goal for U.S. immigration policy. Our country has a proud tradition of welcoming migrants and refugees as families as well as individuals. Many economically successful first- and second-generation immigrants that we celebrate—such as Sergey Brin, Elon Musk, and Steve Jobs—came here as children or students.

Nonetheless, the time has come to adjust the balance and widen channels for work-based immigration, making sure they more closely match employer demand and economic need. To shift our policies in this direction, PPI proposes to replace the welter of narrow visa programs with a new Willing Worker Visa that admits people regardless of the kind of skills they have as long as they have a valid job offer from a U.S. employer. In order to be valid, employers would have to show they could not meet their labor needs with native workers alone.

In addition to expanding the supply of legal workers and dramatically simplifying our immigration laws, our approach would crack down on employers who knowingly hire illegal workers. The Trump administration has focused instead on penalizing workers while letting employers off the hook—echoing the president’s own record of using illegal workers in his businesses.

Key elements of the Willing Worker Visa would include:

  • Simplification and consolidation of existing visa programs to make entry and certification processes far smoother.
  • Contingency on job offers from U.S. employers, just as many employment-based visas are now.
  • Expanded pathways for temporary and nonimmigrants workers to become citizens, in part to discourage and reduce illegal border-crossing.
  • Tying visas for willing workers to areas of demonstrated skill gaps and labor shortages.
  • Tougher penalties on employers who knowingly hire illegal workers, fail to check documentation, or ignore immigration law.

It may seem incongruous to argue for more employment-based immigration as the coronavirus pandemic continues to spread across the United States. Much of our economy is still locked down, we have double-digit unemployment, and there’s deep uncertainty about how long it will take the economy to recover.

Current projections are that unemployment rates will remain over 10 percent well into 2021. We know, however, that even at the height of the economic expansion in 2019, the U.S. economy faced severe skill shortages, with more than seven million jobs unfilled.

Moreover, Trump’s claim that he wants to restrict immigration to preserve U.S. jobs for
U.S. workers stems from a faulty, zero-sum understanding of how labor markets work. In
a dynamic market economy, the number of jobs is never fixed but grows with labor supply. We have a compelling national interest in opening America’s doors to willing workers from elsewhere who can help us close skills gaps and fill labor shortages.

The challenge is to ensure that unemployed native workers are successfully reabsorbed into the labor force while also ensuring a strong supply of willing foreign workers who help make the U.S. economy more productive and innovative.

Marshall for the Daily News: “Britain’s Warning to American Democrats”

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s thumping victory last week confirms that 2016 was a political watershed. It marked the beginning of a new political alignment that is rewriting the rules of party competition here and abroad.

That was the year voters stunned the UK political establishment by voting narrowly to leave the European Union. Then followed Donald Trump’s equally shocking election. Both votes highlighted new political divides based on culture, identity and geography, as well as the waning relevance of old left-right debates.

So far, conservative parties have adapted to this changing landscape better than progressive parties. That’s why it’s crucial that Democrats come to terms with why Britain’s Labour Party, led by Jeremy Corbyn, was routed last week.

Corbyn blames Brexit for his defeat, and it obviously played a big role. Johnson offered voters a simple, unequivocal message on Brexit — get it done so Britain can move on. Corbyn and Labour took an ambiguous stance, and managed to win only 40% of the parliamentary constituencies that backed Remain.

Read the full piece here. 

Marshall for The Hill: “Is Corbyn handing Brexit to Boris Johnson?”

When British voters go to the polls Thursday, it probably will be their last chance to stop Brexit. If they don’t, Jeremy Corbyn will bear much of the blame.

Wait – isn’t the Labour Party leader running to oust the man actually driving the UK toward Brexit, Prime Minister Boris Johnson? Yes, but polls show Johnson’s Conservatives holding on to a double-digit lead over Labour. That’s remarkable, considering the sorry mess Tory leaders have made of Brexit over the last three years.

If Johnson has the electoral wind at his back, it’s not because he’s so mesmerizing. It’s mainly because of Corbyn’s epic unpopularity with UK voters. A mere 22 percent approve of Labour’s chief, while 58 percent say he’s doing badly. Thirty-six percent approve of Johnson, and 43 percent rate him negatively.

Read Will Marshall’s full op-ed here.

Ritz for Forbes, “Donald Trump’s Budget For A Declining America”

After the president’s budget was released on Monday, House Budget Committee Chairman John Yarmuth (D-KY) called it “A Budget for a Declining America.” Unfortunately, that might be an understatement.

The Trump administration’s Fiscal Year 2020 budget proposal is a compilation of the worst ideas to come out of the Republican Party over the last decade. It would dismantle public investments that lay the foundation for economic growth, resulting in less innovation. It would shred the social safety net, resulting in more poverty. It would rip away access to affordable health care, resulting in more disease. It would cut taxes for the rich, resulting in more income inequality. It would bloat the defense budget, resulting in more wasteful spending. And all this would add up to a higher national debt than the policies in President Obama’s final budget proposal.

The most harmful aspect of Trump’s fiscal blueprint is its scheme for gutting investments in public goods that are core responsibilities of government. The administration proposes to reduce the share of gross domestic product devoted to non-defense (domestic) discretionary spending – the category of the budget that is annually appropriated by Congress and includes most federal spending on infrastructure, education, and scientific research – by more than half over the next decade. The result is deep cuts to all three of these important investments that provide the foundation for long-term economic growth.

Continue reading at Forbes.

 

 

Marshall for Medium: “Will the Senate Defend Our Constitution?”

By declaring a national emergency to build a border wall, President Trump has crossed the Rubicon. He has turned a cheap partisan stunt into a bona fide Constitutional crisis.

Congress this week declined to give Trump all the money he demanded to wall off Mexico from the United States. The president has declared an emergency explicitly to defy the will of Congress and usurp its Constitutional power to raise and spend public money. In his contempt for democratic norms, Trump makes no effort to conceal the fact that the alleged ‘emergency’ on the border is a political contrivance to assert his will. Having failed to extort wall funding from Congress through the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, he is willing to violate the Constitution to get a political ‘win.’

 

Read the full piece on Medium by clicking here.

Press Release: PPI Urges Support for Bipartisan Legislation to Ensure Congressional Review of National Security Tariffs

WASHINGTON— Ed Gerwin, Senior Fellow for Trade and Global Opportunity at the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), today released the following statement in response to the introduction of the bipartisan, bicameral Congressional Trade Authority Act:

PPI welcomes the introduction of the Congressional Trade Authority Act by Representatives Ron Kind (D-WI) and Michael Gallagher (R-WI) and Senators Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Mark Warner (D-VA). We urge Congress to enact this responsible and balanced legislation.

The bill would amend the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to provide Congress with new tools to oversee and either approve or reject the use of tariffs or other trade restrictions for national security purposes. Under the bill, national security trade restrictions proposed by the president would require congressional approval under an expedited, 60-day procedure. National security tariffs imposed within the past four years would also, retroactively, be subject to congressional review. Other reforms in the bill would include tightening the definition of “national security” to prevent the abuse of congressionally delegated powers to restrict trade for security reasons.

As PPI has explained in a recent policy brief, legislation like the Congressional Trade Authority Act is needed to restore an appropriate balance between Congress and the president in the exercise of trade and tariff powers. 

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution empowers Congress to “lay and collect . . . duties” and “regulate commerce with foreign nations.” For almost a century, in exercising these powers, Congress has delegated significant authority to the president, including the power to restrict import trade for national security reasons. 

Past presidents have generally used these delegated security powers prudently. The Trump Administration has not. Instead, it’s imposed “national security” tariffs and quotas on imports of aluminum and steel from longstanding U.S. allies with scant security justification. And the President has threatened to impose “national security” tariffs—to be paid ultimately by American drivers—on imported autos, as well. As PPI has detailed, the Administration’s unfocused tariffs and trade restrictions have cost jobs for American workers, raised prices for American families, increased costs for businesses and state and local governments, and led to crushing retaliation against American exports.

When he signed the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, President Kennedy advocated building stronger trade alliances and warned against “stagnating behind tariff walls.” At the same time, as PPI has  explained in the context of China’s technology theft, smart and targeted trade restrictions are sometimes required to address critical national security threats. Congress has crucial roles to play in both promoting open trade and protecting national security. The balanced reforms contained in the Congressional Trade Authority Act would help Congress better exercise these important responsibilities.

###

Marshall for The Hill, “Donald Trump has zero faith in the power of American ideas”

Let’s hope special counsel Robert Mueller gets to the bottom soon of Donald Trump’s strange dalliance with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The plot thickened last week as the GOP-led Senate narrowly rejected a Democratic bid to prevent the administration from lifting sanctions on Russian oligarch and Putin crony Oleg Deripaska, who also did business with Paul Manafort, Trump’s disgraced former campaign manager.

Once again, President Trump appears to be bending over backward to curry favor with Putin. His infinite tolerance of Russia’s interference in U.S. politics and its well-documented online “malign influence” campaign stands in weird contrast to his churlish behavior toward America’s actual friends.

Trump routinely denigrates America’s oldest and strongest allies in Europe as trade cheaters and security freeloaders. A small but telling example has recently come to light: The State Department last year quietly downgraded the diplomatic status of the Delegation of the European Union to the United States.

Continue reading at The Hill.

PPI Launches Series of New Ideas for a ‘Do-Something’ Congress

Dear Democratic Class of 2018,

Congratulations on your election to the U.S. House of Representatives! In addition to winning your own race, you are part of something larger – the first wave of a progressive resurgence in U.S. politics.

The midterm elections gave U.S. voters their first opportunity to react to the way Donald Trump has conducted himself in America’s highest office. Their verdict was an emphatic thumbs down. That’s an encouraging sign that our democracy’s antibodies are working to suppress the populist virus of demagoguery and extremism.

Now that Democrats have reclaimed the people’s House, what should they do with it? Some are tempted to use it mainly as a platform for resisting Trump and airing “unapologetically progressive” ideas that have no chance of advancing before the 2020 elections. We here at the Progressive Policy Institute think that would be huge missed opportunity.

If the voters increasingly are disgusted with their dissembling and divisive president, they seem even more fed up with Washington’s tribalism and broken politics. For pragmatic progressives, the urgent matter at hand is not to impeach Trump or to embroil the House in multiple and endless investigations. It’s to show Democrats are determined to put the federal government back in the business of helping Americans solve their problems.

We think the House Democratic Class of 2018 should adopt this simple mantra: “Get things done.” Tackle the backlog of big national problems that Washington has ignored: exploding deficits and debt; run-down, second-rate infrastructure; soaring health and retirement costs; climate change and more. And yes, getting things done should include slamming the brakes on Trump’s reckless trade wars, blocking GOP efforts to strip Americans of health care, as well as repealing tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

PPI, a leading center for policy analysis and innovation, stands ready to help. We’re developing an extensive “Do Something” Agenda. Today, we are releasing the first in a series of concrete, actionable ideas designed expressly for Democrats who come to Washington to solve problems, not just to raise money and smite political enemies.

As you get settled into your new office, we’ll look for opportunities to acquaint you and your staff with these pragmatic, common-sense initiatives, and to discuss other ways we might be of service to you. That’s what we’re here for.

Regards,

 

 

Will Marshall
President
Progressive Policy Institute


New Ideas for a Do-Something Congress No. 1: “A Check on Trump’s Reckless Tariffs”

First and foremost, it’s time for Congress to start doing its job on trade. A key step is enacting the Trade Authority Protection (TAP) Act. This balanced legislation would rein in Trump’s abuse of delegated trade powers, require greater presidential accountability, and enable Congress to nullify irresponsible tariffs and trade restrictions.


A Radically Pragmatic Idea for the 116th Congress: Take “Yes” for an Answer on Net Neutrality

For the last two decades, different versions of net neutrality have bounced between Congress, the Federal Communications Commission, the courts – and most recently the states – but the issue remains unresolved.

It is time for Congress to solve this problem for good by enacting a strong, pro-consumer net neutrality law – an outcome that is politically possible even in this era of maximalist gridlock and deeply divided government, given the broad consensus that has formed around the vital issue of ensuring an open internet.


New Ideas for a Do-Something Congress No. 2: “Jumpstart a New Generation of Manufacturing Entrepreneurs”

The number of large U.S. manufacturing facilities has dropped by more than a third since 2000, devastating many communities where factories were the lifeblood of the local economy.

One promising way to revive America’s manufacturing might is not by going big but by going small – and going local. Digitally-assisted manufacturing technologies, such as 3D printing, have the potential to launch a new generation of manufacturing startups producing customized, locally-designed goods in a way overseas mega-factories can’t match. To jumpstart this revolution, we need to provide local manufacturing entrepreneurs with access to the latest technologies to test out their ideas. The Grassroots Manufacturing Act would create federally-supported centers offering budding entrepreneurs and small and medium-sized firms access to the latest 3D printing and robotics equipment.


New Ideas for a Do-Something Congress No. 3: “End The Federal Bias Against Career Education”

As many as 4.4 million U.S. jobs are going unfilled due to shortages of workers with the right skills. Many of these opportunities are in so-called “middle-skill” occupations, such as IT or advanced manufacturing, where workers need some sort of post-secondary credential but not a four-year degree.

Expanding access to high-quality career education and training is one way to help close this “skills gap.” Under current law, however, many students pursuing short-term career programs are ineligible for federal financial aid that could help them afford their education. Pell grants, for instance, are geared primarily toward traditional college, which means older and displaced workers – for whom college is neither practicable nor desirable – lose out. Broadening the scope of the Pell grant program to shorter-term, high-quality career education would help more Americans afford the chance to upgrade their skills and grow the number of highly trained workers U.S. businesses need.


New Ideas for a Do-Something Congress No. 4: “Expand Access to Telehealth Services in Medicare”

America’s massive health care industry faces three major challenges: how to cover everyone, reduce costs, and increase productivity. Telehealth – the use of technology to help treat patients remotely – may help address all three. Telehealth reduces the need for expensive real estate and enables providers to better leverage their current medical personnel to provide improved care to more people.

Despite its enormous potential, however, telehealth has hit legal snags over basic questions: who can practice it, what services can be delivered, and how it should be reimbursed. As is the case with any innovation, policymakers are looking to find the right balance between encouraging new technologies and protecting consumers – or, in this case, the health of patients.

Telehealth policy has come a long way in recent years, with major advances in the kinds of services that are delivered. Yet a simple change in Medicare policy could take the next step to increase access and encourage adoption of telehealth services. Currently, there are strict rules around where the patient and provider must be located at the time of service – these are known as “originating site” requirements – and patients are not allowed to be treated in their homes except in very special circumstances. To expand access to Telehealth, Congress could add the patient’s home as an originating site and allow Medicare beneficiaries in both urban and rural settings to access telehealth services in their homes.


New Ideas for a Do-Something Congress No. 5: Make Rural America’s “Higher Education Deserts” Bloom

As many as 41 million Americans live in “higher education deserts” – at least half an hour’s drive from the nearest college or university and with limited access to community college. Many of these deserts are in rural America, which is one reason so much of rural America is less prosperous than it deserves to be.

The lack of higher education access means fewer opportunities for going back to school or improving skills. A less educated workforce in turn means communities have a tougher time attracting businesses and creating new jobs. Congress should work to eradicate higher education deserts. In particular, it can encourage new models of higher education – such as “higher education centers” and virtual colleges – that can fill this gap and bring more opportunity to workers and their communities. Rural higher education innovation grants are one potential way to help states pilot new approaches.


New Ideas for a Do-Something Congress No. 6: Break America’s Regulatory Log-jam

Regulation plays a critical role in refereeing competition in a free market economy. But there’s a problem: Each year, Congress piles new rules upon old, creating a thick sludge of regulations – some obsolete, repetitive, and even contradictory – that weighs down citizens and businesses. In 2017, the Code of Federal Regulations swelled to a record 186,374 pages, up 19 percent from just a decade before. PPI proposes a Regulatory Improvement Commission (RIC), modeled on the highly successful Defense Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process for closing obsolete military installations. Like the BRAC process, the proposed RIC would examine old rules and present Congress with a package of recommendations for an up-or-down vote to eliminate or modify outdated rules.


New Ideas for a Do-Something Congress No. 7: Winning the Global Race on Electric Cars

Jumpstarting U.S. production and purchase of Electric Vehicles (EVs) would produce an unprecedented set of benefits, including cleaner air and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions; a resurgence of the U.S. auto industry and American manufacturing; the creation of millions of new, good, middle class manufacturing jobs; lower consumer costs for owning and operating vehicles; and the elimination of U.S. dependence on foreign oil. U.S. automakers are already moving toward EVs, but the pace of this transition is lagging behind our foreign competitors. A dramatic expansion of tax credits for EV purchases could go a long way toward boosting the U.S. EV industry as part of a broader agenda to promote the evolution of the transportation industry away from carbon-intensive fuels.


New Ideas for a Do-Something Congress No. 8: Enable More Workers to Become Owners through Employee Stock Ownership

More American workers would benefit directly from economic growth if they had an ownership in the companies where they work. To help achieve this goal, Congress should encourage more companies to adopt employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs), which provide opportunities for workers to participate in a company’s profits and share in its growth. Firms with ESOPs enjoy higher productivity growth and stronger resilience during downturns, and employees enjoy a direct stake in that growth. ESOP firms also generate higher levels of retirement savings for workers, thereby addressing another crucial priority for American workers.

 


New Ideas for a Do-Something Congress No. 9: Reserve corporate tax cuts for the companies that deserve it

Americans are fed up seeing corporate profits soaring even as their paychecks inch upward by comparison. Companies need stronger incentives to share their prosperity with workers – something the 2017 GOP tax package should have included.

Though President Donald Trump promised higher wages as one result of his corporate tax cuts, the biggest winners were executives and shareholders, not workers. Nevertheless, a growing number of firms are doing right by their workers, taking the high road as “triple-bottom line” concerns committed to worker welfare, environmental stewardship and responsible corporate governance. Many of these are so-called “benefit corporations,” legally chartered to pursue goals beyond maximizing profits and often “certified” as living up to their multiple missions. Congress should encourage more companies to follow this example. One way is to offer tax breaks only for high-road companies with a proven track record of good corporate citizenship, including better wages and benefits for their workers.

Bledsoe for The Hill, “Takeaway from Poland: Climate success requires action by global leaders – including US president”

The biggest takeaway from two weeks of climate negotiations in Poland is simple, if breathtaking: climate change is such a massive and existential issue that it can only be effectively dealt with by major nation heads of state, not just a collection of 195 environment ministers.

Yes, the basic rules for accounting, monitoring and verification of emissions were agreed to in Poland. These are important, so that all nations can judge whether other countries are on track to make emissions cuts as they have pledged. Ministers deserve real credit for delivering on this. But getting “the Paris rules” right, while necessary, does not begin the harder work of actually cutting emissions, and so is hardly sufficient progress to address the climate crisis, for two key reasons.

First, the largest emitting nations are not even close to on track to meet their Paris pledges. In fact, rather than falling, global CO2 emissions grew by 1.6 percent in 2017 and are projected to increase by 2.7 percent this year. The world’s largest emitter, China, saw its CO2 emissions grow by about 5 percent in 2018. And after steadily falling in previous years under President Obama, U.S. emissions are set to rise by 2.5 percent this year under President Trump. E.U. CO2 output did fall by about 1 percent this year, but rose in 2017 by an equal amount, and Indian emissions rose by more than 6 percent, as did emissions of many other countries.

Second, even if all the Paris emissions pledges were achieved, they would still push global average temperatures up at least 3.5 Celsius, far above even remotely safe levels. In fact, new science is showing us that temperatures that high will be catastrophic, leading to massive sea level rise, agricultural disruptions, more droughts, floods, fires, infectious disease and other extreme impacts.

Continue reading at The Hill.

America’s Resilient Center and the Road to 2020 – Results from a New National Survey

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) today released a national opinion survey that highlights the surprising resilience of America’s pragmatic political center two years into Donald Trump’s deeply polarizing presidency. The poll reinforces a key takeaway from the 2018 midterm elections: Suburban voters – especially women – are repelled by the president’s racial and cultural demagoguery and are moving away from a Trump-dominated GOP.

“Our poll suggests that Donald Trump’s election in 2016 is more likely to be an aberration than any permanent shift in America’s political course,” said Anne Kim, PPI Director of Social and Domestic Policy and PPI President Will Marshall. “The defection of suburban voters creates a political landscape that favors Democrats in 2020 – if they stick to the ‘big tent’ approach that proved so effective in the midterm.”

The poll conducted by Pete Brodnitz at Expedition Strategies contains findings about what’s top of mind for voters, their ideological outlook and leanings, and their views on health care, trade, growth and inequality, the role of government, monopoly and competition, and other contentious issues.

“The agenda that could help Democrats sustain a governing majority, our poll suggests, is one that is progressive yet pragmatic—one that’s optimistic, aspirational and respects Americans’ beliefs in individual initiative and self-determination; one that broadens Americans’ opportunities for success in the private sector and strengthens the nation’s global economic role; one that demands more from business but doesn’t cross the line into stifling growth; and one that adopts a practical approach to big challenges such as immigration reform and climate change,” write Kim and Marshall.

“For Democrats to maintain and expand this near-majority advantage, they must craft a broadly appealing agenda that brings or keeps independents and less committed partisans—the majority of whom call themselves ‘moderate’—under the tent.”

PPI-Expedition-Strategies-2018-Poll-PPT

PPI_Americans-and-The-Economy2018

PPI Announces New Office Opening in Berlin, Germany

WASHINGTON —The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) today announced the opening of a new office in Berlin, Germany to further its longstanding commitment to transatlantic engagement and cooperation. 

“With an uncertain geopolitical landscape in Europe post-Brexit—and ever changing political dynamics in the United States—it is as critical as ever for Americans and Europeans to reaffirm their support for a healthy and productive transatlantic alliance rooted in our shared democratic ideals,” said Lindsay Mark Lewis, Executive Director at PPI. 

“With this in mind, PPI believes it is important for U.S. politicians and policy professionals to experience and learn about the European view on essential economic, cultural, and security issues impacting us both and for leaders in Germany and across Europe to engage in a dialogue with the next generation of U.S. leaders. We are excited to announce today the opening of a new office in Berlin to further this mission and to continue our commitment to a better understanding and appreciation of a shared future of prosperity on both sides of the Atlantic.”

The office in Berlin is the second European office that PPI has invested in, following the 2016 Brussels office opening. Over the past several years, PPI has engaged in public policy dialogues in Brussels, Berlin, Paris, Rome, London, Dublin, Geneva, Prague, Liverpool, Stockholm, Riga, and Warsaw.

PPI will be partnering with Berlin-based think-tank Das Progressive Zentrum (DPZ) on several upcoming projects that will be announced soon.

PPI is a non-profit organization with the mission of providing educational programming on current policy issues. The think-tank was a leader in the founding and push for the progressive modernization movement in the 1990s. PPI has continued this work since by maintaining relationships in Europe and producing informative and though-provoking transatlantic missions and reports. To date, PPI has hosted bipartisan representatives from more than 70 U.S. congressional, gubernatorial, and mayoral offices. 

###

Gerwin for New York Daily News, “Trump’s NAFTA revision actually reaffirmed open regional trade”

Donald Trump huffed, and he puffed, but he couldn’t blow NAFTA down.

Like the Big Bad Wolf in the fairy tale, President Trump presumed that NAFTA — which he’s called the “worst trade deal ever” — would collapse before his bluster like a house of straw. Trump’s bombast may have knocked a few shingles off the agreement’s free trade edifice. And it’s caused serious collateral damage to America’s neighborhood and beyond. But, in the end, NAFTA’s structure — like the Three Pigs’ house of bricks — still stands.

Trump, of course, tells a different fable. At a recent rally, Trump declared “[w]e are replacing the job-killing disaster known as NAFTA, with the brand new U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement.”

Continue reading at New York Daily News.

Marshall for New York Daily News, “New Old Labour: The U.K. party’s tight embrace of retrograde ideas, and what it might mean for Democratic Socialists in the U.S.”

Democrats, like progressive parties across the transatlantic world, are struggling to find an answer to populist nationalism. Could that answer lie in reviving another old political creed, socialism?

Some young Democratic activists, inspired by Sen. Bernie Sanders, are flirting with “democratic socialism.” But they have nothing on Britain’s Labour Party, which consummated its on-again relationship with socialism in Liverpool last week.

The occasion was the party’s annual conference, which I attended when not wallowing in Liverpool’s trove of Beatles memorabilia. The gathering presented an oddly incongruous picture: a reinvigorated party with lots of young faces hawking old ideas.

The Merseyside Conference also capped Jeremy Corbyn’s improbable odyssey from Labour’s hard-left fringe in the early 1980s to party leader today. Having survived media ridicule for his retro views, several attempted ousters and a recent imbroglio over charges that he’s tolerated anti-Semitism among left-wing Labour members, Corbyn at last seems to have his party firmly in hand.

Continue reading at New York Daily News.

Populism Watch: Immigration Propels France in World Cup, But Splits Europe

France erupted into celebration following their victory in the World Cup. The success of the multicultural soccer team offered a moment to reflect on the benefits of international migration. The win was also a fulfillment of Macron’s call for more heroes to unify the country. Amid division sowed by populists and nationalists, Macron communicated this call at the funeral of nationally exalted (and half-Belgian) singer Johnny Hallyday last year. Within France’s soccer team, 15 out of a total of 22 players came from families which had recently arrived from non-EU countries. These countries included the Democratic Republic of Congo, Cameroon, Morocco, Angola, and Algeria. The multi-faith team also included muslim players such as Paul Pogba, Ousmane Dembele, N’Golo Kante, Adil Rami, Djibril Sidibe, Benjamin Mendy and Nabil Fekir. The win was a bright spot in an otherwise turbulent time for the EU, engendered by anti-immigrant agendas.

Immigration continues to roil transatlantic politics. While the U.S. fixated on Trump’s child separation policy, the EU dealt with immigration challenges of its own. In a counter to the EU system, Interior Minister Matteo Salvini proposed a union made up of nationalist, populist, and anti-immigrant parties across Europe. He described the network as“a League of the Leagues of Europe, bringing together all the free and sovereign movements that want to defend their people and their borders.”These leaders would include France’s National Front leader Marine Le Pen, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz, Nigel Farage, who lobbied for the referendum that resulted in Britain leaving the union, and others. Not to be accused of only protecting the borders, Salvini set his sights inward. Locals reported authorities had cleared out an official Roma camp, and cited concern for the future of the Roma population in Italy.

The EU summit, held June 28th-29th, focused on reducing the immigration challenges which form a prominent platform for populist parties. The summit, held June 28th-29th, focused on redistributing and lessening the flows of migrants arriving by boat to the EU’s southernmost countries. Populist and nationalist parties which run on anti-immigrant platforms include Italy’s 5Star / the League Coalition, Germany’s Christian Social Union, and France’s National Rally (previously the National Front).

At the summit, EU leaders agreed to:

  • Share the responsibility of refugees arriving in the bloc on a newly voluntary basis,
  • Increase financing to Turkey, Morocco and other North African countries to prevent migration to Europe,
  • Support the development of regional disembarkation platforms for people saved at sea, aimed at “rapidly and safely”distinguishing between economic migrants and asylum seekers.

EU leaders also discussed the creation of an external migration management facility to be included under the next EU long-term budget. The plan would need sign-off from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, as well as the International Organization for Migration. Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel called specifically for alignment with all international legal standards regarding the facility. In 2016, Merkel led the creation of a similar program, in which Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğanagreed to take back migrants who had reached Europe in exchange for billions in euros to cover basics for Syrian refugee in Turkey. Germany also took in some Syrian refugees. In its first year of operation, Doctors Without Borders highlighted the “devastating human consequences of this strategy on the lives and health”of those sent to Turkey. Other examples of offshore immigrant processing facilities, such as the Australian detention centers on the islands of Nauru and Manus, have been sites of human rights concerns,hunger strikes, and other challenges.

On the last day of the EU Summit, the impact of these immigration challenges on human life was made clear. The Libyan Coast Guard reported a boat filled with migrants bound for Europe had sunk. One hundred people were missing, and the bodies of three infants were recovered.

Populism Watch: In the U.S. and EU, Battles For Human Rights at the Border

The entire transatlantic world is embroiled in heated debates over the treatment of immigrants and refugees. Trump’s decision to revoke his own family separation policy, after it sparked outrage across the country and drew scrutiny by members of both parties in Congress, put a spotlight on just how inhumane the treatment of migrants, including asylum-seekers, can be. In Europe, Italy and Malta refused to let a Doctors Without Borders boat carrying nearly 700 migrants to dock, prompting Spain to offer its ports. To the north, German Chancellor Angela Merkel agreed to seek stricter measures on migrants in Germany. Below, what to follow on immigration in the coming weeks.

United States: What impact will Congress have on the separation of families at the southern border?

Trump signed an executive order on June 20th to halt the separation of families at the southern border. The policy had resulted in children and babies taken from their parents and held in cage-like structures. Many prominent Republicans, including Maine Sen. Susan Collins, Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, and CNN National Security Analyst and previous NSA director Michael Hayden spoke out against the policy. Sen. Collins stated that the policy was “traumatizing to the children who are innocent victims, and it is contrary to our values in this country.” However, a recent Quinnipiac poll suggests the family separation policy is supported by 55 percent of her fellow Republicans.

As Trump’s executive order could be short-term, Congress is still moving forward on a number of bills. Senate Democrats introduced the Keep Families Together Act on June 7th. New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler introduced a bill in the House to limit separation at or near ports of entry on June 19th. The bills had 48 and 194 co-sponsors, respectively, as of June 21st. Republicans have put forth both a hardline approach by Virginia rep. Bob Goodlatte, and a so-called “compromise” bill that would end the separation policy and provide deportation protections and a path to citizenship for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, while allocating $25 billion in funding for Trump’s border wall, limiting authorized and unauthorized immigration, and continuing to detain asylum-seekers. Goodlatte’s bill failed on the House floor June 21st, and voting on the “compromise” bill was delayed.

Europe: How will the EU hold up amid refusals to let refugee boats dock?

Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini and Maltese Prime Minister Joseph Muscat played a game of “not it” when a boat carrying 692 rescued migrants attempted to dock in their countries. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez allowed the migrants to dock at his ports on June 17th, ending the impasse. As the boat was first spotted by the Italian coast-guard, Italy was obligated to take in the migrants until their asylum requests would have been decided, per EU policy. The ability of EU supporters to hold the union together amid these divisions could impact its future stability, and the state of intra-European relations. European leaders plan to meet Sunday to discuss this and other migration challenges.

Amid threats to the coalition between German Prime Minister Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats and right-of-center Christian Social Union, Merkel has agreed to seek stricter immigration measures ahead of an end-of-the-month EU summit. In response to the immigration challenges arising in Germany, Trump tweeted: “The people of Germany are turning against their leadership as migration is rocking the already tenuous Berlin coalition. Crime in Germany is way up. Big mistake made all over Europe in allowing millions of people in who have so strongly and violently changed their culture!” His statement is incorrect (crime in Germany at a 25 year low), ill-considered, and needlessly alienates a key European ally.

Given the continuing advance of populist, anti-immigrant sentiment across the Western democracies, we can expect fresh controversies to arise at national borders. Every country has a right to determine who it admits, and on what terms, and to enforce its immigration laws. But that right doesn’t relieve any country of the moral duty to treat immigrants – even unwanted ones – humanely and with some concern for their reasons for coming. That’s a lesson President Trump keeps learning, the hard way.