In response to President-elect Trump's expected immigration policies, the city of Los Angeles has created a $10 million defense fund to provide legal help for immigrants facing deportation; is it too late for the U.S. to intervene in Syria? The latest in Aleppo and responsibilities of the international community; finding the right balance between bragging and humility at a job interview or first date; and more.
Should taxpayer money go to legal aid for immigrants facing deportation?
The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to allocate $3 million over two years for legal help to immigrants at risk of deportation.
The vote comes a day after Mayor Garcetti announced the creation of a $10 million fund to help local immigrants facing deportation proceedings. Half of that money would come from the city and county government, and half would come from philanthropic groups.
Garcetti said the move is in response to President-elect Trump's threat to increase deportations of immigrants who are in the country illegally. But not all taxpayers agree that that is the best use of taxpayer money.
Larry Mantle spoke to Angelica Salas of Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles and Jessica Vaughan for the Center for Immigration Studies.
Interview Highlights:
On determining who is "criminal" and should be deported, and the impact of the L.A. Justice fund on providing counsel:
ANGELICA SALAS: In criminal court, independent of what crime you're being indicted for, you have representation if you can't pay for it. Now if we go to immigration courts, you don't have appointed counsel. . . So we want to make sure all individuals have access to counsel.
The definition of who is criminal under President-elect Donald Trump is pretty expansive so we can't trust that a minor conviction wouldn't end up in deportation.
JESSICA VAUGHAN: The reality is that most of the individuals that will be receiving this taxpayer-funded counsel are not going to qualify to stay in the country, they don't have a route to legal presence here. And the immigration organizations that provide this counsel already are providing assistance to people that have the best shot of being able to stay.
On undocumented immigrants contributing to taxes for the fund:
VAUGHAN: The taxpayer issue is a red herring. The most reputable studies show that people who are here illegally are not necessarily paying enough in taxes to cover all of the services they receive. I'm a taxpayer, too; it doesn't mean I get to have a publicly funded lawyer in traffic or divorce court.
SALAS: In L.A. County, over 80 percent of our population has an immigrant in their household. That means a spouse or a child or an older child, all who are also taxpayers, are supporting these efforts, because they support and invest in their own families.
On the fund's effect on separating families:
SALAS: Over 800,000 young people who are U.S. citizens have been deported with their parents. If you have a lawyer, who is helping with your case, you're going to be able to stay in the country. Most of the L.A. County residents have been here for over 20 years. You're gonna be able to stay with your family. . . and we're gonna have more just and efficient immigration courts.
VAUGHAN: We're talking about people who are being deported because they've been identified as a priority for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), they don't have much hope of saying no qualifications or eligibility to stay and having a lawyer is not gonna change that.
Note: This interview has been edited for clarity and this story has been updated.
Guests:
Angelica Salas, Executive Director, CHIRLA (Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles)
Jessica Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies at Center for Immigration Studies
KPCC's online polls are not scientific surveys of local or national opinion. Rather, they are designed as a way for our audience members to engage with each other and share their views. Let us know what you think on our Facebook page, or in the comments below.
Assessing the severity of California’s teacher shortage and what’s driving SoCal educators to leave or stay
While teaching K-12 education can be one of the most rewarding jobs on the planet, where educators have the opportunity to have a direct influence on the shaping of the young minds, it is also one of the most demanding and least rewarding jobs on the planet.
Many teachers work 50-60 hours a week for a relatively small salary, and many feel that school districts are more focused on raising test scores than identifying and meeting the differing needs of students. It shouldn’t come as a surprise then that California and LAUSD here in Southern California are facing a dire teacher shortage and have been for some time. A recent study from the Learning Policy Institute in Northern California explains how bad the problem is, has been, and continues to get. Three quarters of the 200 districts surveyed reported having a hard time filling teaching positions, especially in low-income areas.
If you’re a current or former K-12 teacher in LAUSD, we want to hear from you today on AirTalk. If you left teaching, what made you do it? Did you make the right decision or do you have regrets? If you’re still teaching, what’s keeping you in it? Would you ever consider leaving? What would it take for you to leave the profession altogether?
Guest:
Maura Walz, KPCC education editor
Debating President Obama’s Syria policy and how it might change under Trump
The Syrian civil war has been raging for almost six years now, leaving more than half a million people dead and millions more displaced.
Up to this point, the U.S. policy on Syria has been to monitor the situation but not to intervene. However, calls for U.S. intervention have increased in the last week after armed forces for Syrian president regained full control over Aleppo, the besieged city in Northern Syria near the Turkish border that has been a key to the anti-Assad rebellion. Some argue that the humanitarian crisis has risen to such a level that the U.S. must put its foot down and that despite the blow that fall of Aleppo deals to rebel forces, they won’t simply stop fighting. Others say that it’s too late for the U.S. to do anything at all about the humanitarian crisis emerging and that trying to indirectly intervene with airstrikes could complicate the conflict further and increase pressure for U.S. boots on the ground, which the American public would almost certainly not support.
What does the future of U.S. policy in Syria look like under a President Trump? What have we learned about the efficacy of the Obama Administration’s policy? Should the U.S. intervene in Syria or would that create more problems than it would solve?
Guests:
Phil Ewing, national security editor, NPR; he tweets
Joshua Landis, professor of international and area studies and director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma; Landis’ blog is SyriaComment.com
Jessica Ashooh, deputy director of the Atlantic Council’s Middle East Strategy Task Force; she was a senior policy planning analyst in the United Arab Emirates Ministry of Foreign Affairs and a participant in the Geneva II peace talks
What Apple’s appeal on EU’s $14B tax ruling means for the US
CUPERTINO, Calif. (AP) - Apple is appealing a European Union order to collect a record $14 billion in taxes, following a similar appeal by Ireland.
The move comes about four months after EU competition authorities said Apple owed back taxes based on the way it reports European-wide profits through Ireland. Ireland charges Apple only for sales in its own territory, but the EU's Competition Commissioner says that arrangement let Apple report its Europe-wide profits at tax rates well under 1 percent. Apple claims the EU retroactively changed the rules and disregarded decades of Irish and U.S. tax law.
The U.S. position on the matter would be that Apple is a company earning revenue, so it should be taxed. But where? And if Apple is offshoring things in a way that’s illegal, should tax revenue go to the states? Who should taxes truly belong to if all Apple had in Ireland was shell corporations?
Guest:
Edward Kleinbard, professor of law and business at USC, who focuses on domestic and international tax issues; he is also former Chief of Staff of the US Congress’s nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation
Striking the right balance of bragging on job interviews and first dates
How are you perceived and judged for either bragging or for being humble?
That question was posed by Brown University social psychologists and the results can be instructive for crafting social impressions. There are a few different categories the researchers used in their experiment: a bragger who was justified in his boastings; a bragger who was less skilled than he claimed; a humble person who was highly skilled; and a person whose humility matched their low skills.
As explained by AirTalk guest Elizabeth Bernstein in her Wall Street Journal column about the experiment:
"Braggarts are viewed as more competent but less moral than people who remain humble, except if their bragging is unsubstantiated. In that case, they are seen as less competent and more immoral. People who don't brag, the 'humblers,' are seen as moral but incompetent."
In which situations would you rather be seen as competent if not moral? And would you prefer to appear likeable and moral - at the risk of seeming incompetent? How can you achieve the right balance when it matters most, such as during job interviews and first dates?
Guest:
Elizabeth Bernstein, columnist, The Wall Street Journal