Today, we'll examine the new bipartisan immigration legislation. We'll also consider how drone strike tactics may change during President Obama's second term -- how do drones affect international relations? Later, we'll discuss transgender rights, earthquake warning systems, and the awards season overkill. All that and more, on AirTalk.
Is viable immigration reform on the way?
In a rare moment of bipartisanship in Washington, eight leading senators have reached a consensus proposal for immigration reform. The key players are Democrats Chuck Schumer, Richard Durbin, Robert Menendez and Michael Bennet, and Republicans John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio and Jeff Flake. They have met five times since the November election, after which Republicans began to embrace the idea of reform after the huge Latino turnout and its effect on the polls. Due to this political climate, and the fact that both parties are eagerly working together, immigration experts are bullish on actual progress being made.
The plan would allow for a path to citizenship for the 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States, as long as they pay back taxes, a fine and pass a background check. Then, they would be on probationary status until the government deems the border between the U.S. and Mexico secure. After which, those affected could get a green card, and thus permanent residency.
Meanwhile, President Barack Obama is expected to deliver his plan for immigration reform tomorrow in Las Vegas. His proposal is expected not to include the condition that the border must be secure before granting legal status, and political analysts believe that the final result will be somewhere in between. While the Senate and the White House are both moving forward on this, pressure will ultimately fall to the House of Representatives, in which the dominant party represents some districts where reform is a four-letter word.
So how will this all shake out? What are the details of the Senate’s plan? Will it clash significantly with Obama’s plan? And how bipartisan will this be when it’s all said and done?
Guests:
Steven Camarota, Director of Research for the Center for Immigration Studies
Angelica Salas, Executive Director of CHIRLA, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles
Doyle McManus, Washington columnist for the Los Angeles Times
Will the Obama administration limit drone strikes?
Last week Senator John Kerry signaled a possible change of policy on the use of drones. During his confirmation hearing for Secretary of State, Kerry said "we cannot afford a diplomacy that is defined by troops or drones or confrontation," according to the LA Times. His comments came on the heels of a United Nations announcement. Its launching an investigation into U.S. and U.K. drone strikes at the request of Pakistan and two unidentified permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. The investigation is tasked with determining if drone strikes have killed civilians. The investigation could change U.N. resolutions on drone strikes.
The Obama administration has publicly acknowledged targeted killing operations, justifying their usage because it protects American lives and prevents potential terrorist attacks. According to the Associated Press, there were 35 strikes in Pakistan in 2008 under the George W. Bush administration. Under President Barack Obama’s administration, drone strikes rose to 117 in 2010. That number fell to 64 strikes in 2011 and 46 strikes in 2012. Although targeted killings through drones have been used by the U.S. as well as other countries, this war tactic has been met with disapproval. Other issues regarding the usage of drones have been raised. The American Civil Liberties Union have filed multiple lawsuits against the U.S. for killing civilians, eliminating targets without due process of law and the lack of oversight in this CIA program.
What are the strategic ramifications of drone use? How do they affect international relations? Is a policy shift likely?
Guests:
Danya Greenfield, deputy director of the Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East at the Atlantic Council, where she leads the Yemen Policy Group.
Bill Roggio, Managing Editor, Long War Journal; Senior Fellow, The Foundation for Defense of Democracies; former embedded reporter in Iraq & Afghanistan
Is transgender equality 'the civil rights issue of our time'?
How will transgender rights change during President Obama’s second term? In October 2012, Vice President Joe Biden called transgender equality “the civil rights issue of our time,” but although the president’s second term inauguration speech directly addressed gay rights, he has yet to speak about transgender rights.
The term transgender is used to describe people whose biological sex does not match their self-perceived gender, and who may have non-conforming gender expression. Transgender and gender non-conforming people frequently face discrimination in healthcare, public schools, public spaces, and the workplace. Transgender youth have statistically higher rates of homelessness, suicide, and self harm.
The Obama administration has made some contributions to transgender rights already, including adding gender identity to the non-discrimination clauses for federal housing. The the Employment Non-Discrimination Act has been introduced in Congress every year since 1995, and has included protections for non-conforming gender identity and expression since 2011, but has never yet passed.
How could transgender rights change in the next four years, socially and politically? What kind of federal legislation might feasibly pass -- what kinds of protections should be provided? Should gender identity discrimination be handled on a national level, or by individual states?
Guests:
Shannon Minter, lead counsel in the California Prop 8 appeal case and legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights in San Francisco
Ilya Shapiro, senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review
Earthquake early warning system proposed for California
If an unexpected disaster of the magnitude of Hurricane Katrina or Superstorm Sandy hit populated areas of California, would we be ready? Many think a disaster of that scale could come in the form of a massive earthquake, which would hit suddenly and without warning.
Today, California state senator Alex Padilla is sponsoring legislation to fund an earthquake early warning system to buy millions of Californians crucial seconds that could save countless lives and dollars. The system would be made up of a network of sensors in the ground that, when shaken, would alert distant cities of the coming earthquake. In theory, if the system detected a quake in the Bay Area, it could give Angelenos up to a full minute of warning -- time that could be used to get children in classrooms to safety or maybe stop a train hauling toxic material.
What is the science behind a system like this? Does the cost seem worth the expense if it only buys us a minute?
Guests:
Alex Padilla, Democratic State Senator from California's 20th State Senate district which encompasses the San Fernando Valley.
Douglas Given, geophysicist and Early Warning Project coordinator, can speak about the science behind the system
Awards overkill?
It’s awards season in Hollywood, but celebrities aren’t the only ones passing around golden statues. These days, you’re likely to see awards given out in every industry under the sun, from best closet organizer to longest beard. Not to mention the thousands of “recognitions of participation” certificates handed out on a daily basis. Surely preciously trees need not be slaughtered to remind someone simply that they were present at something, right? Or is there a method to this seeming madness?
Businesses swear by these events as a means of boosting employee morale, especially during these post-recession times when workers are logging more hours in understaffed offices. What exactly goes into putting on one of these events? How do they recreate the sensation of being on the red carpet at the Oscars with a very non-Oscars budget? And what about after the awards are over? Some people proudly show off their awards for all to see. Do they get a motivational kick from seeing them?
Meanwhile, others get awards which get shoved in a drawer or thrown in the trash. What gives? Are they ashamed of the attention, or just generally over it? Does it have more to do with one’s personality than the awards themselves? Do awards actually inspire employees to produce better work? What do you do with your awards?
Guests:
Troy Halsey, founder and CEO of The Halsey Group LLC author of “Freelancer’s Guide to Corporate Event Design” (Focal Press, 2010)
Beth A. Livingston, Assistant Professor of Human Resource Studies at Cornell University’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations