Today on AirTalk we will discuss the law complicating deportation of Central American children immigrating to the United States. Also, this week a new law, AB 218 went into effect in the state of California that “bans the box” on all public job applications asking whether or not a job applicant has been convicted of a crime. Then, how do you listen to music?
Immigrants or refugees? The law complicating deportation of Central American children
Unprecedented numbers of children immigrating illegally to the U.S. have overwhelmed the border and filled processing centers. President Obama issued his own warning to parents in Central America: “Do not send your children to the borders, if they do make it, they’ll get sent back.” But for most of the children crossing the border illegally, the deportation process is not that simple -- a 2008 anti-trafficking law requires unaccompanied minors from Central America to appear before an immigration judge, and a backlog of cases, made more extreme by the recent influx of migrant children, has delayed the legal process for many of these children. It can take months, even years, to send a case through the legal system, and in the interim, children are sent to live with family in the U.S., settling into a new life.
The law, the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, sought to crack down on modern day child slavery and trafficking -- it passed easily with support from both parties and was signed by President George W. Bush. While its proponents argue that the law is still necessary to defend the children currently in the system, as wells as future refugees, critics are working on doing away with it in order to expedite the deportation process.
Does the U.S. have the resources to continue detaining and processing child migrants using the current legal system? Is it fair to end the anti-trafficking law in order to speed up deportation of unaccompanied minors from Central America? What’s the best way for the U.S. to approach this issue?
Guest:
Fawn Johnson, reporter with National Journal
New law gives ex-felons better chance at a job, but some say it doesn’t go far enough
This week a new law, AB 218 went into effect in the state of California that “bans the box” on all public job applications asking whether or not a job applicant has been convicted of a crime. This prohibits a state or local agency from asking an applicant to disclose information regarding a criminal conviction, except as specified, until the agency has determined the applicant meets the minimum employment qualifications for the position.
But advocates for ex-felons and inmates trying to reenter society, say the new law doesn’t go far enough. They say gainful employment is the best defense against those with a criminal past, returning to crime. They want Los Angeles to adopt a measure similar to the one San Francisco will begin enforcing this August -- it “bans the box” on city-contracted businesses and even private businesses with 20 or more employees and applies to housing applications, too.
Should Los Angeles ban the box on all business and residential applications? Do ex-felons deserve every shot they can get at a job? Do employers and landlords have a right to know whether their future employee or tenant has a criminal history?
Guests:
Councilman Curren Price, who has a motion to research the impact of expanding the Ban the Box law in Los Angeles
Tim Lynch, Director of Cato’s Project on Criminal Justice
Susan Burton, one of the founding members of All of Us or None, a national initiative started by formerly incarcerated people to fight against discrimination faced after release; she’s also Executive Director of A New Way of Life Reentry Project, which provides housing and support services to formerly incarcerated women in South Central LA.
With implementation twice delayed, should the employer mandate be dropped from Obamacare?
Republicans have long lambasted the requirement under the Affordable Care Act that mandates businesses with over 50 or more full-time workers to provide health insurance. And lately, the right has found an unlikely group of allies in their call to scrap that part of the law: Liberals.
The so-called "employer mandate" won't go into effect until 2015; implementation has been delayed twice already. But critics say that it puts too much pressure on small businesses, and point to the rise of the part-time workforce in the country as a result of the requirement. And some left-leaning supporters of the Affordable Care Act are beginning to agree, like the Urban Institute and Commonwealth Fund, both liberal think tanks. Most Democrats in Congress, though, are staying out of the fight, but a few, like West Virginia Secretary of State and Senate candidate Natalie Tennant, has been vocal about her opposition.
Should the employer mandate be repealed? How would that affect the economics of the Affordable Care Act?
Guests:
Ron Pollack, Executive Director of Families USA, a national nonprofit organization dedicated to the achievement of quality, affordable healthcare for all Americans
Linda Blumberg, Senior Fellow at the Health Policy Center at The Urban Institute, a liberal-leaning nonprofit social and economic think tank based in DC
LA rejects the Feds with no more ICE holds
The City of LA will no longer hold inmates longer than their jail time despite detention requests from the the US Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) department - unless the police get a warrant or a judge vets and approves the request.
An ICE hold is not a mandate the police department has to obey, rather it is a request that, thus far, LAPD has honored. This choice has to do with a variety of reasons, including the cost impact of holding inmates beyond their prison time, as well as possible liability for damages accrued.
Critics say helping ICE do their job is a good thing. They also wonder why not hold inmates longer to err on the side of public safety? Should local police be using their resources to help out ICE - a federal department? Or should ICE, whose main concern is immigration issues, lean on their own knowledge? Is public safety in harms way if inmates, despited immigration status, are released when their time is up?
Guests:
Angelica Salas, Executive Director at Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles
Jessica Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies at Center for Immigration Studies
El Rancho Unified's new curriculum requirement revives debate over role of ethnic studies
The El Rancho Unified School District has voted to require ethnic studies courses as a requirement for graduation, becoming the first school district in the state to do so. The requirement goes into effect in the 2015-16 school year.
The change won't affect the total number of credits a student needs to complete before graduation. The ethnic studies requirement will replace a geography requirement.
The move came as California lawmakers consider a bill seeking to authorize a State Commission to study the implementation of ethnic studies in public high schools. AB 1750, introduced by Assemblyman Luis Alejo (D-Watsonville) in February, is awaiting senate approval.
Guests:
Jose Lara, Vice President of the El Rancho Board of Education who co-sponsored the proposal
David Lehrer, President of Community Advocates, Inc., nonprofit organization that advocates innovative approaches to human relations and race relations in Los Angeles city and county
Audiophiles and background listeners: how do you listen to music?
The way we listen to music is always changing -- from records to tapes to CD's to MP3's, music is something people devote time to, it’s at the forefront and in the background of our lives.
For serious listeners, records are something especially important, and although many audiophiles have been critical of a prevalent “background music” mentality, they may have something to celebrate. Vinyl record sales are up 725 percent since 2008, LP sales grew by 32 percent in 2013 to 6.1 million albums sold (digital sales were stagnant, CD sales declined).
Young listeners are driving record sales, even though vinyl is much more expensive than CDs and digital downloads. Some attribute the vinyl comeback to sound quality (fuller and warmer), aesthetics (the beauty of record players and paying for the album art), and the immersive quality of listening to a full record. Jack White’s new album just sold more copies than any vinyl record since 1991 (40,000 in the first week), and record stores are flourishing.
Still, digital music rules the market – it’s much easier and cheaper to download songs one at a time, skip the experience of a whole album and opt for a mix of songs and artists: music is frequently background noise.
Is the resurgence of vinyl an indicator that consumers are ready for musical immersion? Do you sit down with an album and dedicate time to pure listening? Is it a bad thing for music to be background noise, or is that equally special? How do you like to listen to music?
Guest:
Mark Richardson, Editor-in-Chief of Pitchfork, his column Resonant Frequency has run on the site since 2001