Connect with us

News

Florida Lawmaker Declares 16 Year Olds Are ‘Not Children’ But ‘Youth Workers’ Amid Labor Shortage

Published

on

In late August Hurricane Idalia, the strongest tropical storm to hit northern Florida since 1896, killed four people and caused up to $20 billion in damage. In September, thanks to Governor Ron DeSantis’ anti-immigrant law that has been called “draconian,” clean-up and rebuilding has been hard. Migrant workers have been fleeing north, to Georgia and other states, terrified of being arrested.

Nationwide, Republicans have been attacking President Joe Biden for what they call the “border crisis,” an influx of undocumented immigrants that not only started before the Biden administration, but was worsened by President Donald Trump according to former top national security, border security, and customs officials. House and Senate Republicans are now demanding any funds to help Ukraine and Israel be tied to funds to “fix” the border.

At the state level, Republicans including Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Florida governor and presidential candidate Ron DeSantis, have been shipping undocumented immigrants out of their states to points north, to spots like New York City, Philadelphia, Massachusetts’s Martha’s Vineyard, and even the official residence of the Vice President, the Naval Observatory in Washington, D.C.

Last year on Christmas Eve, in 18 degree weather, “busloads of migrants were dropped off in front of Vice President Kamala Harris’ residence in Washington, DC,” according to CNN. Many were “asylum seekers from Ecuador, Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Peru and Colombia,” not used to sub-freezing temperatures. Some were dressed only in tee shirts.

READ MORE: Highly-Classified Intel on Putin and Russia Went Missing in Trump’s Final White House Days

“Governor Abbott abandoned children on the side of the road in below freezing temperatures on Christmas Eve without coordinating with any Federal or local authorities,” the White House said in a statement.

There are no accurate figures for how many migrants have been shipped from Republican-run states like Texas and Florida, but they number at least in the tens of thousands. In October, Axios reported Gov. Abbott had shipped over 50,000 migrants to points north, including Chicago, NYC, L.A., D.C., and Philadelphia – all run by Democrats. Gov. DeSantis has a $12 million budget to send migrants out of his state, and is believed to have spent $615,000 to fly about 50 migrants to Martha’s Vineyard. He “has vowed to use ‘every penny’ of the $12 million allocated to his administration for migrant transports,” CNN reported.

And now, as unemployment under President Biden continues to remain extremely low – below 4% for nearly a full two years – “the longest such streak since the late 1960s,” and as the COVID-related inflation has plummeted from 9% one year ago to 3.1%, as gas prices continue to drop, media outlets and think tanks are pivoting to reporting on the worker, staffing, and labor shortage.

“We hear every day from our member companies—of every size and industry, across nearly every state—they’re facing unprecedented challenges trying to find enough workers to fill open jobs,” the U.S. Chamber of Commerce reported late last month. “Right now, the latest data shows that we have 9.5 million job openings in the U.S., but only 6.5 million unemployed workers.”

The labor shortage is caused in part by a long-term declining U.S. birth rate and decline in immigrants allowed to work in the U.S. Experts say without immigration, the U.S. population will start to decline.

“The U.S. labor force will shrink, and America risks stagnation and declining living standards without immigrants, according to new research,” Forbes reported in August. “Immigrants can boost the U.S. working-age population and offset America’s falling birthrate and the retirement of Baby Boomers. U.S. elected officials must decide whether to change immigration laws and policies to bolster America’s labor force and prevent decline.”

READ MORE: Florida Bill Puts Decision of Students Advancing to Fourth Grade in Hands of Their Parents

As a result, Republicans across the country have been working to reduce or remove child labor protections to help fill the lack of able-bodied workers.

“While federal agencies are ramping up enforcement of child labor protections in response to increasing violations, industry groups are working to roll back child labor protections via state legislation,” the Economic Policy Institute reported in May. “Already in 2023, seven bills to weaken child labor protections have been introduced in six Midwestern states (Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, and South Dakota) and in Arkansas, where a bill repealing restrictions on work for 14- and 15-year-olds has now been signed into law. One bill introduced in Minnesota would allow 16- and 17-year-olds to work on construction sites. Ten states have introduced, considered, or passed legislation rolling back protections for young workers in just the past two years.”

And now, Florida.

Contributing to Florida’s labor shortage are Governor DeSantis’ policies during the COVID pandemic. Florida had the 18th-highest per capita COVID death rate in the U.S. 92,520 people reportedly died, ranking the state third in total COVID deaths.

But also, DeSantis’ immigration laws are scaring workers into fleeing the state.

Now, one Florida Republican lawmaker sees a solution: children. And she has a bill to put them to work more.

“The Republican-backed bill, fed to Rep. Linda Chaney by the right-wing Foundation for Government Accountability — a think tank that wrote the bill — would gut the state’s current restrictions on child labor for older teens, which were originally established to prevent work from interfering with a child’s health, safety and education,” Orlando Weekly reports. “Backed by industry groups representing restaurant and hotel owners, the proposed bill would get rid of state guidelines on when 16- and 17-year-olds can work and would limit local governments’ ability to enact stronger regulations in their communities. The bill, for instance, would make it legal for employers to put older teens to work on overnight shifts, even if they have school the next day.”

State Rep. Linda Chaney on Wednesday explained her legislation to weaken Florida’s child labor protections.

“This bill is not about children,” the Republican lawmaker told her colleagues. “This bill is about 16- and 17-year-olds. These are youth workers that are driving automobiles. They are not children.”

Rep. Chaney went on to explain that under her bill, a child could legally work the overnight shift, perhaps midnight to 6 AM, at a gas station or 7-Eleven, for example, on a school night, and could do so without parental consent.

READ MORE: ‘Thoughts and Prayers’: Moms Group Releases ‘Devastating’ Ad on Sandy Hook Anniversary

She said, “it is up to the individual and their parent how they choose to work and again, there’s no mandate in this bill of when or where they work, they may choose to work 35 hours. There is also school choice,” she said, of Florida’s massive school voucher program. “There’s a lot of differences of children in youth schedules now. So they may not be going to school during typical school hours. So for them to choose, they have the right now to choose what best fits their individual situation.”

When asked if the child has to “get parental consent to take that job if they’re 16 or 17?” Chaney answered, “No.”

Chaney “said she filed the legislation in part to provide more labor for Florida’s tourism industry,” Florida-based reporter Jason Garcia wrote at Seeking Rents. “Being in a tourist area of Florida and knowing the needs of the hospitality industry…I felt this was a common-sense bill.”

Watch the videos of Chaney’s remarks above or at this link.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

CNN Smacks Down Trump Rant Courthouse So ‘Heavily Guarded’ MAGA Cannot Attend His Trial

Published

1 day ago

on

April 26, 2024

By

Donald Trump’s Friday morning claim Manhattan’s Criminal Courts Building is “heavily guarded” so his supporters cannot attend his trial was torched by a top CNN anchor. The ex-president, facing 34 felony charges in New York, had been urging his followers to show up and protest on the courthouse steps, but few have.

“I’m at the heavily guarded Courthouse. Security is that of Fort Knox, all so that MAGA will not be able to attend this trial, presided over by a highly conflicted pawn of the Democrat Party. It is a sight to behold! Getting ready to do my Courthouse presser. Two minutes!” Trump wrote Friday morning on his Truth Social account.

CNN’s Kaitlan Collins supplied a different view.

“Again, the courthouse is open the public. The park outside, where a handful of his supporters have gathered on trials days, is easily accessible,” she wrote minutes after his post.

READ MORE: ‘Assassination of Political Rivals as an Official Act’: AOC Warns Take Trump ‘Seriously’

Trump has tried to rile up his followers to come out and make a strong showing.

On Monday Trump urged his supporters to “rally behind MAGA” and “go out and peacefully protest” at courthouses across the country, while complaining that “people who truly LOVE our Country, and want to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, are not allowed to ‘Peacefully Protest,’ and are rudely and systematically shut down and ushered off to far away ‘holding areas,’ essentially denying them their Constitutional Rights.”

On Wednesday Trump claimed, “The Courthouse area in Lower Manhattan is in a COMPLETE LOCKDOWN mode, not for reasons of safety, but because they don’t want any of the thousands of MAGA supporters to be present. If they did the same thing at Columbia, and other locations, there would be no problem with the protesters!”

After detailing several of his false claims about security measures prohibiting his followers from being able to show their support and protest, CNN published a fact-check on Wednesday:

“Trump’s claims are all false. The police have not turned away ‘thousands of people’ from the courthouse during his trial; only a handful of Trump supporters have shown up to demonstrate near the building,” CNN reported.

“And while there are various security measures in place in the area, including some street closures enforced by police officers and barricades, it’s not true that ‘for blocks you can’t get near this courthouse.’ In reality, the designated protest zone for the trial is at a park directly across the street from the courthouse – and, in addition, people are permitted to drive right up to the front of the courthouse and walk into the building, which remains open to the public. If people show up early enough in the morning, they can even get into the trial courtroom itself or the overflow room that shows near-live video of the proceedings.”

READ MORE: Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

 

 

Continue Reading

News

‘Assassination of Political Rivals as an Official Act’: AOC Warns Take Trump ‘Seriously’

Published

2 days ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

Democratic U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is responding to Thursday’s U.S. Supreme Court hearing on Donald Trump’s claim he has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution because he was a U.S. president, and she delivered a strong warning in response.

Trump’s attorney argued before the nation’s highest court that the ex-president could have ordered the assassination of a political rival and not face criminal prosecution unless he was first impeached by the House of Representatives and then convicted by the Senate.

But even then, Trump attorney John Sauer argued, if assassinating his political rival were done as an “official act,” he would be automatically immune from all prosecution.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, presenting the hypothetical, expressed, “there are some things that are so fundamentally evil that they have to be protected against.”

RELATED: Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

“If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person, and he orders the military, or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?” she asked.

“It would depend on the hypothetical, but we can see that could well be an official act,” Trump attorney Sauer quickly replied.

Sauer later claimed that if a president ordered the U.S. military to wage a coup, he could also be immune from prosecution, again, if it were an “official act.”

The Atlantic’s Tom Nichols, a retired U.S. Naval War College professor and an expert on Russia, nuclear weapons, and national security affairs, was quick to poke a large hole in that hypothetical.

“If the president suspends the Senate, you can’t prosecute him because it’s not an official act until the Senate impeaches …. Uh oh,” he declared.

RELATED: Justices Slam Trump Lawyer: ‘Why Is It the President Would Not Be Required to Follow the Law?’

U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez blasted the Trump team.

“The assassination of political rivals as an official act,” the New York Democrat wrote.

“Understand what the Trump team is arguing for here. Take it seriously and at face value,” she said, issuing a warning: “This is not a game.”

Marc Elias, who has been an attorney to top Democrats and the Democratic National Committee, remarked, “I am in shock that a lawyer stood in the U.S Supreme Court and said that a president could assassinate his political opponent and it would be immune as ‘an official act.’ I am in despair that several Justices seemed to think this answer made perfect sense.”

CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen, a former U.S. Ambassador and White House Special Counsel for Ethics and Government Reform under President Barack Obama, boiled it down: “Trump is seeking dictatorial powers.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘They Will Have Thugs?’: Lara Trump’s Claim RNC Will ‘Physically Handle the Ballots’ Stuns

 

Continue Reading

News

Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

Published

2 days ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

Legal experts appeared somewhat pleased during the first half of the Supreme Court’s historic hearing on Donald Trump’s claim he has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution because he was the President of the United States, as the justice appeared unwilling to accept that claim, but were stunned later when the right-wing justices questioned the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s attorney. Many experts are suggesting the ex-president may have won at least a part of the day, and some are expressing concern about the future of American democracy.

“Former President Trump seems likely to win at least a partial victory from the Supreme Court in his effort to avoid prosecution for his role in Jan. 6,” Axios reports. “A definitive ruling against Trump — a clear rejection of his theory of immunity that would allow his Jan. 6 trial to promptly resume — seemed to be the least likely outcome.”

The most likely outcome “might be for the high court to punt, perhaps kicking the case back to lower courts for more nuanced hearings. That would still be a victory for Trump, who has sought first and foremost to delay a trial in the Jan. 6 case until after Inauguration Day in 2025.”

Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern, who covers the courts and the law, noted: “This did NOT go very well [for Special Counsel] Jack Smith’s team. Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh think Trump’s Jan. 6 prosecution is unconstitutional. Maybe Gorsuch too. Roberts is skeptical of the charges. Barrett is more amenable to Smith but still wants some immunity.”

READ MORE: ‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

Civil rights attorney and Tufts University professor Matthew Segal, responding to Stern’s remarks, commented: “If this is true, and if Trump becomes president again, there is likely no limit to the harm he’d be willing to cause — to the country, and to specific individuals — under the aegis of this immunity.”

Noted foreign policy, national security and political affairs analyst and commentator David Rothkopf observed: “Feels like the court is leaning toward creating new immunity protections for a president. It’s amazing. We’re watching the Constitution be rewritten in front of our eyes in real time.”

“Frog in boiling water alert,” warned Ian Bassin, a former Associate White House Counsel under President Barack Obama. “Who could have imagined 8 years ago that in the Trump era the Supreme Court would be considering whether a president should be above the law for assassinating opponents or ordering a military coup and that *at least* four justices might agree.”

NYU professor of law Melissa Murray responded to Bassin: “We are normalizing authoritarianism.”

Trump’s attorney, John Sauer, argued before the Supreme Court justices that if Trump had a political rival assassinated, he could only be prosecuted if he had first been impeach by the U.S. House of Representatives then convicted by the U.S. Senate.

During oral arguments Thursday, MSNBC host Chris Hayes commented on social media, “Something that drives me a little insane, I’ll admit, is that Trump’s OWN LAWYERS at his impeachment told the Senators to vote not to convict him BECAUSE he could be prosecuted if it came to that. Now they’re arguing that the only way he could be prosecuted is if they convicted.”

READ MORE: Biden Campaign Hammers Trump Over Infamous COVID Comment

Attorney and former FBI agent Asha Rangappa warned, “It’s worth highlighting that Trump’s lawyers are setting up another argument for a second Trump presidency: Criminal laws don’t apply to the President unless they specifically say so…this lays the groundwork for saying (in the future) he can’t be impeached for conduct he can’t be prosecuted for.”

But NYU and Harvard professor of law Ryan Goodman shared a different perspective.

“Due to Trump attorney’s concessions in Supreme Court oral argument, there’s now a very clear path for DOJ’s case to go forward. It’d be a travesty for Justices to delay matters further. Justice Amy Coney Barrett got Trump attorney to concede core allegations are private acts.”

NYU professor of history Ruth Ben-Ghiat, an expert scholar on authoritarians, fascism, and democracy concluded, “Folks, whatever the Court does, having this case heard and the idea of having immunity for a military coup taken seriously by being debated is a big victory in the information war that MAGA and allies wage alongside legal battles. Authoritarians specialize in normalizing extreme ideas and and involves giving them a respected platform.”

The Nation’s justice correspondent Elie Mystal offered up a prediction: “Court doesn’t come back till May 9th which will be a decision day. But I think they won’t decide *this* case until July 3rd for max delay. And that decision will be 5-4 to remand the case back to DC, for additional delay.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.