Nation Boards Up Windows, Retreats To Cellar As Lena Dunham Reenters News Cycle
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Trump's attack on in-state tuition for Dreamers is bad law — and worse policy
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Other surveys — by the Advertisement Among the targets of the administration's hostility, none elicits more sympathy from the public than the so‑called Dreamers — young people brought here unlawfully as children, who have grown up as Americans in everything but paperwork. (According to Gallup, Advertisement In lawsuits filed this spring against Texas, Minnesota, and Kentucky, the Justice Department maintains that offering in‑state tuition to students without legal immigration status — even if they were brought here as small children and essentially grew up American — violates federal law. In reality, it is the administration's assault that distorts federal law. It is also a brazen power grab that tramples states' rights, to say nothing of basic decency. Beginning in 2001, Democratic and Republican legislatures decided that if young people grow up in a state, are educated in its schools, and want to pursue higher education within its borders, it makes no sense to penalize them financially merely because of their immigration status. If there are good reasons to give a break on tuition to local students who want to go to a local college, what difference does it make whether they have a passport, a green card, or neither? Yet on April 28, President Trump Advertisement But that isn't true. Federal law does not say that undocumented immigrants must be excluded from any in-state tuition benefit. It Accordingly, the states that offer reduced tuition to undocumented immigrants condition the offer on criteria other than residency. States that offer in‑state tuition to undocumented students are acting not just humanely but rationally. Such policies reflect the common-sense principle that justifies giving a tuition break to any local student: It is in every state's interest to help its homegrown young people be as successful and well educated as possible. Lower tuition makes higher education more affordable, which in turn boosts the number of local families that can send their kids to college, which in turn expands the state's population of educated adults. A more educated population strengthens the state's economy, since college graduates are more likely to be employed and to earn higher incomes. For states like Massachusetts, which suffers from high outmigration, a particularly strong argument for the in-state tuition break is that graduates of public institutions are more likely to Advertisement None of these arguments has any logical connection to immigration or citizenship. They apply with equal force to those born abroad and to those born locally. And it is irrelevant whether those born abroad were brought to America by parents who had immigration visas or by parents who didn't. Dreamers aren't freeloaders. Like their families, they pay taxes — property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, and even the payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare benefits, for which they are ineligible. (In 2022, according to the latest estimate from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, undocumented immigrants Aside from the Trumpian hard core, most Americans sympathize with the plight of undocumented immigrants who grew up in this country and have known no other home. That explains why (as Gallup reports) 85 percent of them would like Congress to make it possible for them to acquire citizenship. It also explains why in-state tuition for Dreamers has bipartisan support: The states that have enacted such policies include Oklahoma, Kentucky, California, and New York. Advertisement The Trump administration's lawsuits deserve to be dismissed on their legal merits, but they also deserve to be reviled as one more example of MAGA malevolence, which is grounded in nothing except a desire to hurt immigrants — Few Americans have any desire to punish young people who have done nothing wrong. The cruelty at the heart of Trump's immigration policy may thrill his base, but it repels a far larger America unwilling to abandon its values. Jeff Jacoby can be reached at
4 hours ago
Trump administration imposes limits on Mexican flights and threatens Delta alliance in trade dispute
The Trump administration imposed new restrictions Saturday on flights from Mexico and threatened to end a longstanding partnership between Delta Air Lines and Aeromexico in response to limits the Mexican government placed on passenger and cargo flights into Mexico City several years ago. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said Mexico's actions to force airlines to move out of the main Benito Juarez International Airport to the newer Felipe Angeles International Airport more than 30 miles (48.28 kilometers) away violated a trade agreement between the two countries and gave domestic airlines an unfair advantage. Mexico is the top foreign destination for Americans with more than 40 million passengers flying there last year. "Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg deliberately allowed Mexico to break our bilateral aviation agreement,' Duffy said, referring to the previous president and his transportation secretary. 'That ends today. Let these actions serve as a warning to any country who thinks it can take advantage of the U.S., our carriers, and our market. America First means fighting for the fundamental principle of fairness.' All Mexican passenger, cargo and charter airlines will now be required to submit their schedules to the Transportation Department and seek government approval of their flights until Duffy is satisfied with the way Mexico is treating U.S. airlines. It's not immediately clear how Duffy's actions might affect the broader trade war with Mexico and negotiations over tariffs. A spokesperson for Mexico's President Claudia Sheinbaum didn't reply immediately to a request for comment. Sheinbaum didn't mention the new restrictions during either of her two speaking events on Saturday. Delta and Aeromexico have been fighting the Transportation Department's efforts to end their partnership that began in 2016 since early last year. The airlines have argued that it's not fair to punish them for the Mexican government's actions, and they said ending their agreement would jeopardize nearly two dozen routes and $800 million in benefits to both countries' economies that come from tourism spending and jobs. 'The U.S. Department of Transportation's tentative proposal to terminate its approval of the strategic and pro-competitive partnership between Delta and Aeromexico would cause significant harm to consumers traveling between the U.S. and Mexico, as well as U.S. jobs, communities, and transborder competition," Delta said in a statement. Aeromexico's press office said it was reviewing the order and intended to present a joint response with Delta in the coming days. But the order terminating approval of the agreement between the airlines wouldn't take effect until October, and the airlines are likely to continue fighting that decision. The airlines said in a previous filing fighting the order that it believes the loss of direct flights would prompt over 140,000 American tourists and nearly 90,000 Mexican tourists not to visit the other country and hurt the economies of both countries with the loss of their spending. ___
The Hill
7 hours ago
- The Hill
Most Americans think Trump megabill will benefit wealthy people: Survey
Nearly two-thirds of Americans think the 'big, beautiful bill' will do more to help wealthy people, according to a new AP-NORC poll. That includes 48 percent of Republicans, 60 percent of independents, and 83 percent of Democrats, according to the poll, which was released on Friday. The bill extends many of the tax cuts passed by Republicans in 2017 during President Trump's first term, alongside significant reductions to welfare services. Democrats have assailed the law as a historic transfer of wealth to the rich from the poor. Sixty-one percent of Americans also said the law would do more to hurt low-income people. However, the two parties were divided on the question of low-income Americans. Less than a third of Republicans said the bill would do more to harm low-income people, compared to 90 percent of Democrats. Democrats are hoping to use the bill's cuts to Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and other government support programs as key messaging during the upcoming 2026 midterms. The bill's effects on low-income Americans, however, could take several years to show. The bill's deepest funding cuts to Medicaid, which could result in millions losing their insurance in the next 10 years, will not kick in until 2028, although work requirements could begin by the end of 2026. Changes to SNAP will also not go into effect until 2028. The bill has also garnered criticism for its long-term additions to the national debt, estimated to be in the trillions. Many economists have expressed concerns about its cost at a time when government spending was already thought to be unsustainable in the long run. In the poll released Friday, approval of Trump's handling of government spending was down to 38 percent, compared to 46 percent from an AP-NORC poll in March. About two-thirds of Americans think the government is spending too much, with Republicans and Democrats in agreement, according to the poll. The poll surveyed 1,437 adults between July 10 and July 14, with a margin of error of 3.6 percentage points.
