'One Big Beautiful Bill' harms more than it helps, says Miami archbishop
Doing so is imperative, as the bill passed by the House contains real and substantial threats to the promotion of the common good and the protection of human life and dignity.
Many across the political spectrum object to the bill's enormous spending, arguing it will add to the already unsustainable national debt. One of the most problematic areas is its doubling down on an enforcement-only approach to immigration, which needlessly adds to this debt.
This sweeping legislation allocates $24 billion for immigration enforcement and $45 billion for detention — including the detention of families — a 400% increase from current funding levels, according to Dominican Life USA, which has broken down the immigration costs. It also proposes $100 million to expedite the removal of unaccompanied children.
Additionally, the bill would impose prohibitive fees on immigrant families: $8,500 for family reunification with an unaccompanied child, $1,000 to request asylum, which does not exist now, and $550 for a work permit that must be renewed every six months. These draconian measures undermine both financial logic and moral responsibility.
The administration has already effectively regained control of the border and is aggressively removing and deporting 'bad actors' — those who commit serious felonies after entering the country. However, as employers in agriculture, healthcare and service industries can attest, the majority of immigrants are honest, hardworking individuals who are simply seeking a better future for their families.
Most undocumented immigrants are not criminals. Many have temporary protections, such as TPS (Temporary Protected Status), parole, or pending asylum applications.
Some — including Haitians, Cubans, Venezuelans and Nicaraguans — entered under special humanitarian visas. Others arrived legally on student or visitor visas and later fell out of status by overstaying their visas. DREAMers, brought to the U.S. as children, have only been granted 'deferred departure' and still have no pathway to legal permanent residence.
Rather than spend billions on mass deportation efforts targeting people who are already contributing positively to our nation, it would be both more financially prudent and morally just to halt enforcement-only policies and expand legal pathways to permanent status for non-criminal immigrants.
The U.S. is currently facing labor shortages in many industries, including healthcare, services and agriculture. Removing immigrant workers will only worsen these shortages.
While the administration enforces the laws, Congress makes the laws — and has the power to change them.
Congress could revise the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' to be less expensive, more economically advantageous and better aligned with our values by eliminating wasteful spending on enforcement and including a stay on deportations of non-criminal immigrants.
Otherwise, this legislation will fund a mass deportation campaign that could tear apart families, disrupt industrie, and undermine communities.
Long-term residents with U.S.-citizen children — people who work, pay taxes and enrich our culture — will be forced out. That does not serve the long-term interests or moral foundations of our country.
Thomas Wenski is the archbishop of Miami.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Social Security Retirees Just Got Good News About President Trump's Big Beautiful Bill
President Trump said he would eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits, but the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) stops short of fulfilling that promise. The Senate version of the OBBB would help 33.9 million seniors, with an average increase in after-tax income of $670 per person, according to the White House. The White House says 88% of seniors on Social Security would pay no taxes on benefits under the Senate bill, an increase from 64% under current law. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook › President Trump on several occasions during his recent campaign vowed to end taxes on Social Security benefits. Legislation currently working its way through Congress (i.e., the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act) is built around his policy priorities, but it stops short of fulfilling that specific promise. Nevertheless, there is good news for retirees on Social Security. The version of the One, Big, Beautiful Bill (OBBB) that recently passed the Senate includes provisions that would increase after-tax income for millions of seniors. Read on to learn more. The OBBB passed the House of Representatives by a single vote on May 22, and an amended version slipped through the Senate by an equally narrow margin on July 1. The bill now returns the House, where lawmakers can either approve it or make changes that would require another Senate vote. Importantly, while budget reconciliation bills are not permitted to change Social Security, both versions of the OBBB include deductions that would help millions of seniors on Social Security. The recently passed Senate bill includes the following: Single seniors (aged 65 and older) can deduct $6,000 from taxable income, and married seniors filing jointly can deduct $12,000 as a couple. The full $6,000 per-person deduction is available to single filers with income up to $75,000 and joint filers with income up to $150,000. Beyond those levels, deductions are phased out. Importantly, the new senior deductions would be additive with other tax breaks, including the standard deduction and existing senior deductions, as detailed below: Under current law, the standard deduction is $15,000 for single filers and $30,000 for joint filers. The Senate bill raises the standard deduction to $15,750 for single filers and $31,500 for joint filers. Under current law, seniors get an additional standard deduction of $2,000 for single filers and $3,200 for joint filers. The Senate bill leaves those existing deductions in place. Here's the bottom line: The Senate bill would bring the total deductions available to seniors to $23,750 for single filers and $46,700 for married couples filing jointly. Those tax breaks are more expansive than the ones approved in the House bill earlier this year, which capped the new senior deduction at $4,000 per person. The One Big Beautiful Bill does not eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits, but it does include tax breaks for seniors with modest incomes. The White House estimates the new $6,000 deduction will provide some measure of financial relief to 33.9 million seniors, with an average increase in after-tax income of $670 per person. Importantly, legislation that entirely eliminated Social Security taxes would have resulted in twice as much savings for seniors, according to The Wall Street Journal. However, 88% of seniors on Social Security will pay no taxes on benefits under the Senate bill, up from 64% under current law, according to the White House. Put differently, 14.2 million seniors that currently owe taxes on Social Security would be exempted from those taxes if the bill becomes law. All things considered, the Senate bill is a win for seniors on Social Security. It does not completely eliminate taxes on retirement benefits, but doing so would actually hurt the Social Security Trust Fund and potentially expedite benefit cuts by two years. Instead, the Senate bill provides financial relief for millions of seniors, but it targets individuals with modest incomes rather than doling out across-the-board tax breaks. That's good news. If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Social Security Retirees Just Got Good News About President Trump's Big Beautiful Bill was originally published by The Motley Fool Sign in to access your portfolio
San Francisco Chronicle
14 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
How Rhode Island finally pushed a partial assault weapons ban over the finish line
PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) — Passing a new law restricting assault weapons took Rhode Island lawmakers more than 10 years, but it may offer a road map to other states looking to ease the proliferation of such firearms. For advocates, the fight is a prime example of the current challenges to passing gun control measures in the U.S., particularly surrounding semiautomatic rifles that have become the weapon of choice among those responsible for most of the country's devastating mass shootings. When Rhode Island's bill was signed into law by Democratic Gov. Dan McKee late last month, its sponsor, Democratic Rep. Jason Knight, told jubilant supporters: 'What was once the impossible became the inevitable.' How? Persistent advocacy, a change in legislative leadership and a last-minute overhaul to note the broader legal landscape. What did Rhode Island do? Rhode Island's ban, which goes into effect in 2026, prohibits the sale, manufacturing and distribution of certain high-powered firearms that were once banned nationwide. The law does not prohibit possessing such weapons, a key distinction compared with other assault weapon bans enacted elsewhere in the U.S. Currently, only Washington state has a similar law. The assault weapons ban got a much-needed boost from Senate President Valerie Lawson, who secured the Senate's top spot in the middle of session after her predecessor, Sen. Dominick Ruggiero, died in April. Lawson turned to the bill's sponsors and others to find common ground between lawmakers in the House and Senate who remained split on how far the law should go. Lawson's endorsement was seen as critical to securing the bill's passage, whereas Ruggiero had previously deferred action, pointing instead to the need for Congress to act rather than a state Legislature taking the lead. 'There are issues at certain points that meet the moment,' Lawson said. 'I think it was the time for this." Gun control advocates also acknowledged that banning assault weapons in Rhode Island hadn't previously been a top priority given that the state has largely been spared from national high-profile shootings that sometimes help propel legislative change. Assault weapons bans consistently face court challenges In the U.S., just 11 states and Washington D.C. have some sort of prohibition on certain high-powered firearms that were once banned nationwide. Rhode Island's version is the only one not yet facing a constitutional challenge — though a lawsuit against it is all but assured. Certain state legal battles are on hold until others make their way through lower federal courts. To date, none of the lawsuits have been completely thrown out, but the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to have the final say. As Rhode Island lawmakers were in the middle of their gun debate, the high court declined to hear a challenge to Maryland's assault weapons ban — a move that some of the more conservative justices opposed. Justice Brett Kavanaugh even signaled that laws banning assault weapons are likely unconstitutional. 'Opinions from other Courts of Appeals should assist this Court's ultimate decision making on the AR–15 issue,' Kavanaugh wrote, referencing a popular style of high-powered rifle. Yet the legal focus on banning such weapons often hinges on possessing firearms such as AR-15-style rifles and AK-47s, rather than on the distribution process. Rhode Island lawmakers hope that by tailoring their assault weapons ban to sales, manufacturing and distribution, they might will bypass the thorniest legal questions raised by the Second Amendment. What other states are doing Attempts to expand Democratic-dominated Hawaii's assault weapons ban to rifles in addition to pistols stalled this year. In New Mexico, Democratic lawmakers who control the General Assembly adjourned without taking up an assault weapon ban. In Rhode Island, advocates say their work isn't over. 'It's progress,' said Melissa Carden, executive director of the Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence. 'But we know that a true assault weapons ban includes an enforceable ban on possession as well." Defenders of Rhode Island's law bristle that their version could be considered weak. They point out that residents looking to purchase an assault weapon from nearby New Hampshire or elsewhere will be blocked. That's because federal law prohibits people from traveling to a different state to purchase a gun and returning it to a state where that particular of weapon is banned. 'Some of my constituents have already called me and made comments about 'bad, bad bad, I'm going out and buying three and four of them now,'' said Sen. Louis DiPalma, the Senate sponsor of the statute. 'Okay, come July 1st next year, you will not be able to do that anymore.'
15 minutes ago
175+ Democrats supporting NAACP suit against dismantling Department of Education
More than 175 Democratic members of Congress are filing an amicus brief on Thursday opposing the Trump administration's overhaul of the U.S. Department of Education. 'The law couldn't be clearer: the president does not have the authority to unilaterally abolish the Department of Education,' Sen. Elizabeth Warren wrote in a statement first obtained by ABC News, adding, 'Donald Trump is not a king, and he cannot single-handedly cut off access to education for students across this country.' Warren and Reps. Jamie Raskin, Bobby Scott and Rosa DeLauro -- the ranking members of the House's Education and Judiciary committees -- are leading the 15-page legal document. They're joined by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, more than 20 Senate Democrats, and more than 150 other members of the House Democratic caucus. The lawmakers' brief attempting to block the administration from abolishing the Department of Education is in support of the NAACP's suit against the government this past spring. In March, that case argued that downsizing the department through a workforce reduction that slashed nearly half the agency's staff -- among other measures like terminating statutory grant programs -- violates the separation of powers and lacks constitutional authority. The NAACP, the National Education Association (NEA), and a coalition of groups filed a preliminary injunction with the U.S. District Court in the District of Maryland this week, arguing the judge's consideration of this case is needed after the administration's recent decision to pause more than $6 billion in congressionally appropriated education programs ahead of the school year. 'The motion seeks a remedy for the serious harm that the Trump Administration has inflicted on students, educators, schools, and colleges and universities, and asks the Court to direct the Department to fulfill its statutory obligations to students nationwide,' according to a statement released by the NEA, which represents more than 3 million educators. Raskin condemned the administration's efforts to curb public education, contending President Donald Trump and Education Secretary Linda McMahon can't abolish the agency without congressional approval. 'Congress created the Department of Education to ensure that every student in America could obtain a high-quality, free public school education,' Raskin wrote in a statement. 'This is the right of every citizen and an essential democratic safeguard against political tyranny,' he said. 'No president has the authority to dismantle a federal agency created by law. We're going to court to defend not only congressional power but the department's national educational mission, itself a pillar of American democracy,' Raskin added. The power to reorganize the executive branch belongs to Congress and is underscored by the fact that when presidents have reorganized the executive branch, they have done so 'through legislation and subject to appropriate restraints,' according to the brief by the lawmakers. Their brief argues that only Congress has the authority to create, restructure, and abolish federal agencies, it has to be done through legislation, and the Department of Education can't be unilaterally abolished because it's statutorily mandated. Rep. Joe Neguse, D-Colorado, told ABC News closing the department would strip 'vital support' from tens of millions of students and teachers. 'I'm proud to stand with my colleagues in the House and Senate to uphold Congress' responsibility to ensure every student has access to a quality education and to defend the essential work of the Department of Education,' Neguse said. Efforts to dismantle the department have been blocked by lower courts this spring. The Supreme Court is expected to weigh in on a Massachusetts case that could decide whether the firing of nearly 2,000 employees at the agency stands. McMahon has stressed the critical functions of the department remain and that services like students with disabilities, for example, could ultimately be moved to other agencies. The brief is part of Warren's larger Save Our Schools campaign that she started after Trump signed an executive order to diminish the Department of Education. "The federal government has invested in our public schools," Warren told ABC News in April. "Taking that away from our kids so that a handful of billionaires can be even richer is just plain ugly, and I will fight it with everything I've got." The senator has previously requested the agency's Office of Inspector General review the Department of Government Efficiency's alleged "infiltration" of the agency's internal federal student loan database. Prior to the Save Our Schools campaign, she investigated the firing of federal student aid employees and how a reduction in staff at the agency could have "dire consequences" for borrowers. The brief also comes after Raskin and several other House Democrats met with McMahon about the future of the agency. That meeting appeared to leave many with unanswered questions, like Rep. Frederica Wilson, a senior member of the House Education and Workforce Committee, who also signed on to the amicus brief. "For the Department of Education to be dismantled, it is going to bring a shock to this nation," said Wilson, a former principal and lifelong educator. "Schools are the bedrock of this nation. When schools are working, our country is, too."
