Latest news with #NatashaSarin
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
'Families ripped apart': the impact of Trump's immigration crackdown on children
Elora Mukherjee, Director of the Immigrants' Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School, and Natasha Sarin Professor at Yale Law School, joined "The Weekend: Primetime" for a conversation about the Trump administration's targeting of migrant children. They touch on the long-term and traumatic impact on kids and the dangers behind the government's tactics. Solve the daily Crossword
Bloomberg
5 days ago
- Business
- Bloomberg
Tariff Back and Forth Makes It 'Impossible' for Fed, Businesses to Plan
Natasha Sarin, Professor at the Yale Budget Lab and former Treasury official, talks about the impact the Trump administration's changing tariffs on Federal Reserve decision making and how history can offer a clue into the outcome of high pressure on the Fed. (Source: Bloomberg)
Washington Post
7 days ago
- Politics
- Washington Post
Trump's immigration agenda is growing unpopular. Should he pull back?
You're reading the Prompt 2025 newsletter. Sign up to get it in your inbox. The government's mass deportation of unauthorized immigrants, a signature promise of Donald Trump's presidential campaign, is in full swing. Border crossings reached an all-time low in June, and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement — newly appropriated a $178 billion budget increase by Congress — is staging massive raids across the country. Yet Americans are souring toward the president's immigration crackdown. According to a new Gallup poll, only 35 percent of Americans approve of Trump's handling of immigration — down from 46 percent in February — against 62 percent who disapprove. Nearly four-fifths now say immigration is a good thing for the country. Why are Americans' views on immigration shifting, and what does this mean for the future of immigration policy? I'm joined by my colleagues Ramesh Ponnuru and Natasha Sarin to discuss. — Eduardo Porter, columnist and editorial board member 💬 💬 💬 Eduardo Porter So what's going on? Buyer's remorse? Ramesh Ponnuru There is enough polling to indicate that falling support for Trump's immigration policies, especially his enforcement within the United States, is a real phenomenon and not a blip. I think there are three main causes: the public perception that Trump is implementing his policies with unnecessary brutality; the fading urgency of the issue now that Trump has succeeded at the border itself; and the public's tendency to zig when a president seems to be zagging a lot. Natasha Sarin To add one: I suspect (well, as an economist, hope!) one of the reasons these efforts aren't popular is that Americans are starting to realize they are bad for the economy. In construction, 20 percent of the workforce are unauthorized immigrants. That's a big deal, and all this is massively disruptive. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Eduardo Indeed. Unauthorized immigrants account for half of workers in agriculture. So a hard crackdown would hit the price and availability of all sorts of food. Ramesh Which is one reason Trump keeps signaling that he might be willing to make an exception to his tough campaign against illegal immigration for the industries that rely on it most. Eduardo Natasha, do you agree with Ramesh's assessment here? Will carve-outs become the course of the immigration policy? Natasha Yes, but that's not enough, in some sense, to offset economic impact. Mass deportations mean fewer people are building homes and spending money in the U.S., which shrinks the economy. And Congress just gave ICE $178 billion — more than most other federal law enforcement agencies combined. Ramesh I don't see this administration pulling back. It would first have to incur much more political damage than it has so far, like the kind that led Trump to end the family-separation disaster in his first term. What remains interesting to me is that the administration has shown so little interest in expanding the use of E-Verify (which does not mean attempting to deport all undocumented immigrants, since it would apply only to new hires) so employers could do some of the work of enforcement. It would certainly raise the hackles of a lot of employers whose support Trump currently enjoys, but I think that if you're looking for the most enforcement in the least intrusive and brutal way, that's the way to go. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Eduardo The fact that E-Verify has not been deployed broadly is, to my mind, proof that no administration in the past 30 years has really been serious about eliminating unauthorized workers at scale. Natasha Agreed with Ramesh. I see no signs that the administration is pulling back from these efforts. A report came out Tuesday detailing efforts between the IRS and ICE to share data about undocumented immigrants who pay into the tax system each year. This goes against decades of norms and laws around taxpayer privacy and will impact the tax revenue we collect from unauthorized immigrants going forward — $66 billion annually! Eduardo I've been skeptical that Trump will engage in workplace enforcement for real. He would be messing with powerful business lobbies that are very influential in the Republican Party. The raids so far have been largely a performance to demonstrate he is not kidding. But he won't try to remove 8 million workers from the labor market. What's your take? Natasha Businesses are very concerned about all this. Companies — particularly in food production, tech and construction — are reporting that raids are having a negative impact on their operations. It's hard for me to guess the intent of the president or the administration. But I think generally, on matters of policy, we've learned during this term that you kind of have to take them at their word. Eduardo What do Americans actually want on immigration? Joe Biden's main problem with immigration was the hundreds of thousands of prospective asylum seekers creating this sense of chaos at the border. But that is largely over; fear of Trump apparently is a powerful deterrent. Very few migrants are showing up at the border these days. Could Trump not just take the win? Say 'mission accomplished' and not pursue undocumented migrants already living in the U.S.? Ramesh The public has conflicting impulses on immigration, which is one reason the polls seesaw in response to what presidents do. I don't think people want to see all unauthorized immigrants deported — especially 'dreamers' but really anyone who has put down roots here and followed the law. But I think the undocumented population has to appreciably shrink, and the public has to be reassured that the law will be enforced going forward. Only once that is accomplished can we move forward with steps such as offering legal status to a significant share of unauthorized immigrants. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Eduardo We all agree that some reform of the system is needed. But what would it look like? Would it have the three main pillars of prior attempts — i.e., some process to legalize undocumented immigrants who have been in the country a long time, some provision to legally provide employers with temporary migrant workers, and a mechanism that secures the border and prevents unauthorized immigrants from working? Natasha FWIW, I think the pillars are more like: border security, fixing the asylum system, expanding pathways to legal immigration in light of clear economic benefits, and easing the pathway to citizenship for people who have roots here and have positively contributed to their communities. Ramesh I don't think you can put a ton of immigration policies together in one package and expect it to work politically. That strategy has an extensive track record of failure. Reform would have to be piecemeal and sequential. I also don't favor guest-worker programs on principle — if we want people to work here, we should ask them to join our society — but if some such programs are needed to get worthwhile legislation passed, I could live with it. But we are a looong way away from that type of bargaining. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Eduardo Final thoughts? My take is we haven't seen enlightened immigration policy since the 1980s (and that attempt was also flawed). And I have zero optimism that we will achieve something enlightened now, but I'm just a grumpy old journalist. Natasha What we are witnessing now is clearly not the solution. Ramesh My advice to those liberals and Democrats who are glad to see these latest polls is to take seriously that they still have a problem: The public does not believe they are serious about enforcing the immigration laws. That's going to be a lingering weakness for them even if a backlash to Trump's policies helps them do well in 2026. Eduardo I would agree with that. Let's just see how far and how solidly the administration's tactics move the needle among voters.
Washington Post
11-07-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
School meals are a lifeline. Soup kitchens can't fill the gaps alone.
Regarding Dan Balz's July 6 news analysis, 'A battle brews over defining Trump's legislative package for voters,' and Natasha Sarin's July 3 online op-ed, '6 things you probably didn't know were in Trump's mega-bill': Every weekday from September through June, I start work the same way. I stand near my classroom door in a middle school outside D.C., welcoming students and making sure they grab breakfast. I watch as they chat with friends over cereal, breakfast bars and boxes of orange juice as they get ready for the day. But that morning routine is in jeopardy, given changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program included in the One Big Beautiful Bill that President Donald Trump recently signed into law. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that 16 million children will be affected by the cuts to SNAP. How can students learn and grow if they are hungry? They can't. School breakfast and lunch programs are supposed to make sure hunger isn't an obstacle to any child's education. And the SNAP program is meant to eliminate bureaucratic hurdles: Any child who gets SNAP benefits is also automatically qualified for food assistance at school. But this new law cuts federal funding for SNAP and forces states to choose between replacing that funding, tightening eligibility for the program or simply opting out of SNAP altogether. If SNAP shrinks, students could lose access to both lifelines. By the end of 2012, the year most of my students were born, the Agriculture Department estimated that the average weekly cost of groceries for a family of four shopping on a 'thrifty plan' was $145.70. Now, that same family would spend $229.70 for the same groceries. For families pressured by these costs, schools are a vital safety net. At my school, more than 85 percent of the students qualify for free or reduced-price lunch. Before school breaks, we send bags of food home with students who need them, and our student support team coordinates with a local food bank to host monthly food giveaways right in our bus loop for any family to access. We do this because the link between food and learning is clear. But we are only able to do this because of federal funding and SNAP benefits. When the school year starts in just a few weeks, I want my morning routine to remain the same. I want to know my students are getting what every child deserves: a healthy start to the day, a fair chance and an acknowledgment from their government that they are a priority. Nan Boyle, Alexandria Story continues below advertisement Advertisement I work for an organization that parks a bus-turned-mobile soup kitchen in the streets of New York City and New Jersey every week. We set up tables on the sidewalk, and we offer anyone who is interested a free hot meal and emergency supplies. Our guests include those experiencing homelessness as well as low-income residents struggling to make ends meet. My team knows how to estimate the number of people we will serve at each pop-up outreach. One of the most important factors is how close we are to the end of the month on any given week. Attendance spikes when our guests' monthly SNAP benefits run out. Federal funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program will be cut sharply under the president's signature law. SNAP recipients get far less than most people realize: an average of $188 per month, or roughly $2 per meal. Still, even that meager amount creates worlds of difference for the 41 million Americans who received it in 2024, lifting millions out of poverty, helping children learn, and improving health care outcomes and costs. President Donald Trump's new law slashes SNAP benefits by at least $230 billion over the next 10 years. The price of food, however, is probably not going down any time soon. As a result, we won't just see more people in the streets; we'll see them sooner each month and in deeper crisis. My team will have to prioritize helping folks find their next meal over more of their other needs, such as housing and employment. Slashing the SNAP lifeline will deepen the desperation of millions of our neighbors who quietly rely on food pantries and soup kitchens just to get by. Though food banks and soup kitchens play a key role in mitigating food insecurity, I have yet to speak to a nonprofit leader who believes private generosity can carry the full weight of America's food insecurity. As Houston Food Bank CEO Brian Greene put it, a 10 percent cut to SNAP is the 'equivalent of wiping out every food bank in the U.S.' These cuts come when charitable giving is strained by economic and geopolitical uncertainty and the federal government is cutting other support for school lunch programs, food banks and programs such as Meals on Wheels. We should fix waste in the SNAP program, which is due to errors in government calculations, and target the widespread theft of SNAP money from recipients themselves. But the real targets for reform ought to be the simple logistical and bureaucratic stumbling blocks to SNAP access, such as lack of a permanent address or a working phone. Whether or not you support budget cuts as an ideological matter, the reality is that too many people are already slipping through the cracks. This law will inevitably open those cracks further. Organizations such as ours risk being truly overwhelmed, and we are going to need all the help we can get. We will keep showing up for our neighbors in need, but I am concerned that our work will be more expensive and less effective as we are forced to narrow our focus to our guests' next meals, instead of working on stabilizing their lives. Josiah Haken, New York The writer is chief executive of City Relief, which operates in New York City and New Jersey. As major federal spending legislation worked its way through Congress, we had hoped children from families with limited incomes would be spared. Unfortunately, cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program pose a considerable negative impact. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found more than 1.5 million Washington-area residents risk losing some or all of their benefits, 137,500 of them in D.C., 693,500 in Maryland and 827,800 in Virginia. Particularly at risk are students who do not live in states with universal free school meals programs and who could also lose access to school breakfast and lunch if they lose SNAP. During the summer months, the kids who normally rely on school meals are at risk of going hungry. Our organization is trying to prevent that crisis by partnering with organizations around the country to administer summer nutrition programs. While we believe it's helpful, we also know a more effective strategy would be to have a federal solution to fighting child hunger. The patchwork approach of charitable organizations can only go so far. Ahmed Shehata, Alexandria The writer is chief executive at Islamic Relief USA. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement It's alarming that children will lose access to school meals as part of President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill. But that decision is also part of a pattern of policies adopted by this administration that are taking school meals away from hungry children, not just in the United States. Trump's shutdown of the U.S. Agency for International Development and budget cuts have taken away school meals from starving children overseas. In May, Catholic Relief Services said 11 of its 13 school lunch programs, which operated as part of the Agriculture Department's McGovern-Dole Food for Education initiative, were suspended by the Trump administration. More than 780,000 children were served by that program, and for some of them, the meal it provided was the only food they had to eat all day. Trump also proposed eliminating the McGovern-Dole school lunch program in his latest budget proposal. And these are not the only food security programs put at risk by the administration. We need to do better. We should be supporting school meals at home and overseas. School meals fight hunger but also improve children's health and ability to learn. There are big returns on school meals for all of society. There is enough food and wealth in the world to provide every child with a school lunch. During and after World War II, amid all the challenges of that very hard time, the U.S. still supported programs to provide school meals at home and overseas. The school meals improved children's health and were a foundation of war recovery in Europe and Asia. We should remember the power of these programs — and of investments in our children and the future they represent. William Lambers, Cincinnati The writer partnered with the U.N. World Food Program on the book 'Ending World Hunger.'
Washington Post
01-07-2025
- Business
- Washington Post
This ‘Big Beautiful Bill' got even worse
The One Big Beautiful Bill just passed the Senate, bringing the cornerstone of Trump's legislative agenda one step closer to the finish line. But what's actually in it, and who will feel its effects the most? Columnist Dana Milbank is joined by contributing columnists Ramesh Ponnuru and Natasha Sarin to discuss the economic and political implications. Additional reading by our columnists: Ramesh Ponnuru: The Republican shell game on tax cuts Natasha Sarin: This senator's comment on Medicaid cuts was brutal but accurate Subscribe to The Washington Post here.
