A Celebration of Community and Struggle at the 2015 NCLR Capital Awards

By David Castro, Senior Web Editor, NCLR

“¡Con ánimo, con ánimo, vamos a subir!”

These words from Senator Cory Booker (D–NJ) set the tone for the 2015 NCLR Capital Awards held last night at the National Building Museum in Washington, DC, where more than 750 advocates, policymakers, and community leaders celebrated the hard-won successes of the past year and examined the long road ahead.

“The reality in this country es inaceptable para nosotros [is unacceptable to us],” Booker said as he was recognized by NCLR for his work to reform the country’s juvenile justice system. “Latino men are twice as likely to be arrested for using drugs than White men. And if you have a felony conviction for a nonviolent offense, you can’t get a job, or get a Pell Grant.” This year, Booker expects to reintroduce bipartisan legislation that aims to end the school-to-prison pipeline for young Latinos and give nonviolent criminals a better chance to find employment after they have served their sentences.

President Obama’s administrative relief actions were another principal theme at the event. In her remarks, NCLR’s President and CEO, Janet Murguía, took aim at the continued efforts by the Republicans to roll back these policy changes.

“This feels like it is about us—that when it comes to Latinos and their families, too many in the Republican Party simply don’t care,” Murguía said. “They don’t care about the human toll their inaction has on our community. They don’t care how many of our children will lose a parent. They don’t care about the financial devastation they cause to our families and our communities.”

“We must be clear: we are going to defend these changes, we will implement these changes, and we are going to work to expand on these changes,” said Frank Sharry, Founder and Executive Director of America’s Voice. Sharry received the NCLR Capital Award for Public Service for his decades of work at the frontlines of immigration reform. “It comes to this: either Congress has a change of heart, or we change Congress.”

Murguía added, “The Republican Party’s blockade of any type of progress on immigration—whether in a bipartisan bill or the president’s executive order—sends a brutal message to our community. It is in our nation’s interest that we find a way forward.”

Booker admitted that in his time in the Senate, he has been frustrated at how partisan bickering can stall progress on immigration reform. In those moments, he says, he gains strength from the words repeated by a guide who helped him during a mountain trek in Quito, Ecuador:

“I hear that voice telling me, ¡Con ánimo, con ánimo, vamos a subir! [Let’s go, don’t give up! We will make it up there!]” “I know that people struggle in the shadows and they deserve to be brought in the light,” Booker continued. “Let’s march up that mountain. Let’s fix this system.”

Other speakers at the event included Jorge Plasencia, Chair of the NCLR Board of Directors, Representative Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida, and Representative Linda Sánchez of California.

See below for more social media highlights from the evening.

Ensuring that Retirement Advice Is Sound

Photo: www.aag.com, http://ow.ly/IYcvj

Photo: www.aag.com, http://ow.ly/IYcvj

Things have changed since 1975, the last time rules for retirement investment advisors were updated. Since then, the retirement savings market has seen a shift from employer-managed pension plans to self-directed plans like Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) and the 401(k). Now more than ever, savers rely on the advice of financial professionals to help them make decisions that will affect their financial security in retirement. While most financial advisors are knowledgeable and ethical, the outdated rules create avenues for deceptive or abusive financial management practices.

To protect workers from unscrupulous investment advice, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) was enacted in 1974 to apply a fiduciary standard to those advising on the management of retirement savings. The requirement demands that advice be in the best interest of the advisee and that advice doesn’t constitute a conflict of interest for the advisor. Last week, the Department of Labor proposed a rule to update the fiduciary requirement to align ERISA protections with the contemporary retirement savings environment. The rule would require that the advice from advisers on 401(k)s and IRAs must be the best possible for the advisee.

Latinos have much at stake in this debate as nearly 2.3 million Latino households use either a financial planner or broker, according to the Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances. Additionally, Latinos face larger barriers to save for retirement and have fewer retirement savings options. Two-thirds of Latinos work for employers, often small businesses, which do not offer private retirement plans; as a result, their reliance on professional financial advice increases.

Photo: http://401kcalculator.org, Creative Commons

Photo: http://401kcalculator.org, Creative Commons

Currently, a gap in the law permits brokers who provide this advice to evade this fiduciary standard to the detriment of hardworking Americans. For example, advisors might recommend retirees or those transitioning between jobs to roll over their 401(k) funds into an IRA, which could subject enrollees to higher fees and weaker consumer protections. Further, advisors could steer IRA investors toward high-cost financial products if better, less costly choices were available. These costly and potentially risky investments cost American workers billions of dollars each year. A report from the Council of Economic Advisers emphasized the cost of unsound retirement savings advice, finding:

  • Conflicted advice leads to lower investment returns. Savers receiving conflicted advice earn returns roughly one percent lower each year (for example, conflicted advice reduces what would be a six percent return to a five percent return).
  • An estimated $1.7 trillion of IRA assets are invested in products that generally provide payments that generate conflicts of interest. Thus, we estimate the aggregate annual cost of conflicted advice is about $17 billion each year.
  • A retiree who receives conflicted advice when rolling over a 401(k) balance to an IRA at retirement will lose an estimated 12 percent of the value of his or her savings if drawn down over 30 years. If a retiree receiving conflicted advice takes withdrawals at the rate possible, absent conflicted advice, his or her savings would run out more than five years earlier.
  • The average IRA rollover for people ages 55–64 in 2012 was more than $100,000; losing 12 percent from conflicted advice has the same effect on feasible future withdrawals as if $12,000 were lost in the transfer.

The report estimates that total losses amount to be between $8 billion and $33 billion a year. NCLR stands with a broad coalition of consumer groups, worker’s rights organizations, and civil rights advocates to support the Department of Labor and the proposed rule protecting all Americans from harmful retirement savings advice.

Living the American DREAM: Steven Arteaga Rodriguez

Living the Dream-01 (2)

Steven Arteaga Rodriguez recently had the chance of a lifetime: he stepped into the Oval Office and shook hands with the president. His recollection of that moment dripped with excitement and happiness.

Steven was brought to the United States when he was only four months old, so he has only ever known this country as his home. He arrived with his mom, his brother, and his sister. As a child, he grew up watching his mother work hard every day yet still struggle to make ends meet for her children. It frustrated Steven because as he grew older he could not help, since no one would hire a youth without documentation.

Steven Arteaga Rodriguez speaking to reporters. Photo credit: Gebe Martinez

Steven Arteaga Rodriguez speaking to reporters after meeting with President Obama. Photo: Gebe Martinez

Today Steven is 19 years old, lives in Houston, and volunteers for Mi Familia Vota. He is grateful for executive actions such as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which has allowed him to stay in the country where he grew up and work to provide for his family. He no longer has to watch his mother struggle to support their family from the sidelines.

After he met with President Obama, Steven said, “Thanks to the two executive actions he has taken all that changed, because now I could pretty much work and pay taxes. I’m not afraid anymore to come out of the shadows.”

DACA opened doors for Steven, as it enabled him to search for work without fear of deportation for him or his family. He stresses the importance of applying for deferred action and wishes other eligible immigrants would also apply.

“If we don’t apply, we don’t take this opportunity, we wouldn’t be where we are now. We’ve gotten this far, and it wouldn’t be fair for all those DREAMers that fought if, you know, not everybody applied.”

There are many DREAMers similar to Steven who are full of aspirations and want to become contributing residents of this great nation. President Obama has taken the first step to include these individuals into our country with open arms. DACA has already helped more than 680,000 young people on the road to achieving their dreams.

The next step is for Congress to join in these efforts by affirming the hopes of these youth. The U.S. is the only home they have known, and they aim to be a part of all our country has to offer. Congress should be working to make DREAMers feel at home, not unraveling the president’s administrative relief efforts.

Remarks of Janet Murguía at NCLR Capital Awards

Delivered at the 2015 NCLR Capital Awards, Washington, DC

This year began with the convening of a new Congress. Republicans had campaigned for, and won, a majority in both houses and promised to take the country in a new direction. Their leadership vowed a more productive approach to governing that wouldn’t scare the American people by shutting down the government.

Except, apparently, when it comes to the Latino community.

It took just eight days for the majority of Republicans in the newly convened House to threaten homeland security funding by voting to block the president’s executive order on immigration.

To make sure their intentions were clear, they also voted to repeal the highly successful program that provides temporary status to the children and young people known as “DREAMers.”

And it wasn’t just Republicans in Congress who led the charge. Republican governors and attorneys general led a coalition of 26 states to file suit against the president’s executive action. They shopped for and found a sympathetic judge who ignored years of legal precedent to halt the executive order.

If I was being charitable, I might chalk these measures up as a political poke in President Obama’s eye.

But, to be honest, this doesn’t feel like just that.

This feels like it is about us—that when it comes to Hispanics and their families, too many in the Republican Party simply don’t care. They don’t care about the human toll their inaction has on our community. They don’t care how many of our children will lose a parent. They don’t care about the financial devastation they cause to our families and our communities.

I suspected as much last year when Speaker Boehner turned his back on bipartisan immigration reform. His refusal to allow a vote on a bill that had already passed the Senate—and had the votes to pass in the House—was a clear sign that there is no real solution that their party is willing to support.

Think about this week’s standoff in Congress, which thankfully ended this afternoon. What kind of statement does it make that pro-defense House Republicans would put our national security at risk rather than allow any amount of relief on immigration?

To Speaker Boehner I have this to say:

You avoided catastrophe today, but we’ve been at this for over a decade. You keep saying “no.” Any attempt to resolve our broken immigration system is always “dead on arrival.” No matter how much the American public supports a solution, the answer is always “no.” Even when the votes in Congress are there for passage, you block it.

Where is your solution? Where is your bill?

You talk about family values, but when it comes to our families, you sit idly by and watch as hundreds of thousands of mothers and fathers are taken from their children.

You talk about rewarding work but stand by as our families are thrown into poverty by the sudden and permanent loss of a breadwinner.

What kind of solution is that? What kind of life does that leave for those children—those American children—now that you’ve left them virtually orphaned? How does that improve our communities, our schools, our safety?

Many in the immigrant community have been here so long that they have put down roots in our cities and towns. They’ve married into our families and are now the parents of our grandchildren.

To us, they are family. Our family. Our American family. They are us.

Maybe you don’t see it. Maybe you believe the trumped-up extremist rhetoric that paints all undocumented immigrants as criminals, or even terrorists.

But, if you could see them through our eyes, you would know that the vast majority are hardworking mothers and fathers, neighbors and friends. They are the people who work beside us, who care for our children, and sit next to us in church on Sundays.

Every time you say no to reform it bears a real cost, a human cost, to countless families and their children.

Yet I hear no word of understanding about their suffering. I hear not a syllable of remorse. I see no sense of urgency to address this issue.

Instead, you chose to hide behind words like “sequestration,” “overreach,” and “filibuster.” Those words may have some value as a fig leaf inside the beltway. But what they say to the millions of people who are waiting for a solution is that our families don’t matter. You may think you were just stalling legislation, but for those people living in fear, you have kept their lives—and our community—in limbo.

President Obama stepped into the vacuum you left last year and issued an executive order on immigration.

When his action is upheld by a higher court—and it will be upheld—the steps he took will go a long way to end the nightmare that many face every day.

Families will stay together. Parents will continue to work and provide for their children. Communities and businesses will stop being turned upside down.

And millions will no longer live in fear, but will have the chance to get right with the law.

How can that not be good for America?

Regardless of what the courts do, the president’s order will still have a significant impact. U.S. immigration enforcement will now focus on actual threats to our security. As the president said, our priorities will be “felons, not families. Criminals, not children. Gang members, not a mom who’s working hard to provide for her kids.”

That, in and of itself, is a tremendous leap forward.

He deserves an enormous amount of credit for acting boldly and responsibly. And for that we say, thank you, Mr. President.

As a nonpartisan organization, we lay out a table of bipartisanship every year at this dinner, in the belief that compromise can be made and members of both parties can feel welcome working with our community.

NCLR has received the support of many Republicans over the years including on our Board of Directors, our Corporate Board of Advisors, and among our Affiliates. We have worked in collaboration with many leaders, including the late Honorable Jack Kemp, Senators John McCain and Mel Martinez, Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and our guest tonight, Representative Mario Diaz-Balart.

They fought beside us to expand economic opportunity, champion human dignity, and help us pursue the American Dream. And we are grateful for their support.

And we have the support of most Republicans in this country. Fifty-one percent of Republican voters in a recent poll support a path to citizenship.

But, there is a malignancy in the Republican Party, and it is growing.

There was a time when the extreme views surrounding the immigration debate came only from the party’s extremists. Today, the extreme has become the Republican Party mainstream, and their rhetoric falls too readily from the lips of candidates at the national, state, and local levels.

That such rhetoric can have an impact should not be surprising. The political self-assessment published by the Republican Party after the last presidential election was unusually blunt.

As former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey said in this report, “We’ve chased the Hispanic voter out of his natural home.”

They should have listened to their own words.

The Republican Party’s blockade of any type of progress on immigration—whether in a bipartisan bill or the president’s executive order—sends a brutal message to our community.

Make no mistake. Our complaint is not partisan. It’s personal. The Republican blockade against reform is having a searing impact on our community.

And these actions will have political consequences. Candidates are already testing the waters for the next presidential campaign. Soon they will be asking for our vote—and with good reason.

The Latino vote is the fastest-growing voting bloc in the country. Some 14 million Latinos will vote in 2016.

We have already demonstrated that we can shake up the road to the White House. Next year we will also be looking at how our vote can impact Senate races in states like Illinois, Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Missouri.

Candidates in those states and across the country have a choice. They can continue to follow the strategy that Pete Wilson used in California to marginalize our community—with predictable results—or they can step up to help us change the course of history.

One out of every four children born in this country is Latino. And every year for the next 20 years, nearly a million Hispanics will turn 18 and be eligible to vote.

You don’t need me to do the math.

How our community is valued today—by this Congress—matters. Absent a significant change, the Republican Party stands to lose the Latino vote for a generation.

It is in our nation’s interest that we find a way forward. The president’s executive action is a temporary fix to a complex problem. Even when his order is implemented, there will still be some five million people living outside the rule of law. Only Congress can craft a permanent solution.

Fortunately, the framework for a bipartisan bill exists. A majority of Americans from both parties support its passage. And I believe that if we can work together, we can find a way to move forward.

In America, every person’s dignity should be valued. Every child should come home from school knowing their parents will be there. Every worker should be able to earn a wage that supports their family. And every one of us should be able to pursue the American Dream.

But to succeed, we need a Republican Party that understands the human cost of saying “no.”

We need a Republican Party that sees beyond short-term politics to collaborate on a long-term solution. We need a Republican Party that can see our community the way we see it—as an integral part of this country and a critical part of its future.

Five Questions for NCLR Capital Awards Honoree Senator Cory Booker

Photo: Senate Democrats

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) Photo: Senate Democrats

At this evening’s Capital Awards, we’re also honoring Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), for his work on reforming our juvenile justice system. The expected re-introduction of the “REDEEM Act” would help end the school-to-prison pipeline for young Latinos and give nonviolent criminals a better chance to find employment after they have served their sentences. We asked Sen. Booker about these efforts and about his rise to the U.S. Senate.

NCLR: What prompted you to decide on a career in public service?

Sen. Booker: My parents. There is a great saying by James Baldwin: “Children have never been very good at listening to their elders, but they have never failed to imitate them.” My parents worked for IBM while I was growing up but they were both so involved in public service and they both made sure my brother and I understood that we had the privileges and opportunities we did because of the work, struggle, service, and sacrifice of others. So I had a great model and feel that no matter your occupation, we all should have a passion for serving others because we are the product of such commitments to service.

NCLR: As it relates to juvenile justice, what are some of the concerns you hope will be addressed by the “REDEEM Act”?

Sen. Booker: We must fix our broken criminal justice system and reforms to our juvenile justice system are a critical piece of the puzzle. We need sensible, pragmatic reforms to keep kids out of an adult system in the first place and protect their privacy so a youthful mistake does not haunt young people throughout their lives.

We must ensure that children who make mistakes do not get stuck in a life of crime and instead grow up to be productive members of society. The “REDEEM Act” gives youth the chance to get nonviolent crimes expunged or sealed so they can move on with their lives and protect their privacy.

It would also ban the very cruel and counterproductive practice of juvenile solitary confinement that can have immediate and long-term detrimental effects on youth detainees’ mental and physical health. In fact, the majority of suicides by juveniles in prisons are committed by young people who are in solitary confinement. Other nations even consider it torture. Taken together, these measures will help keep kids who get in trouble out of a lifetime of crime.

NCLR: You’ve talked about increasing tech engagement and access for all, including communities of color. NCLR supports expanding broadband access for all, as well, when presently just 53 percent of Hispanic Americans report having this type of Internet access at home. Can you mention some ways the “Community Broadband Act” could address these gaps?

Sen. Booker: High-speed Internet access is no longer a luxury—it’s a necessity. By breaking down arbitrary barriers and allowing local communities to make meaningful investments in broadband, the “Community Broadband Act” aims to help bridge the digital divide wherever it persists. Sadly, the technology gap tends to be greatest in minority and low-income communities. It is my hope that the “Community Broadband Act” will create strong, economic alliances between municipalities, community members, businesses, and nonprofits, all of which stand to gain if localities provide broadband to their residents when existing broadband options are nonexistent or prove inadequate. The act will also bring a new level of affordability to broadband, which will enhance the online experience and allow for greater innovation and enable local governments to find tech solutions to some of our toughest problems.

NCLR: After President Obama announced his executive actions on immigration in November, you stated that “Congress must act to fix our broken immigration system and implement a long-term solution.” What are some of the points you would use to help make the case for permanent immigration reform?

Sen. Booker: I am encouraged by President Obama’s November 2014 executive actions on immigration. They were an important first step, but more needs to be done. At a time of great crisis in our country, when families are being separated, our nation is losing revenue, and we have an immigration policy that fails to accomplish our common goals; we must implement a comprehensive strategy that secures our border and strengthens our economy.

I support comprehensive immigration reform. Today, we have 11 million undocumented people living in the United States. They are hiding in the shadows, which presents a danger to our national security and harms our economy. It is unrealistic, and poor public policy, to simply deport hardworking undocumented immigrants, many of whom do critical jobs in our economy that help us to prosper.

We must pull individuals out of the shadows, not to grant them amnesty, but allow them to pay taxes and start on a path toward lawful immigration. Congress must act to fix our broken immigration system and implement a long-term solution—nothing less than America’s economic success, national security, and fundamental values are at stake.

NCLR: You have been very active in promoting pathways for women and people of color to become entrepreneurs as a way to foster economic growth. What specific national policies do you aim to champion to achieve this?

Sen. Booker: Small businesses and entrepreneurs are the economic engines of our nation, spurring innovation and creating jobs in our local communities. While entrepreneurship can offer great opportunities to build wealth or realize an innovative idea, too many women and minority entrepreneurs face steep hurdles to business ownership.

Access to capital is a critical issue for women and minority small-business owners and often serves as a significant barrier to business ownership. Recognizing these challenges, I have worked with the U.S. Small Business Administration to examine disparities in lending to women and minority-owned businesses in the agency’s 7(a) and 504 loan guarantee programs. Furthermore, in an effort to boost participation and awareness of these and other lending resources, last year I hosted five small-business forums across New Jersey that convened a broad spectrum of entrepreneurs and connected New Jersey business owners to federal and local resources. Going forward, I plan to continue leading this type of outreach to link business owners with the resources necessary to access capital and create jobs.

As a member of the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, I have also championed legislation to help drive startup resources to new areas. Currently, growth accelerator programs and other resources that support business startups are concentrated in Silicon Valley and even New York City. Forty-eight states across the country lack resources critical to startup growth, and legislation I introduced last year—the “Startup Opportunity Growth Accelerator (SOAR) Act”—would support a Small Business Administration fund to expand the impact of these resources by bringing accelerator programs to new communities. I plan to reintroduce this legislation this year.

Follow #NCLRCAPS15 on Twitter for live updates throughout the evening from the 2015 NCLR Capital Awards!

Five Questions for NCLR Capital Awards Honoree Frank Sharry


Frank Sharry, Founder and Executive Director, America’s Voice

This evening we’re honoring Frank Sharry, Founder and Executive Director of America’s Voice, with the NCLR Capital Award for Public Service. We asked Sharry to share some insight with us on the state of the fight for comprehensive immigration reform.

NCLR: You have been an advocate for immigrants in this country for more than three decades. How would you describe that struggle as it stands today?

Sharry: After many ups and downs over many years, we have turned the corner and are now winning. In 2012, our movement followed the lead of DREAMers and helped win protection for hundreds of thousands of young undocumented immigrants. That same year, the Supreme Court dealt anti-immigrant legislation in states such as Arizona and Alabama a deathblow. Later in the year, the president was reelected with a strong showing from the Latino community, making it evident that immigration is a defining and mobilizing issue for many voters.

In 2013, the Senate passed a bipartisan immigration reform bill that would have allowed millions to get on a path to citizenship. In 2014, when the House of Representatives blocked reform, our movement compelled the president to announce historic policy changes through executive action. These will result in protection and work permits for millions of undocumented immigrants, and they will contain and restrict the formidable enforcement machinery that has ripped apart too many families.

Now, in 2015 our job is to defend these policy changes, implement them, and then, going forward, look to expand on them—until we have a Congress prepared to pass comprehensive immigration reform legislation that grants immediate legal status and achievable citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants in America. Despite a terrible district court ruling and aggressive Republican opposition, I’m very optimistic that we will prevail and the new policies will be fully implemented.

NCLR: Taking into account the current political climate, do you think we are closer to comprehensive immigration reform, or are the challenges bigger than ever?

Sharry: I believe that comprehensive immigration reform is inevitable. It is the best policy to modernize our dysfunctional immigration system in a way that reflects our values and restores our confidence. And politically, it enjoys strong majority support in the country, support from constituencies across the political spectrum, and majorities in the Congress.

While it’s quite clear that for this Congress the Republican majority is more interested in nullifying the president’s executive actions than in passing pro-immigrant reforms, I am hopeful that the 2016 election will open space for comprehensive immigration legislation in 2017. In fact, it could be similar to what happened after the 2012 election, but on steroids.

If not, then until we have a Congress that will do what the American people want, we may have to rely on a combination of additional executive actions and state and local pro-immigrant policies that will give the majority of undocumented immigrants living in America work permits, driver’s licenses, access to higher education, worker protections, and travel permission. However long it takes, I think we’ve won the argument, we’ve won the politics, and we’re gaining strength every day as a movement. Victory is a matter of when, not if.

NCLR: NCLR and other organizations are making the case that President Obama’s executive actions are good not just for those who benefit directly, but for the country as a whole. Should advocates put more emphasis on these economic benefits to convince those in the general public who might be swayed by the argument that administrative relief puts jobs in danger?

Sharry: First of all, NCLR deserves enormous credit for its leadership on immigration reform. Without the organization’s dedication to this fight, I don’t think we would have made the progress we’ve made. And without Janet Murguía’s courage to speak out in 2014, I don’t think we would have won such a significant victory through executive action.

As for the best arguments for executive action, the economic case is a strong and persuasive one, especially for skeptics in the middle. There’s no doubt that protecting millions of hardworking immigrants will lead to higher productivity, more small business formation, increased tax revenues, higher wages, and more workplace fairness.

The argument that providing work permits to workers already in the country and in the workplace will take jobs away from others is all heat and no light. First of all, these workers are already here and already working. Being able to work legally, change jobs, and speak up without fear will help create a more level playing field in which the pressures are to increase fairness, wages, and revenues that benefit all of us.

NCLR: What’s the one thing that has changed the most for advocates since your time with ACNS and Centro Presente?

Sharry: The biggest change is that over time, in fits and starts, and through frequent internal turbulence, all of us have created one of the most powerful social and political movements of our generation.

Our movement is broad, deep, and aggressive. It includes DREAMers, immigrant leaders, grassroots activists, unusual allies, faith communities, ethnic communities, civil rights groups, the labor movement, national organizations, organizing networks, service providers, and millions of ordinary people who take part through actions, events, and social media campaigns.

I am honored and humbled to be part of such a beautiful and powerful expression of the need for far-reaching changes in how we, as a society, welcome and include newcomers.

NCLR: There are always ups and downs when working in public advocacy. How do you maintain your optimism?

Sharry: For one, I am confident we are on the right side of history and that the harder and smarter we work, the sooner we will achieve our destiny.

Second, I’m a happy warrior. I love that our movement is resilient, persistent, and creative, and I am inspired every day by my colleagues in the struggle.

But the most important reason I love this work is that I love the people we stand with and for. I love the strength, humanity, humor, and optimism. I love the ability to be dignified and resolute even when their dignity is under attack and their futures are uncertain. I love the love they have for family, culture, and the country they now call home. It’s a long, difficult road to victory, to be sure, but we will get there—and beyond. In fact, I want to live long enough to be there in the gallery of the House and Senate when, in the not-so-distant future, Congress enacts resolutions apologizing to undocumented immigrants from this generation and celebrating their remarkable contributions.

Follow #NCLRCAPS15 on Twitter for live updates throughout the evening from the 2015 NCLR Capital Awards.

Delaying Fair Pay for Home Care Workers is an Injustice

Caregiver_resizedThe Department of Labor (DOL) has sought to improve working conditions for home care workers by implementing a rule that grants these workers minimum wage and overtime protection. When the rule was finalized in September 2013, NCLR and its allies declared it a long-overdue victory for two million home care workers. Despite a full notice-and-comment process, accepting and considering tens of thousands of public comments, and an unprecedented 15-month implementation period, Judge Richard Leon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia blocked the rule in January. In response, DOL has filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

We firmly support boosting wages for home care workers, and last week we joined in the submission of an amicus brief to support DOL in its appeal of Judge Leon’s ruling. Twenty percent of home care workers are Latino. Fair pay would not only help reduce high turnover in this industry, but would also bring stability and higher-quality care to those who depend on home care workers.

“The Supreme Court has already decided that DOL was well within its authority to grant these much-needed protections to home care workers. To continue to stall implementation of these rules—basic labor protections that home care workers have been excluded from for 40 years—is not only unjust, it is a slap in the face to those who we rely on to care for our loved ones,” said Eric Rodriguez, Vice President of the Office of Research, Advocacy, and Legislation at NCLR, in a statement. “Home care workers have waited long enough for fair pay. Further delay of these regulations is unacceptable.”

The legal underpinnings of DOL’s appeal are firm and we are confident in standing with the department. As the case makes its way through the legal system, we will continue to work with the states to help them build on the groundwork laid to implement these rules.

Weekly Washington Outlook — March 2, 2015

White House at Night

What to Watch This Week:



On Monday, the House will vote on two bills related to veterans’ issues under suspension of the rules:

  • H.R. 294 – Long-Term Care Veteran Choice Act, as amended (Sponsored by Rep. Jeff Miller / Veterans’ Affairs Committee)
  • H.R. 280 – To authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to recoup bonuses and awards paid to employees of the Department of Veterans Affair, as amended (Sponsored by Rep. Jeff Miller / Veterans’ Affairs Committee)

On Tuesday, the House will convene for a joint meeting of Congress to receive Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

On Wednesday and the balance of the week the House will consider the following:

  • H.R. 749 – Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act of 2015, Rules Committee Print (Subject to a Rule) (Sponsored by Rep. Bill Shuster / Transportation and Infrastructure Committee)
  • H.R. 1029 - EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015, Rules Committee Print (Subject to a Rule) (Sponsored by Rep. Frank Lucas / Science, Space, and Technology Committee)
  • H.R. 1030 – Secret Science Reform Act of 2015, Rules Committee Print (Subject to a Rule) (Sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith / Science, Space, and Technology

It is possible that members may also vote on legislation to fund the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).


On Monday, the Senate will resume consideration of a funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security. On Monday evening, a vote is scheduled on a House motion to go to conference to reconcile differences between each chamber’s appropriations bill. Later in the week, the Senate will join the House for a joint meeting to receive Israel’s Prime Minister. It is also possible that the Senate may schedule the first procedural vote to override the President’s veto of legislation to authorize the Keystone XL Pipeline or begin consideration of S. J. Res. 8 to block a proposed rule from the National Labor Relations Board.

White House:

On Monday, the president will meet with members of his Task Force on 21st Century Policing to discuss their recommendations on how to strengthen community policing and strengthen trust among law enforcement officers and the communities they serve.

On Tuesday, President Obama and the first lady will deliver remarks at the White House about expanding efforts to help adolescent girls worldwide attend and stay in school. These efforts will build on the investments successes achieved in global primary school education by elevating existing programs and public and private sector partnerships.

On Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, the president will attend meetings at the White House.

On Saturday, the president and the first lady will travel to Selma, Alabama to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the Selma to Montgomery marches. This visit will also highlight the President and his Administration’s overall efforts to mark the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Voting Rights Act of 1965

Also this Week:

Appropriations – Last week, after the House failed to pass a three-week continuing resolution to fund the Department of Homeland Security in advance of a Friday deadline, both chambers extended their deadline seven days. This week, the Senate will vote on a House-passed motion to conference differing versions of an appropriations bill. The House version has language blocking the president’s immigration actions whereas the Senate passed a “clean” bill; as a result, this motion to negotiate between the two is almost certain to fail in the Senate. In the mean time, House leadership has not signaled how they plan to proceed to avert this Friday’s deadline to prevent a shutdown of the agency.

Immigration – As the fight over DHS funding continues, the House Judiciary Committee is scheduled on Tuesday and Wednesday to mark-up four bills, including an updated version of the SAFE Act and related legislation on interior enforcement (i.e. E-Verify).  The Committee will also consider two bills to expedite the return of unaccompanied children and make other changes to the processing of asylum claims. In the Senate, the Judiciary Committee’s Immigration and National Interest Subcommittee will hold a hearing Tuesday afternoon on “Oversight of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services: Ensuring Agency Priorities Comply with the Law.” Representatives from USCIS are scheduled to appear.

Education – In the midst of last week’s wrangling over DHS appropriations, planned consideration of the Student Success Act, a partisan bill to rewrite No Child Left Behind, was pulled off the floor. There is wide speculation that with minimal Democratic support and concerns from conservative members that the bill did not go far enough, House Leadership did not have enough votes for passage. The legislation is not scheduled to return to the floor this week and its fate is somewhat unclear at the moment.  In the Senate, HELP Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Ranking Member Patty Murray (D-Wash.) continue to negotiate to reach a bipartisan compromise to reauthorize the law.

Health – The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Wednesday in the King v. Burwell case challenging the legality of premium assistance for enrollees on federal exchanges. Lawmakers in the House and the Senate have signaled they may be interested in finding a “fix” if the court rules against the Administration. Last week, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) made limited details of one possible proposal public with several Senate colleagues, available in a Washington Post op-ed.  The Administration, however, remains confident the court will rule in their favor.  Additional details here: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/king-v-burwell/.

Dodd-Frank – Richard Cordray, the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, will appear before the House Financial Services Committee on Tuesday. The hearing is expected to be somewhat contentious and may address conservative proposals to change the agency’s structure.

Budget – Cabinet officials are continuing to appear before Congress to make this week defending their budget requests. Notably on Wednesday, Education Secretary Arne Duncan will testify before the House Appropriations Labor-HHS-Education Subcommittee.

Labor – The Senate could vote as soon as this week on S. J. Res. 8, a resolution of disapproval of the National Labor Relations Board’s actions to expedite workplace union elections when unions are engaged in collective bargaining.

This Week in Immigration Reform — Week Ending Feb. 27


Week Ending February 27

This week in immigration reform: Janet Murguía and advocates meet with President Obama on immigration; NCLR launches a new blog series; the Department of Homeland Security funding debate continues; and NCLR gears up for National Latino Advocacy Days.

NCLR kept the community informed on immigration with staff quoted in Slate and EFE Newswire and featured on Kansas City Public Radio.

President Obama meets with advocates and participates in townhall on immigration: This week Janet Murguía attended a meeting with President Obama where he encouraged advocates to continue to get out the word about DAPA and the broader eligibility for DACA. The president also told advocates at the meeting that, despite the temporary delay of the implementation of expanded DACA and DAPA because of the court injunction, the priorities enforcement memo from November 2014 is in effect and the administration will continue to prioritize public safety, national security, and border security. Read more in a Huffington Post article. Murguía tweeted about the meeting (below) and made a statement afterwards, saying “the law is on our side and that while we need to move forward through the legal process, we believe that we will win this case and make sure that we can move forward with implementation with the executive order.” Watch a video of her complete statement.

The president continued defense of his executive action on immigration during an appearance with MSNBC anchor Jose Diaz-Balart for an immigration town hall in Miami. Watch the video in our blog. Additionally, President Obama wrote an op-ed in The Hill urging comprehensive immigration reform.

NCLR launches a blog profiling deferred action success stories: A new blog series began this week with the story of Emilio Vicente, a DACA recipient and soon-to-be college graduate. Emilio has advocated for immigration reform, is an active member of his university community, and hopes to continue his work on immigration upon graduation from the University of North Carolina. On what DACA has meant for him, Emilio said:

“DACA for me means not being under the threat of deportation at any moment and being able to use my degree once I graduate. I can also sleep better at night knowing that my brothers and sisters-in-law, who qualify for DAPA, won’t be deported and separated from their families at any moment. We need a humane immigration bill that is permanent but until then, DACA and DAPA will protect many of us from the separation of our families.”

The blog, ‘Living the American DREAM,’ will also profile individuals who will come forward to apply for the expanded DACA and new Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA) programs.

Congress continues to debate funding for DHS, which expires at midnight: The fight over how to fund the Department of Homeland Security has played out all week on the Hill. Just today, the Senate passed an amended version of HR 240, a ‘clean’ DHS funding bill to fully fund the agency through the fiscal year. House Republicans might try to call a conference committee to negotiate a final bill and to potentially add language into the bill to prevent implementation of executive action. Minority Leader Reid (D-Nev.) has vowed to block a conference committee and is quoted in an article from The Hill saying: “If they send over a bill with all the riders in it, they’ve shut down the government. We’re not going to play games.”

The Senate then proceeded to vote on a bill by Senator Collins (R-Maine) that would overturn President Barack Obama’s most recent immigration actions. That vote failed 57-42. In the House, Republicans attempted to pass a short-term continuing resolution to fund DHS through March 19. That vote failed 203-224. It is unclear how Congress will proceed and NCLR will keep you informed as this debate continues.

Latino advocates come to the Washington next week to voice concerns and support for their communities: Next week, 300 Latino leaders from 23 states and the District of Columbia will come to Washington D.C. for National Latino Advocacy Days. NCLR is excited to welcome members of the NCLR Affiliate network and will be facilitating a day-long training to prepare participants before they visit their elected officials.

A Chat About the Role of Community Health Workers in Communities of Color: Highlights

Today NCLR joined our friends at Peers for Progress and Black Women’s Health Imperative for a twitter chat on how community health workers are vital to improving minority health. We’ve put together some highlights for you. Thanks to Black Women’s Health Imperative and Peers for Progress for working to produce this spirite Twitter chat today!