Author: openjargon

• Immigration is one of the thorniest public policy issues and one that will define the 2024 election.
• Biden has had to pivot on some of his border policies after running against Trump's efforts in 2020.
• Meanwhile, Trump is seeking to run heavily on immigration this year, similar to his 2016 campaign.

Very few issues animate Americans more than immigration.

And under the presidencies of both Donald Trump and Joe Biden, divisions over the issue have only sharpened further.

Trump's 2016 presidential campaign was defined by his hard-line views on immigration: arguing for a wall at the US-Mexico border and insisting that Mexico pay for said barrier, pushing for the deportations of millions of undocumented immigrants, and calling for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the country.

Once in office, Trump sought to execute his broad vision. His administration constructed 455 miles of fencing along the southern border, but much of the wall simply replaced anti-vehicle barriers with taller steel bars. And despite Trump's rhetoric on ramping up deportations, the number of individuals who were removed from the US declined from October 2018 to September 2019.

Biden in the 2020 election strongly denounced Trump's immigration policies, voicing his opposition to a border wall, blasting the GOP administration's family separation policy, and promising a more humane approach toward migrants at the southern border.

But since Biden took office, an explosion in border apprehensions — along with scores of migrants arriving in Democratic-led cities like Chicago and New York — has became a political liability, with voters giving him low marks on the issue.

Here's a look at Biden and Trump's positions on immigration, one of the defining issues of the November election:

Where Joe Biden stands on immigration

Immigration has been one of the trickiest policy areas for Biden, as he came into office seeking to reverse many Trump-era policies but has instead often found himself on the defensive on the issue.

Republicans across the country have routinely excoriated Biden over border security since taking office, pointing their fingers at him over record levels of apprehensions at the border. In February, the GOP-controlled House of Representatives impeached Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, contending that he had not enforced the country's immigration laws. (The Democratic-led Senate subsequently squashed the impeachment charges against Mayorkas.)

Texas GOP Gov. Greg Abbott over the past two years has pushed back against what he said is Biden's lack of border security by sending hundreds of thousands of migrants to Chicago and New York. And it's created a difficult situation for Democratic officials like New York City Mayor Eric Adams, who has had to tackle budgetary challenges in housing migrants.

Biden this year pushed for the passage of a Senate-crafted bipartisan bill, which would have overhauled the US asylum system, among other measures intended to strengthen security at the border. The bill seemingly put the president on the offensive on the issue, as he challenged congressional Republicans to back to proposal to get a handle on immigration.

But Senate Republicans overwhelmingly voted against the bill after Trump pressed them to tank it.

Biden last week signed an executive order that restricts asylum protections — to the frustration of immigration advocates — for migrants if there are more than 2,500 unauthorized daily border crossings over a seven-day average.

Where Donald Trump stands on immigration

Trump has staked much of his 2024 campaign on Biden's vulnerabilities on immigration among voters.

In a New York Times/Siena College poll conducted in April, 50% of registered voters approved of Trump's handling of the issue while he was in office. Meanwhile, only 32% of registered voters approved of Biden's handling of immigration.

The former president was instrumental in tanking this year's bipartisan immigration bill, blasting it as a "horrible open borders betrayal" during a January rally in Las Vegas.

Trump has made it clear that he intends to crack down on illegal immigration should he retake the White House.

The former president's conservative allies have already begun drafting executive orders and memos in preparation for potential early actions to restrict migration at the US-Mexico border, according to The Wall Street Journal.

During Trump's sole term in the White House, he also made it more difficult for foreign-born workers — which included many highly-skilled scientists and engineers — to come to the US on visas. A second Trump administration could very well see a return to such policies.

AirPod competitors are pouring into the wireless earbud industry, challenging Apple’s seat on the throne. We tried out cheaper AirPod dupes to see how they stack up against the real thing.

The Kentucky Derby is the biggest horse race in America, and preparing for it takes millions of dollars and thousands of people. We went to Churchill Downs days before the big race to see what it takes to train the winning horse and prepare the century-old track for 400,000 fans.

• The US lifted a ban on Azov Brigade, allowing it to receive American weapon shipments.
• The Azov Brigade, part of Ukraine's National Guard, has faced scrutiny for its past far-right ties.
• The State Department found no evidence of human rights violations after vetting the brigade.

The US State Department announced Monday that it has lifted a ban on the Azov Brigade, a former Ukrainian militia group with an ultranationalist history, allowing the current National Guard unit to receive American weapon shipments and training.

A State Department spokesperson told BBC on Tuesday that following a vetting of the brigade, there was "no evidence of gross violations of human rights."

The group was established in 2014 as the Azov Battalion by a figure linked to far-right hate groups in Ukraine. The unit's members' alleged far-right ties led the US to bar the group from receiving assistance.

Now known as the Azov Brigade, the unit became part of the Ukrainian National Guard in 2015. The unit sought to distance itself from its checkered past, yet it has also been banned from receiving US assistance for years, since the passing of a 2018 congressional spending bill.

The State Department has dismissed the congressional ban and said the Azov Brigade "passed Leahy vetting," referring to Leahy Law, which prevents the US from supporting foreign entities that have committed major human rights violations.

"Understanding by our allies how important it is to help each of these units is another important step on the way of our struggle for independence," Ukrainian National Guard spokesperson Ruslan Muzychuk told The Washington Post following the State Department announcement.

The Kremlin has used the Azov Brigade as a talking point in justifying Russia's invasion of Ukraine, as President Vladimir Putin has previously stated that his objectives of the war include the "demilitarization and de-Nazification of Ukraine."

The Azov Brigade has claimed that it has evolved from its problematic past and that its leadership has changed since its inception.

In a response to the decision on Instagram, the unit wrote that "obtaining Western weapons and training from the United States will not only increase the combat ability of Azov, but most importantly, contribute to the preservation of the lives and the health of personnel."

"This is a new page in our unit's history," the brigade said, adding that "Azov is becoming even more powerful, even more professional and even more dangerous for occupiers."

The brigade is closely associated with its significant, albeit costly, defense of Mariupol in 2022 at the start of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, where it was eventually forced to surrender its fight from the Azovstal steel mill. The unit's soldiers have been celebrated as heroes and symbol of Ukrainian resistance.

Clarence Thomas took in his grandnephew and raised him like a son. Mark Martin now faces more than 25 years on drug and weapons charges. The Thomas' guardianship is part of the scandal surrounding the Supreme Court justice's failure to disclose gifts from billionaire Harlan Crow.

• The Federal Reserve held interest rates steady in its latest decision on Wednesday.
• Its Summary of Economic Projections also penciled in just one interest rate cut for 2024.
• Still, Powell cautioned that could change and left the door open for a rate cut in September.

The odds of an interest rate cut this year just got slimmer.

On June 12, the Federal Open Market Committee announced that it would hold interest rates steady as the nation's central bank continues to work to lower inflation to its 2% target.

Notably, alongside the Federal Reserve's interest rate decision, the FOMC also released its Summary of Economic Projections — and the committee now has just one interest rate cut penciled in for 2024, with further cuts expected in 2025.

Fed Chair Jerome Powell said during the Wednesday press conference that when looking at the FOMC's projections, they should be viewed as just that: projections. There's still time for them to change based on upcoming economic data, he said, and it's "plausible" that a rate cut could happen as soon as September.

"We want to gain further confidence. Certainly, more good inflation readings will help with that," Powell said.

"It's going to be the totality of the data, what's happening in the labor market, what's happening with the balance of risks, what's happening with the forecast, what's happening with growth," he added. "You look at all of that, and you ask, 'Are we confident? Have we reached an appropriate level of confidence that inflation is moving down sustainably to 2%, or alternatively, do we see really unexpected signs of weakness in the labor market?'"

The Consumer Price Index, which measures inflation, rose 3.3% year over year in May, a slight decrease from April's 3.4% reading, showing the economy is headed in the right direction. While Powell said the latest reading is a positive sign, it's not sufficient to allow the Fed to loosen its restrictive monetary policy.

However, some Democratic lawmakers have urged Powell to cut rates sooner rather than later, given the financial strains Americans continue to face under high inflation. Powell acknowledged those pains but reiterated that it's most important for the Fed to hold off on cutting until it gets more data rather than cutting too soon and having to raise rates again at a later date.

"In the meantime, it's going to be painful for people, but the ultimate pain would be a long period of high inflation," Powell said. "It is people who have lower incomes, people at the margins of the economy who have the worst experience, who experience the most pain from inflation. So you know, it's for those people, for all Americans, but particularly for those people, that we're doing everything we can to bring inflation back down under control."

The offers and details on this page may have updated or changed since the time of publication. See our article on Business Insider for current information.

• Without realizing it, I became addicted to visiting Starbucks around the world.
• In 2020, I abruptly stopped, challenging myself to explore more local options.
• Constantly searching for new coffee shops has taught me how to better trust my instincts.

When I first started drinking coffee, I was intimidated by every café that had its own long menu with unique drink names and too many ways to personalize a drink.

Soon, I found comfort in Starbucks: No matter where in the world I was, I could order the exact same thing and know what to expect.

As a travel journalist, I began searching for the familiar logo everywhere, from Bali and Morocco to Barcelona and Buenos Aires. It wasn't hard — Starbucks is the largest coffee chain in the world, on track to have 55,000 stores by 2030.

But about four and a half years ago, I was on my way to claim my free Starbucks birthday drink when a lightbulb went off in my head.

I was in San Francisco, and as I passed one adorable little coffee shop after another, I wondered why I was overlooking so many small businesses so I could get coffee from a megacorporation that netted $36 billion in the 2023 fiscal year.

That day, I sipped my last drop of frozen coffee through a green straw (OK, technically a sippy top since the chain had stopped offering plastic straws by then) and quit Starbucks.

It was a challenging transition that meant spending more money on coffee

Though I live a block from a Starbucks, I started forcing myself to walk past it in search of local options.

My self-imposed ban began in 2020 during the peak days of the coronavirus pandemic, so I quickly realized the spending power I had with my daily coffee.

Many independent coffee shops closed during or shortly after the height of the pandemic. Even now, smaller cafés depend on every customer's support.

Starbucks doesn't need my money as much, even though it had actually been cheaper for me. At the time, I'd been spending $3 to $5 for my Starbucks drinks. At local shops, my drinks were closer to $4 to $7.

After happily paying extra for milk substitutes and gratuity at small businesses, the cost of my typical coffee order eventually started inching closer to double digits. Still, I felt better knowing the dollars were going back to my community.

I also turned grabbing coffee into an adventure

Giving up Starbucks also meant I'd have to break some old habits.

Instead of rotely going to the closest Starbucks, I began to pull up Google Maps to search for a new coffee shop every time. In the beginning, I often landed at mediocre cafés.

But as I started traveling again, I realized what felt like a chore at home started to feel like a delight when I was abroad. After all, traveling is all about discovering new finds.

Every coffee shop has its own menu, system, and style. Instead of being an old pro in a familiar place, I became the constant newbie in a strange setting, asking for WiFi passwords and bathroom keys.

Eventually, trying new spots became a mini daily adventure stirred up into my coffee break.

Now I'm more than 4 years Starbucks-free — and won't go back

The bottom line is that my coffee budget has gone up — I recently paid $12.69 for a vanilla oat latte at a local shop, about $5 more than it would've cost at Starbucks — but now I see more than a cup of joe.

I see coffee time as an experience, a moment to connect with a slice of a community that I wouldn't normally have been immersed in.

Plus, at local coffee shops, I'm one of few customers instead of one of many in a long line. I'm more likely to get doted on with top-notch service instead of just feeling like a name on a cup.

Sometimes, I still end up at coffee chains — but my self-imposed ban means I'll opt for smaller ones like Blank Street or Gregory's Coffee instead of mega-global franchises.

I still feel like a bit of a jerk when I have business meetings scheduled at a Starbucks and ask to go somewhere else. But it's a pretty good conversation starter, and I've even had colleagues tell me they're also steering away from the chain.

I don't have a personal vendetta against Starbucks. It's just that by quitting, my coffee world has opened up beyond the limitations of one company — and forever hunting for a new coffee shop has become my ultimate pick-me-up.