Why California’s border is at issue in Ukraine aid standoff

Democrats in California and elsewhere are divided on the Gaza war. But there’s another bloody war, in Ukraine, and on that, key California members of Congress are also split from the White House. 

Sen. Alex Padilla, the state’s first Latino U.S. senator, and Rep. Nanette Barragán, chairperson of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, are warning the Biden administration not to agree to changes to border security to win Republican support for more U.S. military aid for Ukraine.

That nation’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, ventured to Capitol Hill on Tuesday, trying to persuade Congress to unblock the assistance he desperately needs against the might of Vladimir Putin’s Russia. 

• Padilla and Barragán, in a joint statement: “We are deeply concerned that the President would consider advancing Trump-era immigration policies that Democrats fought so hard against — and that he himself campaigned against — in exchange for aid to our allies that Republicans already support…. We unequivocally agree on the need for Congress to act to reform our immigration system and address the challenges at our border, but extreme Republican demands to cut off legal pathways and deport long-term residents will not reduce unauthorized migration — they will only exacerbate our current challenges.”

Barragán doubled down on that Monday statement in an appearance Tuesday on MSNBC, saying that it’s “completely unacceptable” that no caucus member has been involved in the negotiations. 

“We need to have representation in the room,” she added.

But how well would they be representing Californians with a focus on immigration?

As CalMatters politics reporter Yue Stella Yue recently explained, though California is home to 8 million Latinos — the single biggest racial and ethnic group in the state — immigration reform is not a top issue for many U.S.-born Latinos. Instead, the economy, inflation and joblessness rank higher as priority issues.

But there’s no denying that the border is a major concern in Southern California.

As CalMatters reported last week, U.S. Customs and Border Protection has released more than 42,000 people onto San Diego County streets from September through November. With a scarcity of appropriate resources, charities in the region are overwhelmed and struggle to offer assistance. But some county officials oppose spending local money to assist migrants, arguing that immigration falls under the purview of the federal government.

Despite the obstacles, however, some migrants CalMatters spoke to said they’d journey to the U.S. again. It’s a sentiment echoed by many of the more than 3,300 immigrants surveyed in a recent poll conducted by the Los Angeles Times and KFF (formerly the Kaiser Family Foundation). In addition to the eight in 10 who said they would still choose to emigrate if they “could go back in time and do it all again,” the top two reasons immigrants cited to come to the U.S. were to “obtain better opportunities for themselves and a better future for their children.”

As for Ukraine aid, California residents are split. In a Public Policy Institute of California survey released last week, half of adults said the U.S. should not provide additional assistance (64% of Democrats supported aid, but 66% of Republicans opposed it).

As it gears up to lobby for more state aid, the California Association of Food Banks released new data Tuesday that reveals more Californians are struggling with food insecurity, reports CalMatters’ Jeanne Kuang. 

Because of inflation and the end of federal aid during the pandemic, more than 20% of California families, or about 3.1 million households, were reporting uncertain access to food in October. Black families in particular reported sharp increases, shooting from 30% in April to 40% in October. 

• May Lynn Tan, the association’s director of research and strategic initiatives: “Families are buying less food. They’re running out of food, not being able to afford nutritious meals, and worrying more about food.”

The increase in food security isn’t a surprise to California food banks, which since the summer were warning of a “catastrophic hunger crisis.” But with recent number crunching that puts the state deficit at $68 billion for 2024-25, food banks and other safety net groups face a tall order as they advocate for more state funding.

For more on California’s hunger crisis, read Jeanne’s story.

About the budget deficit: The state’s Department of Finance urged several state agencies Tuesday to tighten up the purse strings in anticipation of the upcoming budget shortfall. 

Save for a handful of situations, such as in a declared emergency or providing medical care, agencies should “reduce expenditures,” particularly with “non-essential” new purchases. That includes small items including new cell phones and superfluous office supplies, as well as bigger purchases such as fleet vehicles, though new “mission-critical or emergency-related” vehicles are allowed.

And for most state employees, leave buy-back programs — in which workers get paid for unused vacation or leave time — is canceled for 2023-24. (This does not apply to members of the state prison officers union.)

From CalMatters economy reporter Levi Sumagaysay:

Throwing out Proposition 22 in its entirety, as the Service Employees International Union has asked the California Supreme Court to do, is too far-reaching and would set a precedent limiting voters’ initiative power, the gig industry and the state said in separate briefs filed Monday.

Prop. 22, a ballot initiative that companies such as Uber, Lyft, DoorDash and Instacart spent more than $200 million on, was approved by 58% of California voters in 2020. It exempts gig companies from a state law that would have forced them to classify app-based drivers and delivery workers as employees instead of independent contractors. 

Labor groups have fought to overturn Prop. 22 since, and it was ruled unconstitutional in 2021. But in March, the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco upheld most of the law except for the provision that would have precluded the Legislature from allowing gig workers to collectively bargain. 

As independent contractors, gig workers are not entitled to benefits such as minimum wage, paid leave, workers’ compensation and more. Prop. 22 gives gig workers some benefits they did not have before, but they still lack full employee protections.

The SEIU is asking the state’s high court to throw out Prop. 22 because it says a provision in it strips the state Legislature of its power to say that app-based workers are entitled to workers’ compensation.

The state attorney general’s office said in its brief that “the Legislature’s authority to legislate on the subject of workers’ compensation is not exclusive,” and that voters have the power to enact related statutes, too.

The Protect App-Based Drivers and Services Coalition, which is made up of the gig companies, said in its filing that Prop. 22 “does not even alter the workers’ compensation system. The initiative simply changes the test for whether drivers are employees, and one downstream consequence of that change (among many) could be an effect on workers’ compensation.”  

A lawyer and a spokesperson for the SEIU said the group would have no comment Tuesday. The SEIU is expected to file a response to the briefs ahead of filings of amicus briefs, then the state Supreme Court’s decision next year.