employee

Miami archbishop calls for ‘compassionate’ protections for Haitians ahead of TPS deadline #Catholic Miami Archbishop Thomas Wenski urged “compassionate” immigration protections for Haitians with temporary protected status (TPS) upon expiration of their automatic work‑permit extension.As “widespread violence, political instability, economic collapse, and humanitarian suffering” continue in Haiti, Wenski said July 24 that the Caribbean nation remains unsafe as a place for migrants to return. About 353,000 Haitian nationals hold TPS status in the U.S., according to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).Miami’s archbishop said local ministries are “preparing for the consequences” of policy changes, including the termination of work authorizations for diocesan employees. Employment authorization documents (EADs) reached a court-extended expiration July 27.TPS is an immigration status granted to eligible foreign nationals from designated countries that are unsafe to return to due to ongoing conflict, environmental disasters, or other extraordinary conditions.The U.S. Supreme Court on June 25 ruled that DHS could end TPS for Haitians and Syrians. El Salvador’s TPS designation is set to expire Sept. 9.The U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation (H.R. 1689) in April that would add three more years of TPS for Haitian nationals. The legislation has stalled in the Senate.Catholic Health Services (CHS), one of the Archdiocese of Miamiʼs largest ministries, which employs a significant number of Haitian workers who hold TPS, “is currently evaluating the effects of the recent federal changes affecting TPS work authorization, Wenski said.“At this time, an estimated 40 to 50 valued employees may be affected, although the final number remains under review as the organization works individually with each employee based on his or her unique circumstances,” he said.Haitian CHS workers “are more than employees — they are members of our Church and our community,” Wenski said. “They care for the sick, comfort the elderly, and serve some of the most vulnerable among us with compassion and dedication.”Ahead of the deadline, Wenski said “our hearts are with our Haitian brothers and sisters who are living with uncertainty, fear, and anxiety about what the future may hold for themselves and their families.”“The Church recognizes the right of nations to secure their borders and to establish just immigration laws. At the same time, our Catholic faith calls us to uphold the dignity of every human person and to accompany those who are vulnerable,” he said. As “Haiti continues to endure profound hardship,” Wenski urged “elected leaders to pursue compassionate and humane solutions that protect family unity and recognize the extraordinary circumstances facing the Haitian people.”“To our Haitian brothers and sisters: You are not alone. The Catholic Church walks with you,” he said.Haitian workers in Ohio face uncertain futureOhio bishops also have called for continued TPS protections for Haitians, especially as Springfield, Ohio, is home to a large Haitian population. The Catholic Conference of Ohio released a June statement urging action and continued TPS.As the Supreme Court decision has left many families worried about losing their jobs, Ohio-based organizations are also preparing to aid those facing loss of TPS.In an interview July 24 with “EWTN News Nightly,” Casey Rollins, executive director of St. Vincent de Paul in Springfield, Ohio, said the organizationʼs team helps immigrants and nonimmigrants “while theyʼre enduring, or while theyʼre navigating … a crisis or a situation.”“That would be, in this case, once they lost their jobs, we will help them take care of their rent and utilities if they now canʼt pay that,” she said.For “over 60 years, weʼve helped Americans with rent and utilities and those kinds of necessities for independent living. Now weʼre doing that with Haitians and other immigrants whoʼve recently lost jobs,” she explained.“We also are helping the families who, many of them, are certain to be deported,” she said.Following the loss of workers in the Ohio community, “weʼre going to be in trouble,” she said. For years, the area needed “more workers here,” and the Haitian community was “taking a lot of these jobs.”
Read More

Miami archbishop calls for ‘compassionate’ protections for Haitians ahead of TPS deadline #Catholic Miami Archbishop Thomas Wenski urged “compassionate” immigration protections for Haitians with temporary protected status (TPS) upon expiration of their automatic work‑permit extension.As “widespread violence, political instability, economic collapse, and humanitarian suffering” continue in Haiti, Wenski said July 24 that the Caribbean nation remains unsafe as a place for migrants to return. About 353,000 Haitian nationals hold TPS status in the U.S., according to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).Miami’s archbishop said local ministries are “preparing for the consequences” of policy changes, including the termination of work authorizations for diocesan employees. Employment authorization documents (EADs) reached a court-extended expiration July 27.TPS is an immigration status granted to eligible foreign nationals from designated countries that are unsafe to return to due to ongoing conflict, environmental disasters, or other extraordinary conditions.The U.S. Supreme Court on June 25 ruled that DHS could end TPS for Haitians and Syrians. El Salvador’s TPS designation is set to expire Sept. 9.The U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation (H.R. 1689) in April that would add three more years of TPS for Haitian nationals. The legislation has stalled in the Senate.Catholic Health Services (CHS), one of the Archdiocese of Miamiʼs largest ministries, which employs a significant number of Haitian workers who hold TPS, “is currently evaluating the effects of the recent federal changes affecting TPS work authorization, Wenski said.“At this time, an estimated 40 to 50 valued employees may be affected, although the final number remains under review as the organization works individually with each employee based on his or her unique circumstances,” he said.Haitian CHS workers “are more than employees — they are members of our Church and our community,” Wenski said. “They care for the sick, comfort the elderly, and serve some of the most vulnerable among us with compassion and dedication.”Ahead of the deadline, Wenski said “our hearts are with our Haitian brothers and sisters who are living with uncertainty, fear, and anxiety about what the future may hold for themselves and their families.”“The Church recognizes the right of nations to secure their borders and to establish just immigration laws. At the same time, our Catholic faith calls us to uphold the dignity of every human person and to accompany those who are vulnerable,” he said. As “Haiti continues to endure profound hardship,” Wenski urged “elected leaders to pursue compassionate and humane solutions that protect family unity and recognize the extraordinary circumstances facing the Haitian people.”“To our Haitian brothers and sisters: You are not alone. The Catholic Church walks with you,” he said.Haitian workers in Ohio face uncertain futureOhio bishops also have called for continued TPS protections for Haitians, especially as Springfield, Ohio, is home to a large Haitian population. The Catholic Conference of Ohio released a June statement urging action and continued TPS.As the Supreme Court decision has left many families worried about losing their jobs, Ohio-based organizations are also preparing to aid those facing loss of TPS.In an interview July 24 with “EWTN News Nightly,” Casey Rollins, executive director of St. Vincent de Paul in Springfield, Ohio, said the organizationʼs team helps immigrants and nonimmigrants “while theyʼre enduring, or while theyʼre navigating … a crisis or a situation.”“That would be, in this case, once they lost their jobs, we will help them take care of their rent and utilities if they now canʼt pay that,” she said.For “over 60 years, weʼve helped Americans with rent and utilities and those kinds of necessities for independent living. Now weʼre doing that with Haitians and other immigrants whoʼve recently lost jobs,” she explained.“We also are helping the families who, many of them, are certain to be deported,” she said.Following the loss of workers in the Ohio community, “weʼre going to be in trouble,” she said. For years, the area needed “more workers here,” and the Haitian community was “taking a lot of these jobs.”

unitedyam

Catholic Health Services, one of the Archdiocese of Miami’s largest ministries, faces losing an estimated 40 to 50 employees, Miami Archbishop Thomas Wenski said.

Read More
Little Sisters argue contraception mandate case before 3rd Circuit as long fight continues #Catholic Legal counsel for the Little Sisters of the Poor delivered oral arguments to a federal appellate court on July 7 as the Catholic religious society continued its 15-year legal battle over contraception mandates.The dispute goes back to a 2011 federal regulation imposed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which requires employers to include coverage of contraception in healthcare plans offered to employees, as part of rules implementing the Affordable Care Act.Although the Little Sisters of the Poor already won two Supreme Court cases — which found the federal government must protect the religious freedom of those who object to contraception and that the federal government has the authority to create exemptions — the attorneys general of Pennsylvania and New Jersey are challenging federal exemptions on grounds that the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on.A lower court ruled in favor of the two states, against the Little Sisters of the Poor, finding that the federal exemptions are arbitrary and capricious. The sisters filed an appeal, which is being considered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit.Aimee Thomson, who represented the two states, argued that the broad exemptions — which allow both religious and moral objectors to avoid the mandate — are “arbitrary and capricious” and that the exemptions “swept well beyond all religious employers” who first objected to the mandate.Under the rule, employers who have moral or religious objections can opt in to an accommodation in which the federal government subsidizes contraception coverage in their plans. Employers who also have moral or religious objections to the accommodation can sidestep contraception coverage altogether.She told the panel of judges that the exemption exceeds the scope that is required under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). She said the regulators failed to show that these exemptions were necessary to solve the religious liberty issue and expressed concerns over employers potentially getting exemptions even though their objections are not sincere.Thomson said it’s unclear “how many women have been impacted” by insincere objections, but “expecting female employees” to study policies and litigate an employer’s insincere objections is burdensome.“That is an incredible burden to place on employees and on women,” she said.Mark Rienzi, president of Becket and lead attorney for the Little Sisters, argued that the federal government sought to “choose a middle ground” that created a mandate but protected religious freedom, based on Supreme Court guidance: “Nothing about that is even close to arbitrary and capricious.”“This law is about the federal government … accommodating religion with its own mandate,” he said.Rienzi said a rule does not become arbitrary and capricious just because the scope is “a hair more than what’s required” under RFRA.The Little Sisters of the Poor are also receiving support from the Department of Justice. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Eric McArthur argued on behalf of the federal government, in favor of the exemptions, saying RFRA does not require the exemptions to be the “bare minimum.”He said HHS chose to “set everything aside and take a fresh look at everything” and decided “an exemption was the most appropriate administrative response” to objections. He said this was adopted “as a policy matter … even if RFRA does not compel it.”McArthur argued there is “no good reason” for someone to insincerely request an exemption because the employer can request the accommodation “at zero cost.” Yet, if the court decides the exemptions are too broad, the court could strike down “one line in the rule” rather than “take down the entire rule,” as the two states have requested.Mother Loraine Marie Maguire of the Little Sisters of the Poor said in a statement after the oral arguments that the states’ lawsuit to eliminate the exemptions is threatening their mission to serve the poor and the elderly.“This is our God-given mission,” she said “For nearly 200 years we have welcomed the elderly poor and dying into our homes, and with the population of seniors rapidly growing we cannot allow a government lawsuit to stop us from carrying out our mission. Pennsylvania and New Jersey can keep fighting if they want. All we want is to keep serving.”
Read More

Little Sisters argue contraception mandate case before 3rd Circuit as long fight continues #Catholic Legal counsel for the Little Sisters of the Poor delivered oral arguments to a federal appellate court on July 7 as the Catholic religious society continued its 15-year legal battle over contraception mandates.The dispute goes back to a 2011 federal regulation imposed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which requires employers to include coverage of contraception in healthcare plans offered to employees, as part of rules implementing the Affordable Care Act.Although the Little Sisters of the Poor already won two Supreme Court cases — which found the federal government must protect the religious freedom of those who object to contraception and that the federal government has the authority to create exemptions — the attorneys general of Pennsylvania and New Jersey are challenging federal exemptions on grounds that the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on.A lower court ruled in favor of the two states, against the Little Sisters of the Poor, finding that the federal exemptions are arbitrary and capricious. The sisters filed an appeal, which is being considered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit.Aimee Thomson, who represented the two states, argued that the broad exemptions — which allow both religious and moral objectors to avoid the mandate — are “arbitrary and capricious” and that the exemptions “swept well beyond all religious employers” who first objected to the mandate.Under the rule, employers who have moral or religious objections can opt in to an accommodation in which the federal government subsidizes contraception coverage in their plans. Employers who also have moral or religious objections to the accommodation can sidestep contraception coverage altogether.She told the panel of judges that the exemption exceeds the scope that is required under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). She said the regulators failed to show that these exemptions were necessary to solve the religious liberty issue and expressed concerns over employers potentially getting exemptions even though their objections are not sincere.Thomson said it’s unclear “how many women have been impacted” by insincere objections, but “expecting female employees” to study policies and litigate an employer’s insincere objections is burdensome.“That is an incredible burden to place on employees and on women,” she said.Mark Rienzi, president of Becket and lead attorney for the Little Sisters, argued that the federal government sought to “choose a middle ground” that created a mandate but protected religious freedom, based on Supreme Court guidance: “Nothing about that is even close to arbitrary and capricious.”“This law is about the federal government … accommodating religion with its own mandate,” he said.Rienzi said a rule does not become arbitrary and capricious just because the scope is “a hair more than what’s required” under RFRA.The Little Sisters of the Poor are also receiving support from the Department of Justice. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Eric McArthur argued on behalf of the federal government, in favor of the exemptions, saying RFRA does not require the exemptions to be the “bare minimum.”He said HHS chose to “set everything aside and take a fresh look at everything” and decided “an exemption was the most appropriate administrative response” to objections. He said this was adopted “as a policy matter … even if RFRA does not compel it.”McArthur argued there is “no good reason” for someone to insincerely request an exemption because the employer can request the accommodation “at zero cost.” Yet, if the court decides the exemptions are too broad, the court could strike down “one line in the rule” rather than “take down the entire rule,” as the two states have requested.Mother Loraine Marie Maguire of the Little Sisters of the Poor said in a statement after the oral arguments that the states’ lawsuit to eliminate the exemptions is threatening their mission to serve the poor and the elderly.“This is our God-given mission,” she said “For nearly 200 years we have welcomed the elderly poor and dying into our homes, and with the population of seniors rapidly growing we cannot allow a government lawsuit to stop us from carrying out our mission. Pennsylvania and New Jersey can keep fighting if they want. All we want is to keep serving.”

unitedyam

The dispute stems from a 2011 federal rule requiring employers to include contraception coverage in employee health plans under the Affordable Care Act.

Read More