Biden administration offers legal status to Venezuelans: 5 Things podcast

On today's episode of the 5 Things podcast: USA TODAY White House Correspondent Joey Garrison breaks down the latest temporary legal status now offered to nearly half a million Venezuelans. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy speaks with U.S. lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Wage growth is outpacing inflation, but many Americans aren't feeling it. USA TODAY Supreme Court Correspondent John Fritze previews how the upcoming term for the high court could influence the future of the government's power to regulate the internet. How often do you think about the Roman Empire?

Podcasts: True crime, in-depth interviews and more USA TODAY podcasts right here

Hit play on the player above to hear the podcast and follow along with the transcript below. This transcript was automatically generated, and then edited for clarity in its current form. There may be some differences between the audio and the text.

Taylor Wilson:

Good morning. I'm Taylor Wilson, and this is Five Things You Need to Know Friday, the 22nd of September, 2023.

Today, new protections for Venezuelan migrants. Plus Zelensky visits Washington, and what this next Supreme Court term could mean for the Government's power over the internet.

♦

The Biden administration has announced a work program for nearly half a million Venezuelan migrants. I spoke with USA Today White House correspondent Joey Garrison about the temporary protection. Joey, thanks for making the time.

Joey Garrison:

Hey, thanks for having me.

Taylor Wilson:

What's in this measure specifically?

Joey Garrison:

What the Biden administration did was grant temporary protected status for Venezuelan migrants in the US who arrived this year prior to July 31st. And this applies to about 472,000 Venezuelan migrants. Now, anyone who may have arrived after that deadline of July 31st, they would be subject for removal if they're not here for a legal purpose. And this comes at a time when migrants have really challenged a lot of major cities, including New York, Chicago, Boston, in terms of providing public resources for them. And what you'd seen in recent weeks and months was New York Mayor Eric Adams, for example, as well as Governor Kathy Hochul of New York call for this particular step, which allows these migrants to receive work permits to start working legally in the US. So it's a major development from the Biden administration as it tries to grapple with this growing influx of migrants in the country.

Taylor Wilson:

Yeah. Joe, you mentioned this wave of migrants in some American cities. Is that the primary driver on why Biden is making this move now?

Joey Garrison:

What the Homeland Security Department cited was the increased political instability in Venezuela posing safety concerns if they return these migrants at this time. So that is the stated reason for that. But obviously there had been a communication hearing from Democratic allies in cities like Mayor Eric Adams, who has been highly critical of the administration when it comes to immigration issues. Adams actually said that he talked to White House officials on Wednesday night upon learning of this development. So obviously both the situation in Venezuela where it would be unsafe for a lot of these people to be returned, combined with the reality of how difficult it is for cities to take in these migrants without this expedited process of being able to allow them to work.

Taylor Wilson:

Joey, what do critics say about this move and why do advocates say it's so necessary?

Joey Garrison:

Well, I mean, this is coming at a time when after a couple of months of decline in terms of migrants at the southern border, we've seen two months of an uptick, both in July and August. And of course, what we're talking about when we refer to the border is mainly the US Mexico southern border at Texas. And so Texas's two Republican senators both slammed the move. Ted Cruz of Texas said that the "Biden administration is making the border invasion worse. This news will incentivize even more illegal aliens from Venezuela to come." So Republicans not across the board, but many Republicans really pounced on this move, claiming that it's another example of Biden allowing this migration crisis to unfold.

Taylor Wilson:

Biden also announced a series of other measures when it comes to migration. Joey, what else did he roll out?

Joey Garrison:

The White House, in addition to announcing this TPS arrangement, temporary protection status for Venezuelans, they also announced the deployment of an additional 800 military personnel to the southern border. And they've again, touted escalated efforts to prosecute individuals who were smuggling drugs or people into the US. Another important point to mention on the policy itself for asylum seekers, they've now extended the lifetime of those permits to two years, to five years. So you now would only have to update them every five years. Well, that is a move that's intended to really reduce what's a huge backlog for people seeking this status. And it's also a costly one for asylum seekers. Each one costs over $400. So those are some additional steps the administration has taken on this front.

Taylor Wilson:

USA Today White House correspondent, Joey Garrison. Thank you, Joey.

Joey Garrison:

Hey, thanks for having me.

♦

Taylor Wilson:

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky yesterday pledged that his military would reclaim the city of Bakhmut. The eastern city was taken over by Russia in May, but Ukraine has been fighting hard as part of its counter offensive to get it back. Wet and cold weather this fall and winter could threaten to grind combat to a halt. But he said yesterday that his troops gained experience fighting in those conditions last year. Those remarks capped off a day trip to Washington where Zelensky met with military leaders and President Joe Biden at the White House. He also met with lawmakers on Capitol Hill. The Biden administration has requested an additional $24 billion in Ukraine aid, but it's being held up by a small group of conservatives in the house. Zelensky on this trip met with house speaker Kevin McCarthy to address House Republican's concerns about what the money would fund and how much more military assistance Ukraine expects it will need. Last night, Zelensky suggested that his meeting with house lawmakers had yielded progress, but McCarthy said he still would not commit to new aid.

♦

After trailing inflation for more than two years, average US wage growth began outpacing price increases in May of this year, giving consumers more purchasing power and strengthening the economy. That means Americans have a little more breathing room, but most say they still haven't caught up to this big run up in prices and are spending cautiously. That's according to an exclusive Harris poll survey for USA Today and interviews with workers. US workers are also grappling with high interest rates, the cutoff of COVID related federal aid and return to office mandates that are boosting daily costs with things like commutes and eating out.

Whether or not pay hikes continue to top inflation and encourage Americans to spend at a healthy clip could help determine if the US dodges a recession over the next year. That's according to Gregory Deco, Chief Economist at EY Parthenon, a management consulting company. Of the 52% of employees who got a raise this past year, 70% say it has eased their financial stress from inflation and allowed them to make additional purchases, according to the Harris Poll, conducted this month. But 78% said they would need another bump to feel fully confident in their financial health. And that's not even accounting for the nearly half of workers who didn't get a raise. You can break down the full numbers with a link in today's show notes.

♦

Legal experts say that this next Supreme Court term could be the most consequential in decades for deciding the extent of the Government's power to regulate the internet. I caught up with USA Today Supreme Court correspondent John Fritze for a look ahead. John, thanks for making the time.

John Fritze:

Thank you for having me.

Taylor Wilson:

Let's start here John, there are a pair of cases involving laws that would limit what content social media companies can police on their platforms. What exactly is at issue here?

John Fritze:

Texas and Florida passed these laws directly in response to claims by former President Trump and other conservatives that these platforms were throttling the views of conservatives. Now, there hasn't been a lot of evidence of that, although Elon Musk has talked a lot about it. But at any rate, there's a feeling on the right, in the pre Musk era on Twitter, now X, that conservative views were throttled and these states passed laws basically saying like, look, you can't dump people based on certain criteria, content viewpoint and so forth. And so these are laws that have been challenged and have been struck down pretty much at every turn. The court has not yet agreed to take these cases, but I suspect they will and could give us a sense of where the court's heading on the First Amendment and what the social media giants can do on their platforms or not do.

Taylor Wilson:

And John, we now live in a world where citizens can interact with politicians on social media at times. The court will also decide cases coming up about whether public officials may block voters from posting criticism on their pages. What's at issue in this one?

John Fritze:

Yeah, I mean, so these are a couple of cases that have already been granted, and in some ways the issue came up during the Trump administration. It's a slightly different technical question in these cases, but Donald Trump had blocked some people on Twitter who would go into his feed and reply critically when he posted. And he blocked some of those people and a bunch of them sued and the court looked at the case, but never got around to it because Trump was out of office before they could resolve it.

The issue is back in a slightly different way, involving much less high profile people than the President of the United States. These two cases, one involves some school board members outside of San Diego, and the other involves a city manager in Michigan. But it's kind of the same issue. It's like if you are criticizing public officials on their Facebook or Twitter or other social media accounts, is that a public forum? The question involved in these cases is whether when these public officials do the blocking, is that a state action? And if it is, then it can potentially trigger First Amendment concerns. So you set up the question really well. It's like in 2023, is social media a central way that we communicate with elected officials? Maybe not the President, but maybe local officials and school board members and so forth, and what happens when we're denied access to that conversation?

Taylor Wilson:

In another case, the high court is dealing with just how far government officials should be allowed to pressure social media companies to take down content they believe is inaccurate. How is the White House at the heart of this one, John?

John Fritze:

This one involves efforts by not just the White House, but also apparently the FBI and health officials to try to get social media to take down content that was erroneous dealing with the pandemic. Apparently there were some election posts involved with this too. And you've got these states, Missouri and others suing to allege that that sort of deprived their residents of these voices. Officials in both parties try to pressure social media to take down the posts, in the same way that journalists get pressured by administration officials when they don't like a story, they think something is inaccurate, and we make a decision about whether to correct it or not, or what to do with it. So it's definitely an interesting one to watch since it involves this White House and this administration.

Taylor Wilson:

So John, broadly speaking, what impact will these cases have on the buildup to the 2024 election?

John Fritze:

That's a little unknown. I think you set it up well by saying it's the most significant term on some of these issues that I think we've seen. There was this major First Amendment indecency on the internet case from the nineties, and that's a really big deal, but we didn't really have social media back then. And there's been some social media cases that come up including last term. But these really deal with broadly this interplay between the First Amendment and government regulation and user content on these platforms at a time when, again, there's a lot of question about, well, what exactly are these platforms? Are they private companies? Well yeah, they are, but are they also fostering a conversation about policy, and elections, and where we go as a country, and is that a public forum? And in some ways, that's also true, right?

And so it's a lot for their court to take in. I suspect they will move these cases in slow ways. That's what they tend to do. But nevertheless, I think these cases could, if the court takes them all and decides them, could have a real impact on how we think about social media, politics and government.

Taylor Wilson:

John Fritze covers the Supreme Court for USA Today. Thank you, John.

John Fritze:

Hey, thank you.

♦

Taylor Wilson:

How often do you think about the Roman Empire? You might've heard someone in your life casually mention the ancient civilization more than usual lately. And Google Trends data shows a 10 year high in searches for the term this month. It all stems from a trend on TikTok operating on the premise that men think about the Roman Empire more often than women do. So often in fact that women in their lives are often shocked by the frequency. To participate, TikTok users, most often women, pick up their phone cameras and approach a man in their lives. Then without any context, they ask, "How often do you think about the Roman Empire?" Enough men began answering that they thought about it rather frequently to the point of prompting mass confusion. To read more and try to answer how often you think about the Roman Empire, we have a link in today's show notes.

♦

Thanks for listening to 5 Things. We're produced by Shannon Rae Green and our Executive Producer is Laura Beatty. I'm Taylor Wilson. Back tomorrow with another episode of 5 Things.