Author: ARLnow.com Sponsor

Paid family leave has become a hot-button topic for politicians of all stripes. However, at its core, paid family leave is a concept that affects the tens of millions of Americans who each year have to take unpaid time off from work to care for sick children, sick parents, sick spouses; not to mention to give birth.

Because of this massive impact, Republicans and Democrats have advanced plans designed to provide some form of paid family leave for all Americans.

“With any plan like this, one of the biggest questions is determining exactly how to fund it,” said Sara Khaki, an Atlanta Social Security Disability Attorney with The Khaki Law Firm, LLC. “The Republican plan, which due to the current makeup of Congress and the White House has the most likelihood of success, seeks to use future Social Security retirement benefits to make those payments.”

The proposal would allow new parents 12 weeks of paid leave. It would not allow individuals who are sick or have sick family members to participate. Those 12 weeks would be paid for using the individual’s Social Security retirement fund — in essence, borrowing from one’s future retirement benefits to provide income now.

Critics of this proposal see it as forcing individuals to decide when that money will be more important: now or in the future. Choosing the “now” means that the individual is reducing the amount that may be available to them in the future, although the plans proponents assert that it would only result in a minimum deferral of the start date of Social Security Retirement benefits.

Critics also argue that this proposal simply takes more money from an already underfunded and depleted Social Security program, while proponents point out that an individual will not actually receive more than they otherwise would under their Social Security benefits.

While the program tries to find a revenue-neutral approach to an obvious need, it assumes that the income replacement rate of 45 percent will be sufficient because there are two parents living together, not just one parent, and that both parents do not have health issues of their own.

With the average monthly payment per person under this plan being $1,145, it is unlikely to provide the amount of monetary support necessary to cover an average family’s expenses, let alone a family with a disabled parent or child whose expenses are naturally higher.

Ultimately, the breadth of any paid family leave program will come down to cost and politics. If the public supports the idea, and politicians are elected because they support the idea, the plan is likely to be broader in scope than were the reverse to be the case.

If paid family leave is instituted, it will be incredibly important to sit down with an Attorney familiar with Social Security Retirement Benefits and Social Security Disability benefits to ensure that you make an informed decision about your options.

By Immigration Attorney James O. Hacking, III, founder of Hacking Law Practice, LLC.

Lawmakers throughout Virginia have been considering legislation that would ban sanctuary cities in the state. The House of Delegates pushed the bill to the Senate with a 7-6 vote from a committee within the House.

The bill was introduced by Delegate Ben Cline, a Republican from Rockbridge and it is known as House Bill 1257. If the bill is voted into law, it would prevent local governments from establishing sanctuary cities in Virginia.

“Sanctuary cities are cropping up all over Virginia and the rest of the country and provide much-needed protection to immigrants,” James O. Hacking, III, of Hacking Law Practice, LLC, said. “Seeking sanctuary in the United States can help victims avoid persecution and abuse in their home countries.”

The bill would also require local governments to cooperate more with federal law regarding immigration, going as far as creating more of a cooperation between local governments and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

The House of Delegates almost voted down the legislation due to a tie vote. A second vote was conducted and passed 51-49, which moved it to the Senate Committee on Local Government.

Proponents of the bill are concerned that gang members would be protected from deportation if sanctuary cities were to be legalized and created in Virginia. Those who have spoken out in favor of the bill have specifically mentioned the presence of the gang known as MS-13.

In response to the discussion of gangs, Democratic Delegate Jennifer McClellan, of Richmond, said “this bill is not about MS-13, although I know that is what gets trotted out all the time as the boogeyman. This bill sends a message to certain people: ‘You’re not welcome here.'”

She continued, saying that the bill was created to send a message. McClellan noted that there are laws already on the books in Virginia that help identify the immigration status of people imprisoned.

Virginia’s current Governor, Ralph Northam, has spoken out publicly against the proposed legislation. His predecessor, Terry McAuliffe, vetoed similar legislation last year when it came across his desk. Governor Northam has said that sanctuary cities have not been a problem in Virginia but did not elaborate any further on his opposition to the bill.

Hopefully, legislators can stop this bill from becoming law. If not, it will likely have disastrous effects for the protection of those fleeing violence in their home countries. This legislation can force individuals to suffer the human rights abuses they are trying to flee.