ORANJESTAD — You are back and we would like to portrait you! By inviting you to send us your favorite vacation picture while enjoying our Happy Island. 

Complete the sentence: Aruba to me is ……. Send your picture with that text (including your name and where you are from) to: news@arubatoday.com and we will publish your vacation memory. Isn’t that a special way to keep your best moments alive? Please do note: By submitting photos, text or any other materials, you give permission to The Aruba Today Newspaper, Caribbean Speed Printers and any of its affiliated companies to use said materials, as well as names, likeness, etc. for promotional purposes without compensation.

Last but not least: check out our website, Instagram and Facebook page! Thank you for supporting our free newspaper, we strive to make you a happy reader every day again.

For today we received a lovely message from Steve Shade from Boston MA, USA.

He wrote to us saying: “What Aruba means to me is an annual peaceful get away with my wife Vici for our Anniversary and her birthday. Aruba is and always will be our happy place!”

Thank you for sending us this wonderful message sharing what Aruba means to you with us and our readers!

The Aruba Tourism Authority recently had the great pleasure of recognizing Emerald Ambassadors of Aruba. The honorees were respectively honored with a certificate for their years of visits, loyalty, and love for the island of Aruba.

The honorary certification is presented on behalf of the Minister of Tourism as a token of appreciation and to say “Masha Danki” to guests who have visited Aruba 10, 20, or 35 years or more consecutively.

Emerald Ambassador (35>years consecutively visiting Aruba)

The honorees were:

Something remarkable about this honoring was that Mrs. Ohl still has her first certificate from her initial honor back in 1993.

On behalf of the Aruba Tourism Authority, we would like to express our sincere gratitude and appreciation to the honorees for their continued visits to the “One Happy Island”.

By ADRIANA GOMEZ LICON and LINLEY SANDERS

Associated Press

Americans overwhelmingly view the cost of child care as a significant issue, and most support initiatives to offer free or low-cost day care and to require employers to provide paid family leave for parents of babies, according to a new poll.

But they’re divided over how to solve the problem and what role the government should have in that solution.

About three-quarters of U.S. adults see child care costs as a “major problem,” but only about half say helping working families pay for child care should be a “high priority” for the federal government, according to the June poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

The latest congressional package of tax cuts included tax credits and benefits for parents and businesses that assist employees with child care. Those changes have been praised by some, while others say millions of families at lower income levels wouldn’t get the full credit and would be affected by cuts in Medicaid and food stamps.

The poll findings help explain the difficulty advocacy groups, elected officials and families navigate in trying to address the high costs of care: While most agree it’s a problem, there isn’t a simple fix. For instance, while government-funded child care is popular, that might not be everyone’s first choice. Many U.S. adults also think it’s better for children with two parents to be cared for full time by a parent.

“Everyone kind of agrees that it’s a problem that we need to address,” said Sarah Rittling, executive director of the First Five Years Fund advocacy organization. “By having this issue out there, it really is driving a lot of bipartisan conversations.”

Some consensus on free day care and paid family leave

Most Americans support initiatives to offer child care or additional time for working families to spend with babies. About two-thirds support providing free or low-cost day care for children too young to attend public school, and a similar share favor requiring employers to provide paid family leave for new parents.

Women are more likely than men to support the proposals, and Democrats are more likely than Republicans, but each is popular across the board.

Mary Banek, a nurse anesthetist of Midlothian, Texas, said she helps take care of her 1-year-old grandson so he doesn’t need day care. When she had her kids, she left the workforce and got a license to start a day care from her home to watch 12 children, including her own, so she could generate income.

Banek said she’s surprised at the high fees at day cares these days.

“I don’t know what’s happened and why it is so expensive,” Banek said, adding maybe there’s a way to cap costs. She doesn’t feel the government should foot the cost.

Many think parents should be caregivers

While many solutions focus on families with working parents, there isn’t broad agreement this is the best arrangement for children. Just under half of U.S. adults, 45%, say children with two parents are better off when one parent doesn’t have a job and raises the children. Only about 1 in 10 say children are better off when both parents work full time, and about 4 in 10 say it doesn’t make a difference.

Vice President JD Vance has tried to push for ideas that would encourage Americans to have families but has opposed government spending on child care, saying children benefit from having a parent or family member at home as a caretaker.

About half of men say children with two parents are better off when one is the full-time caregiver, compared with about 4 in 10 women.

Stephen Yip-Wineman, 45, a high school teacher from Murrieta, California, who describes himself as a moderate, said he feels society doesn’t see the value of parents choosing to be caretakers.

“A lot of people are pushed into the idea that everyone in their family is going to work and that’s the way of being a productive member of society,” Yip-Wineman said. “They think staying home and taking care of the kids is somehow not contributing.”

Yip-Wineman has two children ages 12 and 14, and their mother stays home, but he says his ideas of having a parent do the caretaking don’t have to do with making the mother the primary caretaker.

“Having a parent raise the kids is not about pushing traditional Christian values and trying to keep women out of the workplace,” he said. “It’s about trying to be more personally engaged with each other.”

Are changes happening?

Many Democrats and Republicans have endorsed expansions to the child tax credit as a way to support families and lift children and young families out of poverty.

While campaigning as Donald Trump’s running mate, Vance raised the possibility of increasing the child tax credit to $5,000, saying that would help more parents stay home with their children.

About 7 in 10 U.S. adults said they’d support increasing the child tax credit from $2,000 to $2,500 for parents who are U.S. citizens, a Washington Post/Ipsos poll from June found. Republicans and Democrats were similarly likely to support this: About 8 in 10 of each were in favor.

In the final bill, however, the child tax credit increased to $2,200.

Beyond expanding the child tax credit, the package also increased a benefit allowing most working parents to claim a higher percentage of their child care expenses and get more tax credits.

Organizations want increased funding for federal early-learning and care programs, including a child care program for low-income families and an early-education program called Head Start. Trump’s Republican administration backed away from a proposal this year to eliminate funding for Head Start.

Other groups, including Child Care Aware of America, have pointed out the new law’s cuts in Medicaid would result in a loss of health coverage for many child care workers.

By HOLLY RAMER and MIKE CATALINI

Associated Press

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — A federal judge in New Hampshire issued a ruling Thursday prohibiting President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship from taking effect anywhere in the U.S.

Judge Joseph LaPlante issued a preliminary injunction blocking Trump’s order and certified a class action lawsuit including all children who will be affected. The order, which followed an hour-long hearing, included a seven-day stay to allow for appeal.

The judge’s decision puts the birthright citizenship issue on a fast track to return to the Supreme Court. The justices could be asked to rule whether the order complies with their decision last month that limited judges’ authority to issue nationwide injunctions. The Supreme Court said district judges generally can’t issue nationwide, or universal, injunctions. But it didn’t rule out whether judges could accomplish much the same thing by a different legal means, a class action.

The class approved in New Hampshire is slightly narrower than that sought by the plaintiffs, who wanted to include parents, but attorneys said that wouldn’t make a material difference.

“This is going to protect every single child around the country from this lawless, unconstitutional and cruel executive order,” said Cody Wofsy, an attorney for the plaintiffs.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a pregnant woman, two parents and their infants. It’s among numerous cases challenging Trump’s January order denying citizenship to those born to parents living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. The plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and others.

At issue is the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” The Trump administration says the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means the U.S. can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally, ending what has been seen as an intrinsic part of U.S. law for more than a century.

“Prior misimpressions of the citizenship clause have created a perverse incentive for illegal immigration that has negatively impacted this country’s sovereignty, national security, and economic stability,” government lawyers wrote in the New Hampshire case.

LaPlante, who had issued a narrow injunction in a similar case, said while he didn’t consider the government’s arguments frivolous, he found them unpersuasive. He said his decision to issue an injunction was “not a close call” and that deprivation of U.S. citizenship clearly amounted to irreparable harm.

“That’s irreparable harm, citizenship alone,” said LaPlante. “It is the greatest privilege that exists in the world.”

White House spokesman Harrison Fields accused LaPlante, who was appointed by Republican President George W. Bush, of “abusing class action procedures.”

“The Trump Administration will be fighting vigorously against the attempts of these rogue district court judges to impede the policies President Trump was elected to implement,” he said in a statement.

During Thursday’s hearing, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Eric Hamilton argued that both approving a class action and issuing an injunction would be premature, given that no one other than Trump has taken action. He said doing so would mean a single court could become the “end-all-and-be-all” in reversing new federal policies and said if anything, the injunction should be limited to New Hampshire.

Similar cases are pending from Washington to Maryland. It’s not time to panic, said Ama Frimpong, legal director at nonprofit immigrant rights organization CASA, which is also seeking a nationwide injunction.

“No one has to move states right this instant,” she said. “There’s different avenues through which we are all fighting, again, to make sure that this executive order never actually sees the light of day.”

The New Hampshire plaintiffs, referred to only by pseudonyms, include a woman from Honduras who has a pending asylum application and is due to give birth to her fourth child in October. She told the court the family came to the U.S. after being targeted by gangs.

“I do not want my child to live in fear and hiding. I do not want my child to be a target for immigration enforcement,” she wrote. “I fear our family could be at risk of separation.”

Another plaintiff, a man from Brazil, has lived with his wife in Florida for five years. Their first child was born in March, and they are in the process of applying for lawful permanent status based on family ties — his wife’s father is a U.S. citizen.

“My baby has the right to citizenship and a future in the United States,” he wrote.

The Aruba Tourism Authority was delighted to recently honor the Goodwill Ambassador of Aruba. The honoree was presented with a certificate in recognition of her many years of visits, loyalty, and love for the island of Aruba.

The honorary certification is presented on behalf of the Minister of Tourism as a token of appreciation and to say “Masha Danki” to guests who have visited Aruba 10, 20, or 35 years or more consecutively.

Emerald Ambassador (35>years consecutively visiting Aruba)

The honoree was: Goodwill Ambassador, Mrs. Beverly Sue Meyer from Titusville,Florida, USA.

On behalf of the Aruba Tourism Authority, we would like to express our sincere gratitude and appreciation to the honoree for their continued visits to the “One Happy Island”.