And I am so glad. How some Senators bowed over to demonize all legal immigration for the Latino voters! Senate tried wiping out rights of families to be together, they snuffed out legals having patiently waited.
Senator Sanders, why don't you go to Rostock protesting globalization - can't do that, right, because in the US you are a part of government yourself. You were blaming H1B for all that is wrong in the US, ridiculous! "If an American is fired then all H1B must be too". That would for sure have driven jobs overseas.
Legals at best got lip-service from anyone and perhaps corporations want the cheap labor only.
Meanwhile, they will have 20 million illegals next time they try ...
IN SHORT:
most Democrats - do not care for legal immigrants and will sacrifice them for illegals
most Republicans - do not care for either and will go either way so that economy has cheap labor
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
On some e-mail connection
Mr. Theroux of the Libertarian think tank Independent Institute was so nice to express his support for my efforts. I stumbled across their 2006 Open Letter On Immigration which was signed by representatives of many international universities. I especially like their anti-protectionist position that America is big enough an economy to create work for everyone as long as the markets are free.
Please check out their own Open Letter addressed to President Bush here.
Please check out their own Open Letter addressed to President Bush here.
Senate amendment 1199
Last week, I received a nice response from AILA (American Immigration Lawyers Association). They too are concerned about the elimination of family reunification, asking me in response to alert any American friends I may have to call in to Senate offices supporting a particular amendment. Prompted by them, I followed yesterday's Senate presentation on C-SPAN2 by Senator Menendez concerning amendment 1199 (Dodd and Menendez) and S.A. 1194 (backlog in family reunification) and rebuking other senator's claims that preservation of family reunification is a killer to the CIR.
I completely agree that US citizens and permanent residents should continue to have their right to sponsor close relatives being honored.
I do not completely understand why it would have made a difference to General Powell's and Edison's (or to any other VIP example) contribution to US history had they not been able to sponsor their immigrant parents. Is that what you have so eloquently said, Senator Menendez: adult citizens are considered worthy sponsoring relatives? Worthy of having established family bonds? I think an adult presumably does not NEED their parents anymore to make it in life and make their contributions to the US. It is just that the United States wants to construe they have "earned" that privilege that they may sponsor relatives, as much as they have "earned" the privilege to fight and die in war for the US. These were your words, Senator Menendez: "worthy to fight, worthy to sponsor". But I just think that it is not only adult citizens who should have certain rights.
What about children of international divorce? They are citizens, but haven't earned that first right - having two parents. They also will not receive that loving attention by the divorced parent that was shut out of the US immigration system. Of course, THEY will not be able to become the future Powell's Mr. Menendez spoke about. There is a very fundamental flaw in thinking that only adults deserve their parents unless it is all about strategy. There is a fundamental flaw in all family-based immigration as practized by the United States and many countries. There also is a flaw in the merit system if the presence of a parent in the US gives points to an adult would-be immigrant, but the presence of a minor US citizen gives none to the parent - when also attempting to set barriers on all other ways to immigrate far higher in the future.
Senator Menendez used this word "worthy" so much. This seems to mean solely the inherent right of an adult US citizen to petition for immigration benefits on behalf of his relatives. This is smart, yet without any additional consideration all non-Americans, and all children, would not be worthy, they would be unworthy. In Germany, we once had the position that certain lives are worthy, and others unworthy. Other cultures stamp the unworthy label on infidels. Would the god-fearing nation USA need a reminder of that?
Nevertheless, I would support amendment 1199 as a first start, because it would not completely eliminate all immigration by family relationships and retain the basic thought that the fabrics of relationships are the base of individual and national success and important qualifiers for immigration.
Hence here my response to Senator Menendez, posted on his web form:
Dear Honorable Sen. Menendez -
I have just listened to your comments on the CIR on C-SPAN and was asked by AILA to hope for your amendment to pass.
Please also consider that children need two parents to provide for them. I do not understand why family reunification is only about the right of adult citizens to sponsor their parents. How about the right of little children to have a divorced parent provide for them? I am a former H1B who after divorce legally left the US and may perhaps never see my daughter (a citizen) again with some of the amendments to the CIR. Is that what is right - to make somebody a citizen but deny parents to work and see their child? Please read my story on http://immigrationparentsreform.blogspot.com/, including an idea on a bill at http://immigrationparentsreform.blogspot.com/2007/05/draft-bill-international-divorce.html . I apologize that I take myself the freedom to contact a US Senator as a father of a citizen. I know you are also not the senator for Wisconsin, where my daughter resides, but since you addressed family reunification, you should know.
Am I desperate about this? I have also e-mailed oprah.com about my issue here.
I completely agree that US citizens and permanent residents should continue to have their right to sponsor close relatives being honored.
I do not completely understand why it would have made a difference to General Powell's and Edison's (or to any other VIP example) contribution to US history had they not been able to sponsor their immigrant parents. Is that what you have so eloquently said, Senator Menendez: adult citizens are considered worthy sponsoring relatives? Worthy of having established family bonds? I think an adult presumably does not NEED their parents anymore to make it in life and make their contributions to the US. It is just that the United States wants to construe they have "earned" that privilege that they may sponsor relatives, as much as they have "earned" the privilege to fight and die in war for the US. These were your words, Senator Menendez: "worthy to fight, worthy to sponsor". But I just think that it is not only adult citizens who should have certain rights.
What about children of international divorce? They are citizens, but haven't earned that first right - having two parents. They also will not receive that loving attention by the divorced parent that was shut out of the US immigration system. Of course, THEY will not be able to become the future Powell's Mr. Menendez spoke about. There is a very fundamental flaw in thinking that only adults deserve their parents unless it is all about strategy. There is a fundamental flaw in all family-based immigration as practized by the United States and many countries. There also is a flaw in the merit system if the presence of a parent in the US gives points to an adult would-be immigrant, but the presence of a minor US citizen gives none to the parent - when also attempting to set barriers on all other ways to immigrate far higher in the future.
Senator Menendez used this word "worthy" so much. This seems to mean solely the inherent right of an adult US citizen to petition for immigration benefits on behalf of his relatives. This is smart, yet without any additional consideration all non-Americans, and all children, would not be worthy, they would be unworthy. In Germany, we once had the position that certain lives are worthy, and others unworthy. Other cultures stamp the unworthy label on infidels. Would the god-fearing nation USA need a reminder of that?
Nevertheless, I would support amendment 1199 as a first start, because it would not completely eliminate all immigration by family relationships and retain the basic thought that the fabrics of relationships are the base of individual and national success and important qualifiers for immigration.
Hence here my response to Senator Menendez, posted on his web form:
Dear Honorable Sen. Menendez -
I have just listened to your comments on the CIR on C-SPAN and was asked by AILA to hope for your amendment to pass.
Please also consider that children need two parents to provide for them. I do not understand why family reunification is only about the right of adult citizens to sponsor their parents. How about the right of little children to have a divorced parent provide for them? I am a former H1B who after divorce legally left the US and may perhaps never see my daughter (a citizen) again with some of the amendments to the CIR. Is that what is right - to make somebody a citizen but deny parents to work and see their child? Please read my story on http://immigrationparentsreform.blogspot.com/, including an idea on a bill at http://immigrationparentsreform.blogspot.com/2007/05/draft-bill-international-divorce.html . I apologize that I take myself the freedom to contact a US Senator as a father of a citizen. I know you are also not the senator for Wisconsin, where my daughter resides, but since you addressed family reunification, you should know.
Am I desperate about this? I have also e-mailed oprah.com about my issue here.
Saturday, June 2, 2007
Globalization
From Rostock, in the state of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania where I am from, battles between hard-core leftwing demonstrants and the police are reported, while there and elsewhere many other groups, including even the extreme right wing, are also demonstrating against the G8 summit.
I personally don't like one particular aspect of globalization. This is that the rich nations push for the free global movement of money, goods, and relocation of jobs, yet when it comes to allow the free settling of people even within this G8 or any other nation involved, they are the old protectionist school. This means, they can allow their nation's businesses to relocate production and services abroad, but they will not allow people to follow. Germany won't simply let Americans live freely in Germany, the US won't allow Germans to do that. India might take the jobs, but it probably also would not let foreigners in. Perhaps, within the EU this is now relaxed. Thus, I think the whole globalization serves only two interests in the rich nations: that of the shareholders to make more money, and that of politicians, to keep the population calm with cheap goods from far away. There is nothing noble about globalization.
I personally don't like one particular aspect of globalization. This is that the rich nations push for the free global movement of money, goods, and relocation of jobs, yet when it comes to allow the free settling of people even within this G8 or any other nation involved, they are the old protectionist school. This means, they can allow their nation's businesses to relocate production and services abroad, but they will not allow people to follow. Germany won't simply let Americans live freely in Germany, the US won't allow Germans to do that. India might take the jobs, but it probably also would not let foreigners in. Perhaps, within the EU this is now relaxed. Thus, I think the whole globalization serves only two interests in the rich nations: that of the shareholders to make more money, and that of politicians, to keep the population calm with cheap goods from far away. There is nothing noble about globalization.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
