RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Jobless Kabul and the Works of War Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=5754"><span class="small">Kathy Kelly, Voices for Creative Nonviolence</span></a>   
Saturday, 02 August 2014 14:11

Kelly writes: "Overall statistics for Afghanistan are grim. A recent article in the UK's Independent reported that one million children under five are acutely malnourished, 54 per cent of girls do not go to school and war has displaced 630,000 Afghans within their own country. Relentlessly, the fighting continues."

A little Afghan rubbish collector looks on from a landfill on the outskirts of Kabul. Over a third of Afghans are living in abject poverty, as those in power are more concerned about addressing their vested interests rather than the basic needs of the population, a UN report has said. (photo: Jawad Jalali/AFP/Getty Images)
A little Afghan rubbish collector looks on from a landfill on the outskirts of Kabul. Over a third of Afghans are living in abject poverty, as those in power are more concerned about addressing their vested interests rather than the basic needs of the population, a UN report has said. (photo: Jawad Jalali/AFP/Getty Images)


Jobless Kabul and the Works of War

By Kathy Kelly, Voices for Creative Nonviolence

02 August 14

 

ast week, here in Kabul, the Afghan Peace Volunteers welcomed activist Carmen Trotta, from New York, who has lived in close community with impoverished people in his city for the past 25 years, serving meals, sharing housing, and offering hospitality to the best of his ability. Put simply and in its own words, his community, founded by Dorothy Day, exists to practice “the works of mercy” and to “end the works of war.” We wanted to hear Carmen’s first impressions of traveling the streets of Kabul on his way from the airport to the working class neighborhood where he’ll be staying as the APVs’ welcome guest.

He said it was the first time he’d seen the streets of any city so crowded with people who have no work.

Carmen had noticed men sitting in wheelbarrows, on curb sides, and along sidewalks, unemployed, some of them waiting for a day labor opportunity that might or might not come. Dr. Hakim, the APV’s mentor, quoted Carmen the relevant statistics: the CIA World Fact Book uses research from 2008 to put Afghanistan’s unemployment rate at 35% - just under the figure of 36% of Afghans living beneath the poverty level. That’s the CIA’s unemployment figure - Catherine James, writing in The Asian Review this past March, noted that “the Afghan Chamber of Commerce puts it at 40%, the World Bank measures it at 56% and Afghanistan’s labor leaders put it at a shocking 86%.”

Overall statistics for Afghanistan are grim. A recent article in the UK’s Independent reported that one million children under five are acutely malnourished, 54 per cent of girls do not go to school and war has displaced 630,000 Afghans within their own country. Relentlessly, the fighting continues. Now, on average, 40 children are maimed or killed in fighting every week.

Rustom Ali, a cobbler – a shoemaker, born here in Kabul – visited with me the day after Carmen’s arrival, and explained more about employment in his city, and the prospects for Afghans surviving this latest decade out of a near-half-century of near-constant foreign invasion. He had to find time out of a 12 hour workday to meet with me.

Rustom mends shoes, or waits for shoes to mend, 7 days a week, from 7:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m., at the roadside. His “shop” consists of a box containing equipment and a primitive, portable overhead shelter. He sits on a ledge, under the blazing sun, (or in freezing cold during Afghanistan’s harsh winter).

Each day he earns about 250 Afghanis, equivalent to roughly four and a half dollars in U.S. money. Dependent on him for food and shelter are his wife Fatima, his daughter Narghis (age 7), and five-year-old Mehdi, his son; Rustom’s father also lives with them and has no work. Each day, the price of bread to feed the family is 100 Afghanis ($1.76). Beyond supplying bread, rice, beans and oil, he must also pay for rent and gas. He will never be able to save money at this rate, despite his fierce yearning for a better future for his two children.

Twenty years ago, Rustom had hoped for a far different life for himself. He had travelled to Iran and, although Iranians generally discriminated against Afghans, he was able to go to school, where he was an excellent student, always working part time as a cobbler. He enjoyed sports, and also liked learning English in his spare time. He showed me two notebooks he had begun then, filled with details about his family history and reflections about his life.

One day, when he was 18 years old and still living in Iran, a car carrying flowers to a wedding hit him as he crossed an intersection, catapulting him into the air. He landed on his head. After 48 days in hospital and then three more months spent recovering at home, he was finally able to walk and speak again. His speech and memory are still affected by the accident.

Rustom hired a lawyer, hoping a judge would compel the driver who caused the accident to pay some reparations. But the driver was a native to Iran and Rustom was an Afghan. “I endured great pain and permanent brain damage because of the accident,” he said, “But being treated as though I wasn’t a human being,” – the reaction of the Iranian court – “it was more painful. Every day I could see this kind of discrimination against Afghans in Iran.” And so he took his chances and returned to Kabul.

When I asked Rustom about his greatest hopes for his own children, he said that he and his wife teach them, every day, never to discriminate against others the way he was discriminated against in Iran. He had been sorely hurt when the courts there refused to see him, a foreigner, as a human being.

Abdulhai, an Afghan Peace Volunteer, translated between me and Rustom, having developed a friendship with Rustom since they first sat and talked several months ago. Abdulhai had confessed to Rustom that he was struggling with loneliness and sadness. Rustom offered comfort and encouragement. He has great hopes for Abdulhai, who has, in his view, a future much brighter than so many here, given his enrolment in school and his interest in learning new skills. Rustom said that after four years sitting daily in the same place waiting to repair shoes, Abdulhai was the first person to engage him in a genuine conversation.

Dehumanization is central to war. Rustom Ali’s and Abdulhai’s friendship defies dehumanizing forces in their impoverished society, so battered by war makers ‘predatory ventures.

This morning, Carmen and Faiz, another APV member, took a long, early morning walk through a main street in the neighbourhood where we live. By now, Carmen is recognizing faces and names. He knows the bakers who’ve stopped their work to share a cup of tea with him. Sayyaf, who lost both legs during civil war in Kabul and survives by selling glasses and mousetraps from a somewhat ramshackle cart, waved to Carmen with a broad smile and offered him a cup of tea.

As the U.S. cobbles together justifications for its ongoing, foolhardy war in Afghanistan, glimmers of hope persist in small communities like Carmen’s in New York and the APVs in Kabul. They agitate against war. They believe that doing the works of mercy helps us set aside the works of war. And, they’re renewed, consistently, by discovering that numerous people, who may seem to be sitting idly by, earnestly long to form humane relations and, as Carmen’s community puts it, “build a new world within the shell of the old.”

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | Senate Report: Bush Era Torture Was Unnecessary Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=7972"><span class="small">Mark Hosenball, Reuters</span></a>   
Saturday, 02 August 2014 12:42

Hosenball writes: "A U.S. Senate committee report will conclude that the CIA's use of harsh interrogation after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks yielded no critical intelligence on terrorist plots that could not have been obtained through non-coercive methods, U.S. officials familiar with the document said."

Senate report will be hard on Bush Administration. (photo: Reuters)
Senate report will be hard on Bush Administration. (photo: Reuters)


Senate Report: Bush Era Torture Was Unnecessary

By Mark Hosenball, Reuters

02 August 14

 

U.S. Senate committee report will conclude that the CIA's use of harsh interrogation after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks yielded no critical intelligence on terrorist plots that could not have been obtained through non-coercive methods, U.S. officials familiar with the document said.

Foreshadowing the impending release of a report expected to suggest that the "enhanced" techniques were unnecessary and also to accuse some CIA officers of misleading Congress about the effectiveness of the program, President Barack Obama said on Friday that the CIA "tortured some folks." He had banned the practices soon after taking office in 2009.

Officials said the Senate Intelligence Committee was unlikely to release the report to the public without some additional review.

"A preliminary review of the report indicates there have been significant redactions. We need additional time to understand the basis for these redactions and determine their justification. Therefore the report will be held until further notice and released when that process is completed," Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the committee's chair, said.

The voluminous report does not state that the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" - which included measures such as "waterboarding," or simulated drowning, on captured al Qaeda militants - produced no information of value whatsoever, the officials said.

But it asserts that such tactics yielded no information that would have been "otherwise unavailable" to spy agencies through normal interrogations aimed at foiling further plots in the aftermath of the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, the officials said.

Committee investigators also concluded that the agency misled other executive branch agencies and Congress by claiming that only by using harsh methods did the agency achieve other counter-terrorism breakthroughs that otherwise would not have been possible. The report will criticize some CIA officials by name, the officials said.

The committee reached its conclusions based on detailed examinations of the cases of around 20 militants who were subjected to harsh interrogations while detained by the CIA, the officials said.

On Friday, Obama - in some of his most direct criticism to date of the Bush-era practices - told a White House news conference: "We did some things that were contrary to our values."

He had previously described waterboarding as torture, in line with human rights groups that had denounced the practice. A knowledgeable source said that the Senate committee's report largely uses the agency's terminology - "enhanced interrogation" - instead of labeling its practices as torture.

Obama insisted, however, that Americans in retrospect should not be "too sanctimonious" in their condemnation of national security officials who at the time were working under heavy pressure to prevent another attack.

Obama also defended CIA director John Brennan who has faced congressional calls for his resignation after a revelation that the agency spied on the Senate committee investigating its interrogation techniques. "I have full confidence in John Brennan," he said.

In April, the intelligence committee sent a draft of its 600-page report summary to the Obama administration.

Obama indicated that on Friday the White House delivered to the committee a declassified but redacted version of the summary, along with declassified versions of papers prepared by the CIA and by the committee's Republican minority in response to the summary.

Officials said it would largely be up to Feinstein to decide whether the committee would challenge redactions made by the administration.

Several officials said that the committee report alleges that the CIA did not thoroughly brief then-President George W. Bush about its use of harsh interrogations, although in a published memoir Bush said he was briefed on the program.

One former official said that in practice, the CIA briefed Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, on the program and she then briefed the president

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The Iron Dome Inside the Heads of Israel's Warriors Print
Saturday, 02 August 2014 09:18

Schechter writes: "The finger pushing reliance on computer technology - whether with domes or drones - tends to block all sensitivity of the human costs and consequences."

Benjamin Netanyahu with a military adviser. (photo: AP)
Benjamin Netanyahu with a military adviser. (photo: AP)


The Iron Dome Inside the Heads of Israel's Warriors

By Danny Schechter, News Dissector

02 August 14

 

ew York, New York: When you go to a dictionary to look up dome, you find lots of references to hemispherical structures or forms. You also find that it is slang word for the head.

And so, it may not be much of a stretch to look at the “Iron Dome” counter-missile system utilized by the Israeli forces as a perfect metaphor for the men authorizing its deployment and use, the iron domes of the heads who head up Israel’s military, and orchestrate its most assuredly not defensive war against Gaza.

It is also a metaphor for the war itself. The finger pushing reliance on computer technology—whether with domes or drones—tends to block all sensitivity of the human costs and consequences.

CNN reports that, “Israel uses Iron Dome to block rockets from striking its major population centers. It targets incoming rockets and fires an interceptor missile to destroy them in the air. The Israeli government says Iron Dome has intercepted more than 400 rockets fired from Gaza since the conflict broke out in early July.” Newsweek adds that it is not a perfect system,

“Israeli and U.S. officials have said Iron Dome systems are responsible for shooting down more than 90 percent of the rockets they have engaged, while ignoring missiles on a trajectory to fall wide. That accounts for about a fifth of the rockets Israel has said militants have fired into the country during the latest crisis.”

(Interesting about this paragraph is that it does not mention that as an occupying power, Israel has an obligation to protect the people in Gaza. It also does not mention Hamas, a political party/movement, but refers only to “militants,” many of whom are Palestinians who fled Israel, the country now pulverizing Gaza.)

If true, that means that only a fifth or 20% of the missiles fired have been intercepted, a fact that is at variance with the impression Israel fosters about the precision nature of its technology.

Also, missing from most of the coverage is the fact that the United States poured nearly a billion dollars into building the project Foreign Policy reported in July BEFORE Israel invaded Gaza again:

“Iron Dome, the anti-missile system that is seen as so successful at preventing Hamas' rocket attacks from being effective that it is credited, in part, for having kept Israeli troops from mounting a ground invasion of Gaza, is getting major new funding from Congress. The infusion of cash will radically bolster the program even if can't guarantee peace in the region - even in the short term.

FP's Kate Brannen: "...The additional money for Iron Dome cleared one of its final hurdles Tuesday, when a key Senate appropriations subcommittee unanimously voted to double the Pentagon's $175 million request for fiscal year 2015. The full committee will consider the defense appropriations bill on Thursday. Meanwhile, three other panels have already signed off on the funding expansion, making it all but certain the additional money will be provided. Iron Dome has received $720 million in American funding since 2011, when the United States became directly involved in the program."

Of course, the Dome did not stop Israel’s domeheads from invading, but it may be playing another mostly unreported role, argues Samer Jaber, a former Palestinian political prisoner who graduated from Brande and studied at Harvard and MIT, on Al Jazeera.

“Reporting on the Dome has provided near-real time televised war coverage. The media has repeated statistics demonstrating its success rates - although there appears to have been a reluctance to scrutinize official Israeli figures and an absence of voices from those who might question its effectiveness.

It is understandable that Israeli officials would want to promote the idea of the Dome's success. It gives the Israeli public a sense of safety and security. It demonstrates that the state is fulfilling one of its commitments to its citizens - the duty to protect.

But it is undeniable that this unquestioning tone helps provide a certain marketing message…Following Operation Pillar of Defense, launched against Gaza in November 2012, seven nations, including the United States and South Korea, expressed interest in buying some variant of the Iron Dome system. As the Israeli economy depends on the sale of weapons and other military equipment, this latest round of war on Gaza is another opportunity for Israel's weapon consortium to boost its business around the world.

One reason for the timing of this Gaza invasion may be that sales of the Dome may soon have lower-cost competition, thanks to hacking, allegedly, by a cyber-war crew from China.

RT reported: “In addition to taking information on the Iron Dome, the attackers were also able to nab plans regarding other projects – including Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, ballistic rockets, and “detailed schematics and specifications” for the Arrow III missile interceptor.

According to independent journalist Brian Krebs, the intrusion occurred between 2011 and 2012 and was carried out by China’s infamous “Comment Crew” – a group of cyber warriors linked to the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA).”

Chinese hacking is not unique in looking for short cuts to commercial applications. The underlying technology is not all Israeli either, with Boing credited with developing missile targeting.

The political and military costs have to be factored in as well: Again, Foreign Policy: “...Israel is reporting that Iron Dome has had a 90 percent success rate, though it has only been used against 27 percent of the Hamas rockets. Because of the high cost of each interceptor -- which the Washington Post pegs at roughly $20,000 a piece -- Israel only uses the system when its radars indicate that a rocket seems likely to hit a populated area. The Hamas rockets are thought to cost less than $800 each.”

Note, how the statistics in all of these articles supplied by the salesmen/Generals behind the Dome marketing effort differ from publication to publication.

It’s also significant that Israeli propagandists seem to now be dropping their focus on the threat of missiles by focusing instead on “Terror Tunnels” as their more visible media talking point. Of course they don’t reference the tunnels in Warsaw that enabled some Jews to escape the Nazis, or the Cu-Chi Tunnels in Vietnam that allowed resistance fighters to hide from the savage bombing of U.S. napalm and Agent Orange and other war crimes.

Noura Erakat debunks these Israel’s talking points on Gaza in the Nation:

“Israel claims that its current and past wars against the Palestinian population in Gaza have been in response to rocket fire. Empirical evidence from 2008, 2012 and 2014 refute that claim…

She argues that diplomacy that led to a “lull arrangement” was what stopped missile attacks, as confirmed by a press release of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs at the end of July in 2008:

“During its first month, the lull arrangement resulted in a significant drop in rocket and mortar fire at Israel. A relative calm has settled over Sderot and Israeli population centers near the Gaza Strip, occasionally broken by rockets and mortar bombs fired by terrorist organizations which oppose the lull (mostly local Fatah networks, with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad violating the lull only on one occasion).

Jaber’s final point merits a media investigation as well: “Israel's intransigent approach to the political issue of the colonization of Palestine - whereby it employs security solutions rather than working towards a political settlement - may in some part be explained by the Iron Dome's profitability.”

War has always been about business, just as the constant propaganda use of the holocaust itself as the subtext is often denigrated as “Shoah business” by critics of Israel’s reliance on fear mongering as way of raising money and support while disguising offensive warfare as defensive action.

Dome heads in Tel Aviv now have orchestrated their legions of often empty-minded cult-like bi-partisan domehead supporters in Congress –backed not just by Jewish groups but right-wing evangelical Christians for Israel--who are trying to silence all debate about the massive killing of civilians in Gaza, despite all their rhetoric about curtailing government spending and the sad state of the U.S. economy.

Their mantra is now built around the Iron Dome show with its underlying arrogance: See how clever we are!

The media does its bit by blaming the war on the resistance to the war, and, then, refusing to investigate and report on massive spending to fund Israel in an atrocity that shows how domed their own consciences are.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
We Can Reverse Climate Change by the Way We Grow Food Print
Saturday, 02 August 2014 09:06

Kucinich writes: "Beyond 'stemming' the effects of climate change on agriculture however, the way we produce food has the potential to substantially address and even reverse many of the root causes driving climate change."

Can we farm our way out of climate change? (photo: Jason Johnson/USDA)
Can we farm our way out of climate change? (photo: Jason Johnson/USDA)


We Can Reverse Climate Change by the Way We Grow Food

By Elizabeth Kucinich, Center for Food Safety Blog

02 August 14

 

esterday the White House and USDA hosted a meeting with food, agriculture and data industry officials in an attempt to encourage innovation to stem the effects of climate change on agriculture and food production

Beyond "stemming" the effects of climate change on agriculture however, the way we produce food has the potential to substantially address and even reverse many of the root causes driving climate change.

Here's how:

The overall global food system -- including land-use changes, feed, fertilizer, transportation, refrigeration, processing and waste -- is estimated to be responsible for 30 to 50 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Over the last decade, agricultural emissions have increased by approximately 1 percent per year.

Researchers at the World Bank Group estimated intensive livestock production alone is the largest single contributing factor to climate change. Industrial animal agriculture is also one of the largest polluter of air, water and land, and the largest consumers of fossil fuels and water and yet feed only a relatively small percentage of the world's population, compared with those fed by small-scale farmers who continue to be the major producers of the world.

While the United Nation's International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts global food production to fall by 2 percent per decade for the rest of the century, there is an increasing body of research that shows how agro-ecological, or organic, regenerative agricultural practices can actually feed a growing population while repairing our damaged ecosystem.

Take soil, for example. Some may think that soil is just "dirt," brown stuff that holds plants in the ground. But soil is an organism in itself, and healthy soil is rich in microorganisms,which under optimal circumstances live in symbiotic relationships with the plants. Healthy soils store vast quantities of atmospheric carbon. Improving soil health is therefore an integral part of reversing CO2 levels.

According to cutting edge agricultural research, including that outlined in the Rodale Institute's white paper, Regenerative Organic Agriculture and Climate Change, "recent data from farming systems and pasture trials around the globe show that we could sequester more than 100 percent of current annual CO2 emissions with a switch to widely available and inexpensive organic management practices, which we term "regenerative organic agriculture."

As well as sequestering carbon, regenerative organic and agro-ecological systems can mitigate the chaotic effects brought about by climate change, such as flooding. Healthy soils have structure that allows them to retain large quantities of water. This structure not only holds soil in place preventing erosion, it also allows plants to be more tolerant of weather extremes. Regenerative systems increase the amount of carbon in soil while maintaining yields. In fact, research shows that yields under organic systems are more resilient to the extreme weather which accompanies climate change.

Conventional agricultural practices have resulted in a loss of 30-75 percent of original organic soil carbon, as well as being heavily reliant upon synthetic fossil fuel-based nitrogen fertilizer, mono cropping and toxic pesticides. Regenerative, organic agriculture on the other hand refrains from using fossil-fuel based inputs and instead utilizes cover crops, integrated pest management systems, residue mulching, composting, and crop rotation, and conservation tillage. Organic agriculture also uses 30-50 percent less fossil fuel energy than industrial farms.

The path ahead:

What can the federal government do?

  1. Eliminate subsidies which incentivize the most destructive industrial, chemical intensive monoculture crop and animal factory practices

  2. Increase funding for research that studies the carbon sequestration potential of regenerative agriculture practices

  3. Protect American cropland from development, monocultures and destruction of biodiverse wildlife habitat

  4. Implement organic regenerative stewardship practices on federal lands

What can you do to help mitigate climate change?

  1. Grow or buy local

  2. Buy organic

  3. Reduce food waste -- 50 percent of food produced in America is wasted

  4. Eliminate industrial meat, dairy and eggs from your diet and reduce overall consumption of animal products and if choosing to eat meat, seek out 100 percent grassfed products.

  5. Work with your local authorities to particularly from animals raised in animal factories

  6. protect local agricultural land from land grabs and wasteful development

What will this do for you?

  1. Reduce your consumption of and exposure to chemicals

  2. Reduce your carbon footprint

  3. Increase your health -- a diet rich in plant-based foods can help reverse diseases can reduce the risk of health problems such as Type II diabetes, heart disease,and high cholesterol whereas meat and dairy can increase these risks

  4. Increase your food security by supporting your regional foodshed.
e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Impeach Obama, We Dare You Print
Friday, 01 August 2014 14:35

Arana writes: "Any short-term political consequences are far outweighed by the long-term support such a move will garner among Latino voters. But more important, it's the only sensible policy alternative short of congressional action."

(photo: Susan Walsh/AP)
(photo: Susan Walsh/AP)


Impeach Obama, We Dare You

By Gabriel Arana, Salon

01 August 14

 

Damn the House's insane response: Obama's plan for relief to undocumented immigrations is the best way forward

ext month, while Congress is out on vacation for the August recess, President Obama will act on his own — most likely in the form of an executive order — to offer relief to millions of undocumented immigrants currently living under threat of deportation. “I’m beginning a new effort to fix as much of our immigration system as I can on my own, without Congress,” the president told reporters in the Rose Garden on Monday. The announcement comes a week after House Speaker John Boehner told Obama immigration reform would not get a vote in the chamber this session.

You can already see the steam shooting out of Tea Partyers’ ears. As House Republicans prepare to sue the administration — ironically, for extending an Obamacare deadline they’d prefer he’d have blown off altogether — and right-wing groups demonstrate against illegal immigration around the country, the president’s unilateral action is bound to ramp up calls for his impeachment. The move will also likely affect the midterm elections, in which 21 of the 35 seats up for grabs are held by Democrats.

Obama should go it alone anyway — and go big. Under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which started in 2012, the administration has already granted two-year deportation deferrals and work permits to more than 500,000 undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as minors. Under one proposal the White House is considering, their parents would get the same treatment; another would grant relief to those with U.S.-citizen children.

But either of these options would only cover about 5 million of the 9 million who would have qualified for legalization under the immigration bill the Senate passed last year. If indeed the president seeks to address as much of the problem as he can on his own — and since the whole point is to remedy the House’s failure to act on the Senate bill — there’s no principled reason his executive order shouldn’t cover the full 9 million. Any short-term political consequences are far outweighed by the long-term support such a move will garner among Latino voters. But more important, it’s the only sensible policy alternative short of congressional action.

For those unfamiliar with the ins and outs of our immigration system, such broad action on the part of the president may seem like an overreach. But that’s because, while it’s commonly said our immigration system is “broken,” most members of the public have no idea just what a disaster it is. That’s largely because all most of us had to do to become citizens was be born.

At heart, the presence of 12 million undocumented immigrants in the country today is not a failure of enforcement. It’s a policy failure. The last time Congress amended our country’s immigration laws — in 1996 — it failed to anticipate our economy’s demand for unskilled labor. While many other countries have standing commissions that adjust quotas to respond to the economy and broader migration trends, the U.S.’s approach has been to set the rules every 20 years or so and undergo a massive overhaul only once the system is falling apart.

The economic expansion of the 1990s created demand for millions of unskilled jobs, largely in the service and construction industries. But our immigration system only allots a total of 5,000 visas for unskilled workers per year. No, that’s not a typo, and that’s not per country — that’s overall.

The U.S. does offer an unlimited number of temporary work authorizations for low-skilled workers in the agriculture industry, and up to 66,000 temporary permits for low-skilled workers in other fields. But besides needing a job offer before coming to the U.S., these short-term permits must be renewed every year. They also require you to leave the country every three years. But even the temporary work authorizations are insufficient to meet demand — we reach the 66,000 cap for low-skilled, non-agricultural workers almost as soon as the filing period starts. And the truth is most of those who work in the U.S. for years on end — those who’ve built a life here — will want to stay. Neither of these work authorizations offer you the chance to become a citizen.

So when someone says, “I’m fine with legal immigration; it’s illegal immigration I don’t like,” that should be your first clue they have no idea what they’re talking about. Because for low-skilled workers, we’ve made it basically impossible to immigrate legally. When your Italian or Irish great-grandfather came to America, we didn’t have these crazy restrictions in place.

With economic demand so high and immigration levels set so low, what’s happened? Immigrants and employers alike simply went around the system — and, contrary to popular belief, most people didn’t sneak across the border; they’ve overstayed visas. With economic conditions improving in Mexico and the recession in the U.S., net migration from Mexico has now fallen to zero. But we now have millions of people who’ve lived and worked for decades in the U.S. They have deep ties to their communities, and their children have grown up as Americans. And yet many can’t get a driver’s license or get jobs that aren’t under the table. If your parents brought you to the country as a kid, in most states you can’t get in-state tuition, much less qualify for financial aid. The cliché from immigrant-rights folks is that the 12 million are living “in the shadows,” but it’s no exaggeration — to be undocumented is to live in constant fear of being deported or having a family member deported.

The comprehensive immigration bill passed by the Senate last year tried to address the failure of our immigration system to handle the economic realities of the 1990s by offering those who came to the country without papers a shot at legalization. But House Republicans, in part because they hate President Obama and because they don’t like immigrants all that much, either, have failed to act on the Senate bill. Instead, they’ve called for all 12 million people to be deported — including kids who’ve grown up as American as any citizen.

Quite simply, the president has nothing to lose with Republicans by taking action on immigration on his own. Short of passing comprehensive immigration reform, offering temporary relief to the 12 million is the best way to account for the system’s past failures, which is both the humane thing to do and allows us to focus our resources on dangerous criminals and drug activity. Law-and-order types love to point out that undocumented immigrants have broken the law by coming here, but Obama’s proposed executive action on immigration is a frank acknowledgment that our system is just as much at fault for the mess we’re in today.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2761 2762 2763 2764 2765 2766 2767 2768 2769 2770 Next > End >>

Page 2766 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN