May 13 (Reuters) - Leading money winners on the 2013 PGATour on Monday (U.S. unless stated): 1. Tiger Woods $5,849,600 2. Brandt Snedeker $3,388,064 3. Kevin Streelman $2,572,989 4. Billy Horschel $2,567,891 5. Matt Kuchar $2,493,387 6. Phil Mickelson $2,220,280 7. Adam Scott (Australia) $2,207,683 8. D.A. Points $2,019,702 9. Steve Stricker $1,977,140 10. Graeme McDowell $1,910,654 11. Jason Day $1,802,797 12. Webb Simpson $1,759,015 13. Dustin Johnson $1,748,907 14. Hunter Mahan $1,682,939 15. Charles Howell III $1,561,988 16. Russell Henley $1,546,638 17. Martin Laird $1,531,950 18. ...
Thứ Ba, 14 tháng 5, 2013
Director of film about Obama’s war on whistleblowers weighs in on AP phone records
President Obama addresses the White House Correspondents' Association dinner, April 27, 2013. (Getty Images)
Robert Greenwald was not terribly surprised to hear that the Department of Justice had secretly obtained two months of telephone records from Associated Press reporters and editors.
"It is consistent with a national security state," Greenwald, a documentary filmmaker whose recently-released "War on Whistleblowers" focuses on the White House's ongoing assault on press freedom, told Yahoo News. "This is a result of a series of policies put in place by this administration. It is systemic. It is not a one-off. It is not an accident. It is an effort to keep whistleblowers silent. And it's unfortunate."
In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday, AP CEO Gary Pruitt described the seizure as "a massive and unprecedented intrusion" into how news organizations gather news. Greenwald agreed.
"In terms of the size and scope, it may be unprecedented," he said. "It's a classic fishing expedition."
Greenwald, whose next film (tentatively titled "Drones Exposed") is focused on the White House's controversial drone program, declined to compare Obama to Richard Nixon. But, Greenwald said, "it's very clear this administration is exerting extraordinary pressure [on the press], and it certainly dispels the notion that this is the 'most transparent administration' on national security issues."
[Related: White House: Obama is no Nixon]
The director, perhaps best known for his 2004 film "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism," called press freedom a non-partisan issue.
"You don't try to intimidate the press for doing its job," he said. "You don't encourage suppression and, frankly, scare journalists."
Greenwald said there are similarities between the secrecy of the drone program and the DOJ's apparent explanation for the seizure of phone records.
"It's this strange 'Alice in Wonderland,' Kafkaesque state," Greenwald said. "[The White House] will say, 'we can't talk about the drone program because it's classified, but we can tell you we killed 20 al-Qaeda members in a drone strike.' Well, how do you know they were all bad guys? 'We can't give you that information.'"
Chủ Nhật, 12 tháng 5, 2013
Gates worries about escalation of Korean tension
WASHINGTON (AP) — A former Pentagon chief says he worries that North Korea's young leader and his generals don't realize there's been a "dramatic change" in public opinion in South Korea in how to respond to belligerent actions by the North.
Robert Gates says that after many years of "swallowing provocation," the South Koreas "are not prepared to take that anyone."
Gates says that creates a situation where the next act of provocation "could result in an escalation and the situation getting out of control."
Gates tells CBS' "Face the Nation" that he worries that the North's young leader, Kim Jong Un (kim jawng oon), "does not have an understanding of that."
He says that while Chinese do have influence with Kim, "they don't have control and that worries me."
Thứ Tư, 8 tháng 5, 2013
Israel warns U.S. about Russian arms sale to Syria -report
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Israel warned the United States in recent days that Russia plans to sell advanced ground-to-air missile systems to Syria despite Western pressure on Moscow to hold off on such a move, the Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday.
The newspaper said U.S. officials had confirmed they were analyzing the Israeli reports but would not comment on whether they believed the sale of S-300 missile batteries was near.
No comment was immediately available from officials at the Pentagon or U.S. State Department.
The government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has been seeking to purchase the advanced S-300 missile batteries, which can intercept both manned aircraft and guided missiles, from Moscow for many years.
Western nations have repeatedly urged Russia to block the sale, which they argue could complicate any international intervention in Syria's escalating civil war.
The Journal said the information provided to Washington by Israel showed that Syria has been making payments on a 2010 agreement with Moscow to buy four batteries for $900 million, including a payment made this year through Russia's foreign-development bank, known as the VEB.
The paper said the package included six launchers and 144 operational missiles, each with a range of 125 miles (200 miles), with an initial shipment expected in the next three months.
While the effectiveness of Syria's aging air force is unclear, most experts believe that its air-defense missile system, which was upgraded after a 2007 Israeli strike on a suspected nuclear site, remains quite potent.
(Reporting By Andrea Shalal-Esa; Editing by David Brunnstrom)
Thứ Ba, 7 tháng 5, 2013
Obama: Bin Laden, Gadhafi show I’m serious about Syria
President Barack Obama faces a joint news conference in the East Room of the White House in Washington, May 7, …President Barack Obama defiantly defended his handling of Syria’s civil war on Tuesday, warning that Iraq showed the danger of acting on “perceived” evidence of weapons of mass destruction. And for those who doubt his determination to see Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad ousted from power, Obama bluntly pointed to the fate of Osama bin Laden and slain Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi.
"I don’t make decisions based on 'perceived' and I can’t organized international coalitions around 'perceived,'" Obama said during a joint press conference with South Korean President Park Geun-hye. "We tried that in the past, by the way and it didn’t work out well," he added, in a reference to Iraq.
Obama's comments came amid a chorus of questions and criticisms in response to the apparent use of chemical weapons by Assad's regime. The president last August labeled that kind of action a "red line" that could lead him to escalate America's role in the conflict, which the United Nations estimates has claimed the lives of at least 70,000 people. Republicans in Congress have pushed him to consider air strikes or the creation of a U.S.-enforced "no-fly zone" off limits to Syrian air power and warned that White House is sending a message of weakness to Assad.
"I would just point out that there have been several instances during the course of my presidency where I said I was going to do something, and it ended up getting done," Obama countered. "And there were times when folks on the sidelines wondering 'why hasn’t it happened yet?', and 'what’s going on?,' and 'why didn’t it go on tomorrow?'."
But in the end, Obama said, "whether it’s bin Laden or Gadhafi, if we say we’re taking a position, I would think at this point the international community has a pretty good sense that we typically follow through on our commitments." Elite U.S. commandos killed bin Laden in a May 2011 raid. And (after prodding from Congress) Obama made Gadhafi's removal a key part of the NATO-led campaign in Libya. Gadhafi was killed, apparently by Libyan rebels. Obama has provided rebels fighting to oust Assad with humanitarian aid. There have been news reports that American agents in Syria have been helping to train opposition forces and vet them to receive weapons from other countries -- a sign of caution from Washington at a time when some of the best fighters against the regime have ties to al-Qaida. But administration officials say Obama also takes a pragmatic view of what America's core interests are and a skeptical view of calls to escalate America's role.
"We have both a moral obligation and a national security interest in a) ending the slaughter in Syria but b) also ensuring that we’ve got a stable Syria that is representative of all the Syrian people, and is not creating chaos for its neighbors," Obama said Tuesday.
"Understandably, there’s a desire for easy answers. That’s not the situation there," he said. "And my job is to constantly measure our very real and legitimate humanitarian and national security interests in Syria, but measuring those against my bottom line which is what’s in the best interests of America’s security and making sure that I’m making decisions not based on a hope and a prayer but on hard-headed analysis in terms of what will actually make us safer and stabilize the region."
Obama declared that "there'd be severe costs in doing nothing. That's why we're not doing nothing."
His remarks came as the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Bob Corker of Tennessee, told CBS News on Tuesday that the United States will "shortly" begin arming Syrian rebels, looking to boost moderate factions over al-Qaida-affiliated extremists whose rise would be a national security "nightmare."
"I do think we’ll be arming the opposition shortly," Corker of Tennessee said in an interview. "We’re doing a lot more there on the ground than really is known, but we do have to change the equation."
Thứ Hai, 6 tháng 5, 2013
All about immigration: Green cards? Citizenship?
WASHINGTON (AP) — This may be the year Congress decides what to do about the millions of immigrants living illegally in the U.S. After years of gridlock, there are ideas whizzing all around Washington.
For now, all eyes are on an 844-page Senate proposal with the you-said-a-mouthful title of the "Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013."
Look for the Senate Judiciary Committee to take its first votes on the legislation on Thursday.
What's in that bill? Is there a Plan B? And who are all these immigrants, once you get past the big round numbers?
A big dose of facts, figures and other information to help understand the current debate:
___
WHY NOW?
Major problems with U.S. immigration have been around for decades.
President George W. Bush tried to change the system and failed. President Barack Obama promised to overhaul it in his first term but never did.
In Obama's second term, he's making immigration a priority, and Republicans also appear ready to deal.
Why the new commitment?
Obama won 71 percent of Hispanic voters in his 2012 re-election campaign, and he owes them. Last year's election also sent a loud message to Republicans that they can't ignore this pivotal voting bloc.
It's been the kind of breathtaking turnaround you rarely see in politics. Plus, there's growing pressure from business leaders, who want to make it easier for the U.S. to attract highly educated immigrants and to legally bring in more lower-skilled workers such as farm laborers.
___
WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?
Talk about "comprehensive immigration reform" generally centers on four main questions:
—What to do about the 11 million-plus immigrants who live in the U.S. without legal permission.
—How to tighten border security.
—How to keep businesses from employing people who are in the U.S. illegally.
—How to improve the legal immigration system, now so convoluted that the adjective "Byzantine" pops up all too frequently.
___
WHAT'S THE GANG OF EIGHT?
A group of four Democrats and four Republicans in the Senate that crafted a bill to address all four questions. In a nutshell, this proposal would tighten border controls, allow more high- and low-skilled workers to legally immigrate, require employers to verify their workers have legal status, and create an opportunity for those who are in the U.S. illegally to eventually become citizens.
___
IS THERE A PLAN B?
And C and D.
Obama has his own backup plan in case congressional talks fail, but he's given his support to the Senate bill as a worthy compromise.
In the House, Republican Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the head of the House Judiciary Committee, says his committee will tackle the main immigration issues one by one, instead of starting with a single sweeping bill.
Separately, there's a bipartisan House group working on legislation.
Obama says he will keep an open mind about the various proposals, but the final deal has to address all the big issues.
___
COMING TO AMERICA
A record 40.4 million immigrants live in the U.S., representing 13 percent of the population. More than 18 million are naturalized citizens, 11 million are legal permanent or temporary residents, and more than 11 million are in the country without legal permission, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, a private research organization.
Those in the U.S. illegally made up about 3.7 percent of the U.S. population in 2010. While overall immigration has steadily grown, the number of immigrants in the U.S. illegally peaked at 12 million in 2007.
___
WHERE FROM?
Twenty-nine percent of the foreign-born in the U.S., or about 11.7 million people, came from Mexico. About 25 percent came from South and East Asia, 9 percent from the Caribbean, 8 percent from Central America, 7 percent South America, 4 percent the Middle East and the rest from elsewhere.
The figures are more lopsided for immigrants living here illegally: An estimated 58 percent are from Mexico. The next closest figure is 6 percent from El Salvador, says the government.
___
WHERE TO?
California has the largest share of the U.S. immigrant population, 27 percent, followed by New York, New Jersey, Florida, Nevada, Hawaii and Texas, according to the Migration Policy Institute, a private group focused on global immigration issues.
California has the largest share of immigrants in the U.S. illegally, at 25 percent, followed by Texas with 16 percent. Florida and New York each has 6 percent, and Georgia has 5 percent, according to the Department of Homeland Security.
___
GETTING IN
Here's one way to think about the ways immigrants arrive in the U.S: Some come in the front door, others the side door and still others the back door, as laid out in a report from the private Population Reference Bureau.
—Arriving through the front door: people legally sponsored by their families or employers. Also refugees and asylum-seekers, and immigrants who win visas in an annual "diversity" lottery.
—Side door: legal temporary arrivals, including those who get visas to visit, work or study. There are dozens of types of nonimmigrant visas, available to people ranging from business visitors to foreign athletes and entertainers. Visitors from dozens of countries don't even need visas.
—Back door: Somewhat more than half of those in the U.S. illegally have come in the back door, evading border controls, Pew estimates. The rest legally entered, but didn't leave when they were supposed to or otherwise violated terms of their visas.
___
IS IT A CRIME?
Simply being in the United States in violation of immigration laws isn't, by itself, a crime; it's a civil violation.
Entering the country without permission is a misdemeanor criminal offense. Re-entering the country without authorization after being formally removed can be felony.
Pew estimates that a little less than half of immigrants who lack legal permission to live in the U.S. didn't enter the country illegally. They overstayed their visas, worked without authorization, dropped out of school or otherwise violated the conditions of their visas.
___
WHAT'S IN A NAME?
There are varying and strong opinions about how best to refer to the 11 million-plus people who are in the U.S. without legal permission.
Illegal immigrants?
Undocumented workers?
Unauthorized population?
Illegal aliens?
The last has generally fallen out of favor. Some immigrant advocates are pressing a "Drop the I-Word" campaign, arguing that it is dehumanizing to refer to people as "illegal."
"Undocumented worker" often isn't accurate because many aren't workers, and some have documents from other countries. Homeland Security reports refer to "unauthorized immigrants," but the agency also reports statistics on "aliens apprehended."
___
DEFINITIONS, PLEASE:
—Legal permanent residents (LPRs): people who have permission to live in the U.S. permanently but aren't citizens. They're also known as "green card" holders. Most of them can apply for citizenship within five years of getting green cards. In 2011, 1.06 million people got the cards.
—Refugees and asylees: people who come to the U.S. to avoid persecution in their home countries. What's the difference between the two terms? Refugees are people who apply for protective status before they get to the U.S. Asylees are people who apply upon arrival in the U.S. or later.
—Naturalization: The process by which immigrants become U.S. citizens.
___
GOING GREEN
Is there an actual green card? Indeed there is.
It's the Permanent Resident Card issued to people who are authorized to live and work in the U.S. on a permanent basis. In 2010, the government redesigned them to add new security features — and make them green again.
The cards had been a variety of colors over the years. New green cards are good for 10 years for lawful permanent residents and two years for conditional residents.
___
PATH TO CITIZENSHIP
There's a lot of talk about creating a "path to citizenship" for immigrants who are in the U.S. without legal status.
But there's vigorous debate over what conditions these immigrants should have to satisfy to get citizenship — among them are paying taxes, fines and fees, and passing background checks.
Some legislators want to set additional conditions, such as improvements in border security and in tracking whether legal immigrants leave the country when required. Others want to limit immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally to some sort of legal status that stops short of citizenship.
But more than 60 percent of Americans think those who are here illegally should have a way to become citizens, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll conducted in April.
The Senate bill would allow those in the country illegally to obtain "registered provisional immigrant" status six months after the bill was enacted if they met certain conditions.
Additional border security improvements would have to go into place before anyone obtained green cards or citizenship.
It would take immigrants living here illegally at least 13 years to get all the way to citizenship. They'd have to pay taxes, fees and $2,000 in fines. No one who entered the country after Dec. 31, 2011, or had a felony conviction or more than three misdemeanors would be eligible.
___
THE A-WORD
Nothing stirs up a hornet's nest like talk of amnesty for immigrants who are in the country illegally, although there's a lot of disagreement over how to define the term.
A 2007 effort to overhaul the immigration system, led by Bush, failed in part because Republicans were dismayed that it included a process to give otherwise law-abiding immigrants who were in the country illegally a chance to become citizens. Critics complained that would be offering amnesty.
All sides know it's not practical to talk about sending 11 million-plus people back to their countries of origin. So one big challenge this time is finding an acceptable way to resolve the status of those who are in the country illegally.
Backers of the Senate bill stress that those who are in the country illegally would have a longer and more difficult path to citizenship under their plan than would immigrants who followed all the rules.
___
GETTING A REPRIEVE
While the larger immigration debate goes on, the government already is offering as many as 1.76 million immigrants who are in the country illegally a way to avoid deportation, at least for now.
Obama announced a program in June that puts off deportation for many people brought here as children. Applicants for the reprieve must have arrived before they turned 16, be younger than 31 now, be high school graduates or in school, or have served in the military. They can't have a serious criminal record or pose a threat to public safety or national security.
Applications for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program are averaging more than 3,000 a day. By mid-April, nearly 489,000 people had applied and more than 268,000 had been approved, with most of the rest still under consideration.
Applications have come from all 50 states, with the largest number coming from California and Texas. Nearly 75 percent of the applicants are originally from Mexico.
In some ways, the program closely tracks the failed DREAM Act, which would have given many young illegal immigrants a path to legal status. Obama's program doesn't give them legal status but it at least protects them from deportation for two years.
___
HISTORY: DOING THE WAVE
The U.S. is in its fourth and largest immigration wave.
First came the Colonial era, then an 1820-1870 influx of newcomers mostly from Northern and Western Europe. Most were Germans and Irish, but the gold rush and jobs on the transcontinental railroad also attracted Chinese immigrants.
In the 1870s, immigration declined due to economic problems and restrictive legislation.
The third wave, between 1881 and 1920, brought more than 23 million people to the U.S., mostly from Southern and Eastern Europe, aided by cheaper trans-Atlantic travel and lured by employers seeking workers.
Then came the Great Depression and more restrictive immigration laws, and immigration went into decline for decades.
The fourth wave, still underway, began in 1965 with the end of immigration limits based on nationality. Foreign-born people made up 1 in 20 residents of the U.S. in 1960; today, the figure is about 1 in 8.
___
HISTORY: HERE A LAW, THERE A LAW
Until the late 1800s, immigration was largely a free for all. Then came country-by-country limits. Since then, big changes in U.S. immigration law have helped produce big shifts in migration patterns.
Among the more notable laws:
—1965 Immigration and Nationality Act: Abolished country-by-country limits, established a new system that determined immigration preference based on family relationships and needed skills, and expanded the categories of family members who could enter without numerical limits.
—1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act: Legalized about 2.7 million immigrants living in the U.S. illegally, 84 percent of them from Mexico and Central America.
—1990 Immigration Act: Increased worldwide immigration limit to a "flexible cap" of 675,000 a year. The number can go higher in some years if there are unused visas available from the previous year.
—1996 Immigrant Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. Expanded possible reasons for deporting people or ruling them ineligible to enter the U.S., expedited removal procedures, gave state and local police power to enforce immigration laws.
—Post-2001: In 2001, talk percolated about a new immigration plan to deal with unauthorized immigrants, guest workers and violence along the Mexican border. But the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks of 2001 put an end to that, amid growing unease over illegal immigration.
___
ABOUT LAST TIME. ...
The last big immigration legalization plan, in 1986, took six years to get done.
The law, signed by President Ronald Reagan, had three main components: making it illegal to hire unauthorized workers, improving border enforcement and providing for the legalization of a big chunk of the estimated 3 million to 5 million immigrants then in the country illegally.
The results were disappointing on two central fronts: The hiring crackdown largely failed because there was no good way to verify eligibility to work, and it took a decade to improve border security. As a result, illegal immigration continued to grow, fueled by the strong U.S. economy.
What did work as intended: Close to 3 million immigrants living in the U.S. without permission received legal status. By 2009, about 40 percent of them had been naturalized, according to Homeland Security.
___
LATINOS RISING
Census figures show that between 1960 and 2010, immigration from Europe declined while the numbers coming from Latin America and Asia took off. As the immigrants' points of origin changed, so did their destinations. Concentrations shifted from the Northeast and Midwest to the South and West.
A few Census Bureau snapshots:
—In 1960, there were fewer than 1 million people in the U.S. who were born in Latin America. By 2010, there were 21.2 million.
—In 1960, 75 percent of foreigners in the U.S. came from Europe. By 2010, 80 percent came from Latin America and Asia.
—In 1960: 47 percent of the foreign-born lived in the Northeast and 10 percent in the South. By 2010, 22 percent lived in the Northeast and 32 percent in the South.
___
THE FENCE
The fence between the U.S. and Mexico runs off and on for 651 miles along the 1,954-mile border. Most of it has been built since 2005. At some points, it's an 18-foot-high steel mesh structure topped with razor wire. At others, it's a rusting, 8-foot-high thing, made of Army surplus landing mats from the Vietnam War.
The fencing is one of the more visible manifestations of a massive effort over the past two decades to improve border security. The results of that effort are dramatic. Those images of crowds of immigrants sprinting across the border illegally while agents scramble to nab a few are largely a thing of the past.
Two decades ago, fewer than 4,000 Border Patrol agents worked along the Southwest border. Today there are 18,500.
Plummeting apprehension statistics are one measure of change: 357,000 last year, compared with 1.6 million in 2000. The numbers are down in part because fewer are trying to make it across.
The border isn't sealed but it is certainly more secure.
The Senate bill would require the government to have even tougher border security plans before those who are in the country illegally could become legal permanent residents.
___
WHO'S HANGING AROUND
With tighter border security and years of economic difficulty in the U.S., it turns out that most of the immigrants who are in the U.S. without permission have been there for a while. Just 14 percent have arrived since the start of 2005, according to Homeland Security estimates. In contrast, 29 percent came during the previous five years.
At the peak in 2000, about 770,000 immigrants arrived annually from Mexico, most of them entering the country illegally. By 2010, the pace had dropped to about 140,000, most of them arriving as legal immigrants, according to Pew.
___
WHO'S LEAVING?
Mexicans, mostly. Since 1986, more than 4 million noncitizens have been deported. Deportations have expanded in the Obama administration, reaching 410,000 in 2012 from 30,000 in 1990. Most of those deported — 75 percent — are sent back to Mexico. Nearly half of those removed had prior criminal convictions. So far, the Obama administration has deported more than 1.6 million people.
___
TO NATURALIZE OR NOT
Lots of U.S. immigrants who are eligible to become naturalized citizens don't bother. As of 2010, about two-thirds of eligible immigrants had applied for citizenship, according to the Migration Policy Institute. That lags behind the rate in other English-speaking countries such as Australia and Canada, which do more to promote naturalization.
___
WHY BOTHER?
What's so great about citizenship?
Naturalization offers all sorts of rights and benefits, including the right to vote and run for office. Naturalized citizens are protected from losing their residency rights and being deported if they get in legal trouble. They can bring family members into the U.S. more quickly.
Certain government jobs and licensed professions require citizenship. Citizenship also symbolizes full membership in U.S. society.
In 2010, there was a 67 percent earnings gap between naturalized citizens and noncitizen immigrants, according to a report from the Migration Policy Institute. Even after stripping out differences in education, language skills and work experience, naturalized citizens earned at least 5 percent more.
___
SKIPPING IT
Nearly two-thirds of the 5.4 million legal immigrants from Mexico who are eligible to become U.S. citizens haven't done so, according to a Pew study released in February. Their rate of naturalization is half that of legal immigrants from all other countries combined. The barriers to naturalization cited by Mexican nonapplicants include the need to learn English, the difficulty of the citizenship exam and the $680 application fee.
___
WORKERS
How do immigrants who are in the U.S. without permission fit into the nation's jobs picture?
In 2010, about 8 million were working in the U.S. or trying to get work. They made up about 5 percent of the labor force, according to Pew. Among U.S. farm workers, about half are believed to be in the country illegally, according to the Government Accountability Office.
Business groups want a system to legally bring in both more highly skilled workers and more lower-skilled workers such as agricultural laborers. The idea is to hire more when Americans aren't available to fill jobs. This has been a sticking point in past attempts at immigration overhaul. Labor groups want any such revamped system to provide worker protections and guard against displacing American workers. Current temporary worker programs are cumbersome and outdated.
The Senate bill would establish a agriculture worker visa system and create more visa programs for high- and low-skilled workers. Farm workers already here illegally would be able to qualify for green cards after five years if they'd already worked in agriculture in the U.S. for two years and if they kept working in the industry.
___
EMPLOYERS
Current law requires employers to have their workers fill out a form that declares them authorized to work in the U.S. Then the employer needs to verify that the worker's identifying documents look real. But the law allows lots of different documents, and many of them are easy to counterfeit.
The government has developed a mostly voluntary employment verification system called E-Verify, which has gradually gotten better. But so far just 10 percent of employers are using it, according to the Migration Policy Institute. The system is now required in varying degrees by 19 states.
The Senate proposal would require all employers to implement it within four years.
___
FAMILIES VS. JOBS
A big question in the immigration debate centers on how much priority to give to the family members of U.S. citizens and permanent residents.
Under current law, the U.S. awards a much larger proportion of green cards to family members than to foreigners with job prospects here. About two-thirds of permanent legal immigration to the U.S. is family-based, compared with about 15 percent that is employment-based, according to the Migration Policy Institute. The rest is largely humanitarian.
Some policymakers think employment-based immigration should be boosted to help the economy. Advocates for families want to make sure any such action doesn't come at the expense of people seeking to join relatives in the U.S.
The Senate plan would prevent citizens from bringing in siblings and would allow them to sponsor married sons and daughters only if the children were under 31. It would raise the cap on visas for high-skilled workers, create a startup visa for foreign entrepreneurs, and set up a new merit visa that would award points to prospective immigrants based on their education, employment, length of residence in the U.S. and other factors.
___
WHO CARES?
For all the attention being devoted to immigration right now, it's not the top priority for most people, even for most Hispanics. It ranked 17th on a list of policy priorities in a recent Pew Research Center poll. Among Hispanics, one-third said immigration was an extremely important issue to them, behind such issues as the economy and jobs, education and health care.
___
A VIEW FROM THE SOUTH
Is life actually better in the U.S.? A little more than half of Mexican adults think so, according to a 2012 Pew Global Attitudes poll. Thirty-eight percent said they'd move to the U.S. if they had the chance. Nineteen percent said they'd come even without authorization.
___
Sources: Pew Hispanic Center, Migration Policy Institute, Department of Homeland Security, Census Bureau, Government Accountability Office, Population Reference Bureau, Encyclopedia of Immigration.
___
Associated Press writers Alicia Caldwell and Erica Werner contributed to this report.
___
Follow Nancy Benac on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/nbenac
All about immigration: Green cards? Citizenship?
WASHINGTON (AP) — This may be the year Congress decides what to do about the millions of immigrants living illegally in the U.S. After years of gridlock, there are ideas whizzing all around Washington.
For now, all eyes are on an 844-page Senate proposal with the you-said-a-mouthful title of the "Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013."
Look for the Senate Judiciary Committee to take its first votes on the legislation on Thursday.
What's in that bill? Is there a Plan B? And who are all these immigrants, once you get past the big round numbers?
A big dose of facts, figures and other information to help understand the current debate:
___
WHY NOW?
Major problems with U.S. immigration have been around for decades.
President George W. Bush tried to change the system and failed. President Barack Obama promised to overhaul it in his first term but never did.
In Obama's second term, he's making immigration a priority, and Republicans also appear ready to deal.
Why the new commitment?
Obama won 71 percent of Hispanic voters in his 2012 re-election campaign, and he owes them. Last year's election also sent a loud message to Republicans that they can't ignore this pivotal voting bloc.
It's been the kind of breathtaking turnaround you rarely see in politics. Plus, there's growing pressure from business leaders, who want to make it easier for the U.S. to attract highly educated immigrants and to legally bring in more lower-skilled workers such as farm laborers.
___
WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?
Talk about "comprehensive immigration reform" generally centers on four main questions:
—What to do about the 11 million-plus immigrants who live in the U.S. without legal permission.
—How to tighten border security.
—How to keep businesses from employing people who are in the U.S. illegally.
—How to improve the legal immigration system, now so convoluted that the adjective "Byzantine" pops up all too frequently.
___
WHAT'S THE GANG OF EIGHT?
A group of four Democrats and four Republicans in the Senate that crafted a bill to address all four questions. In a nutshell, this proposal would tighten border controls, allow more high- and low-skilled workers to legally immigrate, require employers to verify their workers have legal status, and create an opportunity for those who are in the U.S. illegally to eventually become citizens.
___
IS THERE A PLAN B?
And C and D.
Obama has his own backup plan in case congressional talks fail, but he's given his support to the Senate bill as a worthy compromise.
In the House, Republican Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the head of the House Judiciary Committee, says his committee will tackle the main immigration issues one by one, instead of starting with a single sweeping bill.
Separately, there's a bipartisan House group working on legislation.
Obama says he will keep an open mind about the various proposals, but the final deal has to address all the big issues.
___
COMING TO AMERICA
A record 40.4 million immigrants live in the U.S., representing 13 percent of the population. More than 18 million are naturalized citizens, 11 million are legal permanent or temporary residents, and more than 11 million are in the country without legal permission, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, a private research organization.
Those in the U.S. illegally made up about 3.7 percent of the U.S. population in 2010. While overall immigration has steadily grown, the number of immigrants in the U.S. illegally peaked at 12 million in 2007.
___
WHERE FROM?
Twenty-nine percent of the foreign-born in the U.S., or about 11.7 million people, came from Mexico. About 25 percent came from South and East Asia, 9 percent from the Caribbean, 8 percent from Central America, 7 percent South America, 4 percent the Middle East and the rest from elsewhere.
The figures are more lopsided for immigrants living here illegally: An estimated 58 percent are from Mexico. The next closest figure is 6 percent from El Salvador, says the government.
___
WHERE TO?
California has the largest share of the U.S. immigrant population, 27 percent, followed by New York, New Jersey, Florida, Nevada, Hawaii and Texas, according to the Migration Policy Institute, a private group focused on global immigration issues.
California has the largest share of immigrants in the U.S. illegally, at 25 percent, followed by Texas with 16 percent. Florida and New York each has 6 percent, and Georgia has 5 percent, according to the Department of Homeland Security.
___
GETTING IN
Here's one way to think about the ways immigrants arrive in the U.S: Some come in the front door, others the side door and still others the back door, as laid out in a report from the private Population Reference Bureau.
—Arriving through the front door: people legally sponsored by their families or employers. Also refugees and asylum-seekers, and immigrants who win visas in an annual "diversity" lottery.
—Side door: legal temporary arrivals, including those who get visas to visit, work or study. There are dozens of types of nonimmigrant visas, available to people ranging from business visitors to foreign athletes and entertainers. Visitors from dozens of countries don't even need visas.
—Back door: Somewhat more than half of those in the U.S. illegally have come in the back door, evading border controls, Pew estimates. The rest legally entered, but didn't leave when they were supposed to or otherwise violated terms of their visas.
___
IS IT A CRIME?
Simply being in the United States in violation of immigration laws isn't, by itself, a crime; it's a civil violation.
Entering the country without permission is a misdemeanor criminal offense. Re-entering the country without authorization after being formally removed can be felony.
Pew estimates that a little less than half of immigrants who lack legal permission to live in the U.S. didn't enter the country illegally. They overstayed their visas, worked without authorization, dropped out of school or otherwise violated the conditions of their visas.
___
WHAT'S IN A NAME?
There are varying and strong opinions about how best to refer to the 11 million-plus people who are in the U.S. without legal permission.
Illegal immigrants?
Undocumented workers?
Unauthorized population?
Illegal aliens?
The last has generally fallen out of favor. Some immigrant advocates are pressing a "Drop the I-Word" campaign, arguing that it is dehumanizing to refer to people as "illegal."
"Undocumented worker" often isn't accurate because many aren't workers, and some have documents from other countries. Homeland Security reports refer to "unauthorized immigrants," but the agency also reports statistics on "aliens apprehended."
___
DEFINITIONS, PLEASE:
—Legal permanent residents (LPRs): people who have permission to live in the U.S. permanently but aren't citizens. They're also known as "green card" holders. Most of them can apply for citizenship within five years of getting green cards. In 2011, 1.06 million people got the cards.
—Refugees and asylees: people who come to the U.S. to avoid persecution in their home countries. What's the difference between the two terms? Refugees are people who apply for protective status before they get to the U.S. Asylees are people who apply upon arrival in the U.S. or later.
—Naturalization: The process by which immigrants become U.S. citizens.
___
GOING GREEN
Is there an actual green card? Indeed there is.
It's the Permanent Resident Card issued to people who are authorized to live and work in the U.S. on a permanent basis. In 2010, the government redesigned them to add new security features — and make them green again.
The cards had been a variety of colors over the years. New green cards are good for 10 years for lawful permanent residents and two years for conditional residents.
___
PATH TO CITIZENSHIP
There's a lot of talk about creating a "path to citizenship" for immigrants who are in the U.S. without legal status.
But there's vigorous debate over what conditions these immigrants should have to satisfy to get citizenship — among them are paying taxes, fines and fees, and passing background checks.
Some legislators want to set additional conditions, such as improvements in border security and in tracking whether legal immigrants leave the country when required. Others want to limit immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally to some sort of legal status that stops short of citizenship.
But more than 60 percent of Americans think those who are here illegally should have a way to become citizens, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll conducted in April.
The Senate bill would allow those in the country illegally to obtain "registered provisional immigrant" status six months after the bill was enacted if they met certain conditions.
Additional border security improvements would have to go into place before anyone obtained green cards or citizenship.
It would take immigrants living here illegally at least 13 years to get all the way to citizenship. They'd have to pay taxes, fees and $2,000 in fines. No one who entered the country after Dec. 31, 2011, or had a felony conviction or more than three misdemeanors would be eligible.
___
THE A-WORD
Nothing stirs up a hornet's nest like talk of amnesty for immigrants who are in the country illegally, although there's a lot of disagreement over how to define the term.
A 2007 effort to overhaul the immigration system, led by Bush, failed in part because Republicans were dismayed that it included a process to give otherwise law-abiding immigrants who were in the country illegally a chance to become citizens. Critics complained that would be offering amnesty.
All sides know it's not practical to talk about sending 11 million-plus people back to their countries of origin. So one big challenge this time is finding an acceptable way to resolve the status of those who are in the country illegally.
Backers of the Senate bill stress that those who are in the country illegally would have a longer and more difficult path to citizenship under their plan than would immigrants who followed all the rules.
___
GETTING A REPRIEVE
While the larger immigration debate goes on, the government already is offering as many as 1.76 million immigrants who are in the country illegally a way to avoid deportation, at least for now.
Obama announced a program in June that puts off deportation for many people brought here as children. Applicants for the reprieve must have arrived before they turned 16, be younger than 31 now, be high school graduates or in school, or have served in the military. They can't have a serious criminal record or pose a threat to public safety or national security.
Applications for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program are averaging more than 3,000 a day. By mid-April, nearly 489,000 people had applied and more than 268,000 had been approved, with most of the rest still under consideration.
Applications have come from all 50 states, with the largest number coming from California and Texas. Nearly 75 percent of the applicants are originally from Mexico.
In some ways, the program closely tracks the failed DREAM Act, which would have given many young illegal immigrants a path to legal status. Obama's program doesn't give them legal status but it at least protects them from deportation for two years.
___
HISTORY: DOING THE WAVE
The U.S. is in its fourth and largest immigration wave.
First came the Colonial era, then an 1820-1870 influx of newcomers mostly from Northern and Western Europe. Most were Germans and Irish, but the gold rush and jobs on the transcontinental railroad also attracted Chinese immigrants.
In the 1870s, immigration declined due to economic problems and restrictive legislation.
The third wave, between 1881 and 1920, brought more than 23 million people to the U.S., mostly from Southern and Eastern Europe, aided by cheaper trans-Atlantic travel and lured by employers seeking workers.
Then came the Great Depression and more restrictive immigration laws, and immigration went into decline for decades.
The fourth wave, still underway, began in 1965 with the end of immigration limits based on nationality. Foreign-born people made up 1 in 20 residents of the U.S. in 1960; today, the figure is about 1 in 8.
___
HISTORY: HERE A LAW, THERE A LAW
Until the late 1800s, immigration was largely a free for all. Then came country-by-country limits. Since then, big changes in U.S. immigration law have helped produce big shifts in migration patterns.
Among the more notable laws:
—1965 Immigration and Nationality Act: Abolished country-by-country limits, established a new system that determined immigration preference based on family relationships and needed skills, and expanded the categories of family members who could enter without numerical limits.
—1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act: Legalized about 2.7 million immigrants living in the U.S. illegally, 84 percent of them from Mexico and Central America.
—1990 Immigration Act: Increased worldwide immigration limit to a "flexible cap" of 675,000 a year. The number can go higher in some years if there are unused visas available from the previous year.
—1996 Immigrant Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. Expanded possible reasons for deporting people or ruling them ineligible to enter the U.S., expedited removal procedures, gave state and local police power to enforce immigration laws.
—Post-2001: In 2001, talk percolated about a new immigration plan to deal with unauthorized immigrants, guest workers and violence along the Mexican border. But the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks of 2001 put an end to that, amid growing unease over illegal immigration.
___
ABOUT LAST TIME. ...
The last big immigration legalization plan, in 1986, took six years to get done.
The law, signed by President Ronald Reagan, had three main components: making it illegal to hire unauthorized workers, improving border enforcement and providing for the legalization of a big chunk of the estimated 3 million to 5 million immigrants then in the country illegally.
The results were disappointing on two central fronts: The hiring crackdown largely failed because there was no good way to verify eligibility to work, and it took a decade to improve border security. As a result, illegal immigration continued to grow, fueled by the strong U.S. economy.
What did work as intended: Close to 3 million immigrants living in the U.S. without permission received legal status. By 2009, about 40 percent of them had been naturalized, according to Homeland Security.
___
LATINOS RISING
Census figures show that between 1960 and 2010, immigration from Europe declined while the numbers coming from Latin America and Asia took off. As the immigrants' points of origin changed, so did their destinations. Concentrations shifted from the Northeast and Midwest to the South and West.
A few Census Bureau snapshots:
—In 1960, there were fewer than 1 million people in the U.S. who were born in Latin America. By 2010, there were 21.2 million.
—In 1960, 75 percent of foreigners in the U.S. came from Europe. By 2010, 80 percent came from Latin America and Asia.
—In 1960: 47 percent of the foreign-born lived in the Northeast and 10 percent in the South. By 2010, 22 percent lived in the Northeast and 32 percent in the South.
___
THE FENCE
The fence between the U.S. and Mexico runs off and on for 651 miles along the 1,954-mile border. Most of it has been built since 2005. At some points, it's an 18-foot-high steel mesh structure topped with razor wire. At others, it's a rusting, 8-foot-high thing, made of Army surplus landing mats from the Vietnam War.
The fencing is one of the more visible manifestations of a massive effort over the past two decades to improve border security. The results of that effort are dramatic. Those images of crowds of immigrants sprinting across the border illegally while agents scramble to nab a few are largely a thing of the past.
Two decades ago, fewer than 4,000 Border Patrol agents worked along the Southwest border. Today there are 18,500.
Plummeting apprehension statistics are one measure of change: 357,000 last year, compared with 1.6 million in 2000. The numbers are down in part because fewer are trying to make it across.
The border isn't sealed but it is certainly more secure.
The Senate bill would require the government to have even tougher border security plans before those who are in the country illegally could become legal permanent residents.
___
WHO'S HANGING AROUND
With tighter border security and years of economic difficulty in the U.S., it turns out that most of the immigrants who are in the U.S. without permission have been there for a while. Just 14 percent have arrived since the start of 2005, according to Homeland Security estimates. In contrast, 29 percent came during the previous five years.
At the peak in 2000, about 770,000 immigrants arrived annually from Mexico, most of them entering the country illegally. By 2010, the pace had dropped to about 140,000, most of them arriving as legal immigrants, according to Pew.
___
WHO'S LEAVING?
Mexicans, mostly. Since 1986, more than 4 million noncitizens have been deported. Deportations have expanded in the Obama administration, reaching 410,000 in 2012 from 30,000 in 1990. Most of those deported — 75 percent — are sent back to Mexico. Nearly half of those removed had prior criminal convictions. So far, the Obama administration has deported more than 1.6 million people.
___
TO NATURALIZE OR NOT
Lots of U.S. immigrants who are eligible to become naturalized citizens don't bother. As of 2010, about two-thirds of eligible immigrants had applied for citizenship, according to the Migration Policy Institute. That lags behind the rate in other English-speaking countries such as Australia and Canada, which do more to promote naturalization.
___
WHY BOTHER?
What's so great about citizenship?
Naturalization offers all sorts of rights and benefits, including the right to vote and run for office. Naturalized citizens are protected from losing their residency rights and being deported if they get in legal trouble. They can bring family members into the U.S. more quickly.
Certain government jobs and licensed professions require citizenship. Citizenship also symbolizes full membership in U.S. society.
In 2010, there was a 67 percent earnings gap between naturalized citizens and noncitizen immigrants, according to a report from the Migration Policy Institute. Even after stripping out differences in education, language skills and work experience, naturalized citizens earned at least 5 percent more.
___
SKIPPING IT
Nearly two-thirds of the 5.4 million legal immigrants from Mexico who are eligible to become U.S. citizens haven't done so, according to a Pew study released in February. Their rate of naturalization is half that of legal immigrants from all other countries combined. The barriers to naturalization cited by Mexican nonapplicants include the need to learn English, the difficulty of the citizenship exam and the $680 application fee.
___
WORKERS
How do immigrants who are in the U.S. without permission fit into the nation's jobs picture?
In 2010, about 8 million were working in the U.S. or trying to get work. They made up about 5 percent of the labor force, according to Pew. Among U.S. farm workers, about half are believed to be in the country illegally, according to the Government Accountability Office.
Business groups want a system to legally bring in both more highly skilled workers and more lower-skilled workers such as agricultural laborers. The idea is to hire more when Americans aren't available to fill jobs. This has been a sticking point in past attempts at immigration overhaul. Labor groups want any such revamped system to provide worker protections and guard against displacing American workers. Current temporary worker programs are cumbersome and outdated.
The Senate bill would establish a agriculture worker visa system and create more visa programs for high- and low-skilled workers. Farm workers already here illegally would be able to qualify for green cards after five years if they'd already worked in agriculture in the U.S. for two years and if they kept working in the industry.
___
EMPLOYERS
Current law requires employers to have their workers fill out a form that declares them authorized to work in the U.S. Then the employer needs to verify that the worker's identifying documents look real. But the law allows lots of different documents, and many of them are easy to counterfeit.
The government has developed a mostly voluntary employment verification system called E-Verify, which has gradually gotten better. But so far just 10 percent of employers are using it, according to the Migration Policy Institute. The system is now required in varying degrees by 19 states.
The Senate proposal would require all employers to implement it within four years.
___
FAMILIES VS. JOBS
A big question in the immigration debate centers on how much priority to give to the family members of U.S. citizens and permanent residents.
Under current law, the U.S. awards a much larger proportion of green cards to family members than to foreigners with job prospects here. About two-thirds of permanent legal immigration to the U.S. is family-based, compared with about 15 percent that is employment-based, according to the Migration Policy Institute. The rest is largely humanitarian.
Some policymakers think employment-based immigration should be boosted to help the economy. Advocates for families want to make sure any such action doesn't come at the expense of people seeking to join relatives in the U.S.
The Senate plan would prevent citizens from bringing in siblings and would allow them to sponsor married sons and daughters only if the children were under 31. It would raise the cap on visas for high-skilled workers, create a startup visa for foreign entrepreneurs, and set up a new merit visa that would award points to prospective immigrants based on their education, employment, length of residence in the U.S. and other factors.
___
WHO CARES?
For all the attention being devoted to immigration right now, it's not the top priority for most people, even for most Hispanics. It ranked 17th on a list of policy priorities in a recent Pew Research Center poll. Among Hispanics, one-third said immigration was an extremely important issue to them, behind such issues as the economy and jobs, education and health care.
___
A VIEW FROM THE SOUTH
Is life actually better in the U.S.? A little more than half of Mexican adults think so, according to a 2012 Pew Global Attitudes poll. Thirty-eight percent said they'd move to the U.S. if they had the chance. Nineteen percent said they'd come even without authorization.
___
Sources: Pew Hispanic Center, Migration Policy Institute, Department of Homeland Security, Census Bureau, Government Accountability Office, Population Reference Bureau, Encyclopedia of Immigration.
___
Associated Press writers Alicia Caldwell and Erica Werner contributed to this report.
___
Follow Nancy Benac on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/nbenac
Thứ Tư, 24 tháng 4, 2013
“To Save Everything, Click Here”: the hot new book about the web, reviewed
by Rob Walker
Evgeny Morozov has surveyed the current state of the grand debate over our technologies and how we use them — and he is completely appalled.
I can understand that broad sentiment, since our tech pundits often seem to come in only two varieties: wild-eyed optimists and alarmist skeptics. Each responds to the ideas of the other with maximum hyperbole: optimists are branded naïve or delusional, skeptics swiftly labeled luddites and enemies of progress. We could use a less hysterical approach. Instead, Morozov belittles both sides, repeatedly and caustically, in his new book To Save Everything, Click Here: The Folly of Technological Solutionism. Arriving on the scene of a brawl, he breaks it up with a flamethrower.
That’s too bad, because scattered among the sneering potshots and distracting takedowns are a number of potentially useful ideas that never quite get fully explored. Broadly, Morozov finds most public thinkers on matters of technology and the Internet — whether utopian or alarmist — think too narrowly. His wider perspective, grounded in something closer to philosophical inquiry than traditional punditry, leads him to question what we even mean by “technology” and “the Internet.”
That sounds obtuse, but it’s actually important to his most consistent theme, which is that we often ascribe a kind of independent agency to what are in fact tools and systems shaped by human decisions. The Internet is often “believed to possess an inherent nature, a logic, a teleology, and that nature is rapidly unfolding in front of us,” he writes, sketching out the problem with this point of view: “We can just stand back and watch; ‘the Internet’ will take care of itself—and us. If your privacy disappears in the process, this is simply what the Internet gods wanted all along.”
Pushing back against this fatalism is, to me, Morozov’s most crucial message. I happened to pick up his book just as Google was settling a case brought against the company by 38 states, admitting to violating the privacy of computer users by collecting data available over unencrypted WiFi networks via its Street View program. Did this happen simply because technology is what it is, or because of how someone chose to use technology without any prior debate? As The Times observed, this effort (greenlighted by a “midlevel engineer”) exemplified the “better to seek forgiveness than permission” mantra common among tech companies whose profitable pursuits bump up against social norms.
That strategy is certainly better for those companies — particularly, as in this case, when forgiveness can be had for $7 million and a promise to take privacy more seriously — but is it “better” for the rest of us? (And by the way, would we want, say, pharmaceutical companies to operate under this ethos?)
Morozov’s other arguments about the danger of believing in “the Internet” (he always puts it in quotes) as some sort of independent and un-shapeable entity move in many directions — too many to summarize here. In some cases his examples are lucid, as when he addresses the search and “trending topics” algorithms of Google and Twitter: While they produce results that appear to be beyond question, they are in fact merely the byproduct of algorithms shaped by one group of people, gamed by others and (despite their potential public impact) proprietary and non-transparent to everyone else.
He also makes useful points about “solutionism,” a term he borrows from the planning and design world to describe a tendency to identify problems solely through what can be drastically changed by using the latest tools at hand. (So if Wikipedia seems more efficient than government, maybe government should be more like Wikipedia!)
Morozov is effective in undercutting that sort of thinking. But in other cases he raises provocative ideas without really making a persuasive case. This is where his penchant for eviscerating other commentators, as the book grinds on, gets in the way. If you’re going to argue for the “important roles that subjectivity, inefficiency, and ignorance” play in culture, take the time to back it up convincingly, over more than a couple of paragraphs. If you’re going to ask “Why alter our conception of privacy if we can regulate Facebook and Google?,” then work through what that might actually look like. And ease up on the one-liners about Jeff Jarvis.
Morozov is extremely erudite, and when focused on making a sustained argument on a specific subject, he can be brilliant: His assessment of Steve Jobs for The New Republic is probably the best thing I’ve ever read about Apple, and that’s saying something. But I can’t imagine To Save Everything, Click Here changing many minds, let alone the terms of the discussions we ought to be having about technology. See, for example, Morozov’s recent “ debate ” with Farhad Manjoo on Slate: Over the course of four long posts, the two simply talk past each other, agreeing only on a dislike of Jeff Jarvis. Depressing.
There’s nothing wrong with exposing the weaknesses in others’ arguments on the way to making your own. Despite Morozov’s talent as an original thinker, he seems more interested here in his talent as a crafter of zingers, which eventually feel less like a means than an end.
“While we can’t rid the world of people who want to ‘fix’ politics,” he observes at one point in the book, “we can at least ridicule those who want to do so by subjecting politics to ‘lessons learned’ from Wikipedia.” Okay, but framing the choices as “getting rid of” opponents or “ridiculing” them pretty much guarantees that the debate will slog along just as before, as un-grand as ever.
*
Fourth accuser urges Herman Cain to ‘come clean’ about harassment
Sharon Bialek and Gloria Allred (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
A fourth woman has accused Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain of sexual harassment--this time in public. Sharon Bialek told reporters in a press conference Monday that Cain groped her and exhibited "sexually inappropriate" behavior toward her when he was head of the National Restaurant Association.
Bialek, a former NRA employee who worked for the association in between 1996 and 1997, said the encounter occurred shortly after she was laid off from the group's education fund in July 1997.
She said she had approached Cain for help in looking for a new job and had traveled to Washington, D.C., where she had dinner with the then-NRA head. She told reporters that upon her arrival in D.C. she discovered that Cain had secretly upgraded her hotel room to a suite.
After dinner, the two were sitting in his car when she claimed he "suddenly reached over and put his hand on my leg under my skirt and reached for my genitals" and moved her head toward his crotch.
"I was surprised and shocked, and I said, what are you doing? You know I have a boyfriend," Bialek recalled saying. "This is not what I came here for."
Bialak claimed that when she protested, Cain replied, "You want a job, right?
She told reporters Cain backed off after she asked him to stop, and he drove her back to her hotel.
Bialek, who identified herself as a stay-at-home single mom who lives in Chicago and is a registered Republican, said she didn't file a complaint with the NRA in part because she was no longer formally employed by the group--and also because she was "very embarrassed." She was joined at the press conference by her attorney, celebrity lawyer Gloria Allred, who offered sworn affidavits from two friends to whom Bialek spoke shortly after the alleged encounter.
"I was very very surprised and very shocked," Bialek said, adding that she had come forward to be a "face" for women who had been harassed by Cain. "I want you, Mr. Cain, to come clean. Just admit what you did. Admit you were inappropriate to people ... I implore you. Make this right."
The Cain campaign issued a statement denying Bialek's claims.
"All allegations of harassment against Mr. Cain are completely false," the campaign said in a statement. " Mr. Cain has never harassed anyone."
Bialek is the fourth woman to accuse Cain of sexual harassment when he was head of the NRA, but she's the only accuser who has spoken publicly.
More popular Yahoo! News stories:
- Herman Cain accuser stands by 1999 harassment claims
- Andy Rooney, legendary '60 Minutes' essayist, dies at 92
- The Boy Scouts: preparing young men for the music festivals of tomorrow
Want more of our best political stories? Visit The Ticket or connect with us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
Thứ Tư, 17 tháng 4, 2013
Fourth accuser urges Herman Cain to ‘come clean’ about harassment
Sharon Bialek and Gloria Allred (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
A fourth woman has accused Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain of sexual harassment--this time in public. Sharon Bialek told reporters in a press conference Monday that Cain groped her and exhibited "sexually inappropriate" behavior toward her when he was head of the National Restaurant Association.
Bialek, a former NRA employee who worked for the association in between 1996 and 1997, said the encounter occurred shortly after she was laid off from the group's education fund in July 1997.
She said she had approached Cain for help in looking for a new job and had traveled to Washington, D.C., where she had dinner with the then-NRA head. She told reporters that upon her arrival in D.C. she discovered that Cain had secretly upgraded her hotel room to a suite.
After dinner, the two were sitting in his car when she claimed he "suddenly reached over and put his hand on my leg under my skirt and reached for my genitals" and moved her head toward his crotch.
"I was surprised and shocked, and I said, what are you doing? You know I have a boyfriend," Bialek recalled saying. "This is not what I came here for."
Bialak claimed that when she protested, Cain replied, "You want a job, right?
She told reporters Cain backed off after she asked him to stop, and he drove her back to her hotel.
Bialek, who identified herself as a stay-at-home single mom who lives in Chicago and is a registered Republican, said she didn't file a complaint with the NRA in part because she was no longer formally employed by the group--and also because she was "very embarrassed." She was joined at the press conference by her attorney, celebrity lawyer Gloria Allred, who offered sworn affidavits from two friends to whom Bialek spoke shortly after the alleged encounter.
"I was very very surprised and very shocked," Bialek said, adding that she had come forward to be a "face" for women who had been harassed by Cain. "I want you, Mr. Cain, to come clean. Just admit what you did. Admit you were inappropriate to people ... I implore you. Make this right."
The Cain campaign issued a statement denying Bialek's claims.
"All allegations of harassment against Mr. Cain are completely false," the campaign said in a statement. " Mr. Cain has never harassed anyone."
Bialek is the fourth woman to accuse Cain of sexual harassment when he was head of the NRA, but she's the only accuser who has spoken publicly.
More popular Yahoo! News stories:
- Herman Cain accuser stands by 1999 harassment claims
- Andy Rooney, legendary '60 Minutes' essayist, dies at 92
- The Boy Scouts: preparing young men for the music festivals of tomorrow
Want more of our best political stories? Visit The Ticket or connect with us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
Thứ Hai, 15 tháng 4, 2013
Fourth accuser urges Herman Cain to ‘come clean’ about harassment
Sharon Bialek and Gloria Allred (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
A fourth woman has accused Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain of sexual harassment--this time in public. Sharon Bialek told reporters in a press conference Monday that Cain groped her and exhibited "sexually inappropriate" behavior toward her when he was head of the National Restaurant Association.
Bialek, a former NRA employee who worked for the association in between 1996 and 1997, said the encounter occurred shortly after she was laid off from the group's education fund in July 1997.
She said she had approached Cain for help in looking for a new job and had traveled to Washington, D.C., where she had dinner with the then-NRA head. She told reporters that upon her arrival in D.C. she discovered that Cain had secretly upgraded her hotel room to a suite.
After dinner, the two were sitting in his car when she claimed he "suddenly reached over and put his hand on my leg under my skirt and reached for my genitals" and moved her head toward his crotch.
"I was surprised and shocked, and I said, what are you doing? You know I have a boyfriend," Bialek recalled saying. "This is not what I came here for."
Bialak claimed that when she protested, Cain replied, "You want a job, right?
She told reporters Cain backed off after she asked him to stop, and he drove her back to her hotel.
Bialek, who identified herself as a stay-at-home single mom who lives in Chicago and is a registered Republican, said she didn't file a complaint with the NRA in part because she was no longer formally employed by the group--and also because she was "very embarrassed." She was joined at the press conference by her attorney, celebrity lawyer Gloria Allred, who offered sworn affidavits from two friends to whom Bialek spoke shortly after the alleged encounter.
"I was very very surprised and very shocked," Bialek said, adding that she had come forward to be a "face" for women who had been harassed by Cain. "I want you, Mr. Cain, to come clean. Just admit what you did. Admit you were inappropriate to people ... I implore you. Make this right."
The Cain campaign issued a statement denying Bialek's claims.
"All allegations of harassment against Mr. Cain are completely false," the campaign said in a statement. " Mr. Cain has never harassed anyone."
Bialek is the fourth woman to accuse Cain of sexual harassment when he was head of the NRA, but she's the only accuser who has spoken publicly.
More popular Yahoo! News stories:
- Herman Cain accuser stands by 1999 harassment claims
- Andy Rooney, legendary '60 Minutes' essayist, dies at 92
- The Boy Scouts: preparing young men for the music festivals of tomorrow
Want more of our best political stories? Visit The Ticket or connect with us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
Thứ Năm, 11 tháng 4, 2013
Fourth accuser urges Herman Cain to ‘come clean’ about harassment
Sharon Bialek and Gloria Allred (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
A fourth woman has accused Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain of sexual harassment--this time in public. Sharon Bialek told reporters in a press conference Monday that Cain groped her and exhibited "sexually inappropriate" behavior toward her when he was head of the National Restaurant Association.
Bialek, a former NRA employee who worked for the association in between 1996 and 1997, said the encounter occurred shortly after she was laid off from the group's education fund in July 1997.
She said she had approached Cain for help in looking for a new job and had traveled to Washington, D.C., where she had dinner with the then-NRA head. She told reporters that upon her arrival in D.C. she discovered that Cain had secretly upgraded her hotel room to a suite.
After dinner, the two were sitting in his car when she claimed he "suddenly reached over and put his hand on my leg under my skirt and reached for my genitals" and moved her head toward his crotch.
"I was surprised and shocked, and I said, what are you doing? You know I have a boyfriend," Bialek recalled saying. "This is not what I came here for."
Bialak claimed that when she protested, Cain replied, "You want a job, right?
She told reporters Cain backed off after she asked him to stop, and he drove her back to her hotel.
Bialek, who identified herself as a stay-at-home single mom who lives in Chicago and is a registered Republican, said she didn't file a complaint with the NRA in part because she was no longer formally employed by the group--and also because she was "very embarrassed." She was joined at the press conference by her attorney, celebrity lawyer Gloria Allred, who offered sworn affidavits from two friends to whom Bialek spoke shortly after the alleged encounter.
"I was very very surprised and very shocked," Bialek said, adding that she had come forward to be a "face" for women who had been harassed by Cain. "I want you, Mr. Cain, to come clean. Just admit what you did. Admit you were inappropriate to people ... I implore you. Make this right."
The Cain campaign issued a statement denying Bialek's claims.
"All allegations of harassment against Mr. Cain are completely false," the campaign said in a statement. " Mr. Cain has never harassed anyone."
Bialek is the fourth woman to accuse Cain of sexual harassment when he was head of the NRA, but she's the only accuser who has spoken publicly.
More popular Yahoo! News stories:
- Herman Cain accuser stands by 1999 harassment claims
- Andy Rooney, legendary '60 Minutes' essayist, dies at 92
- The Boy Scouts: preparing young men for the music festivals of tomorrow
Want more of our best political stories? Visit The Ticket or connect with us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
Thứ Ba, 9 tháng 4, 2013
Fourth accuser urges Herman Cain to ‘come clean’ about harassment
Sharon Bialek and Gloria Allred (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
A fourth woman has accused Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain of sexual harassment--this time in public. Sharon Bialek told reporters in a press conference Monday that Cain groped her and exhibited "sexually inappropriate" behavior toward her when he was head of the National Restaurant Association.
Bialek, a former NRA employee who worked for the association in between 1996 and 1997, said the encounter occurred shortly after she was laid off from the group's education fund in July 1997.
She said she had approached Cain for help in looking for a new job and had traveled to Washington, D.C., where she had dinner with the then-NRA head. She told reporters that upon her arrival in D.C. she discovered that Cain had secretly upgraded her hotel room to a suite.
After dinner, the two were sitting in his car when she claimed he "suddenly reached over and put his hand on my leg under my skirt and reached for my genitals" and moved her head toward his crotch.
"I was surprised and shocked, and I said, what are you doing? You know I have a boyfriend," Bialek recalled saying. "This is not what I came here for."
Bialak claimed that when she protested, Cain replied, "You want a job, right?
She told reporters Cain backed off after she asked him to stop, and he drove her back to her hotel.
Bialek, who identified herself as a stay-at-home single mom who lives in Chicago and is a registered Republican, said she didn't file a complaint with the NRA in part because she was no longer formally employed by the group--and also because she was "very embarrassed." She was joined at the press conference by her attorney, celebrity lawyer Gloria Allred, who offered sworn affidavits from two friends to whom Bialek spoke shortly after the alleged encounter.
"I was very very surprised and very shocked," Bialek said, adding that she had come forward to be a "face" for women who had been harassed by Cain. "I want you, Mr. Cain, to come clean. Just admit what you did. Admit you were inappropriate to people ... I implore you. Make this right."
The Cain campaign issued a statement denying Bialek's claims.
"All allegations of harassment against Mr. Cain are completely false," the campaign said in a statement. " Mr. Cain has never harassed anyone."
Bialek is the fourth woman to accuse Cain of sexual harassment when he was head of the NRA, but she's the only accuser who has spoken publicly.
More popular Yahoo! News stories:
- Herman Cain accuser stands by 1999 harassment claims
- Andy Rooney, legendary '60 Minutes' essayist, dies at 92
- The Boy Scouts: preparing young men for the music festivals of tomorrow
Want more of our best political stories? Visit The Ticket or connect with us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
Chủ Nhật, 7 tháng 4, 2013
7 fun facts about the Dothraki language from Game of Thrones
The words that the characters on the HBO speak aren't mere gibberish. Someone created a whole Dothraki dictionary
When you put a lot of thought into the costumes, weaponry, and hair styles of your invented culture, you had better give it a proper language too. That way motivated fans — and there will be fans this motivated — can figure out the system to it and even learn to speak it themselves. The producers of Game of Thrones did the smart thing when they hired language creator David Peterson to work out realistic languages for the show. This season fans will be getting to know two new languages, High and Low Valyrian. But before you start trying to tackle those, here are seven cool facts about the language from the first two seasons, Dothraki.
1. Peterson got the job to create Dothraki by winning a contest among language inventors.
The Language Creation Society was founded in 2007 as an organization where people who invent languages as an artistic and intellectual hobby (known as "conlangers" from "constructed language") could share their work and promote their craft. When producers approached them asking for help creating Dothraki, the society held an internal contest and selected Peterson's 180-page proposal (along with dictionary and audio files) to present to the producers, who hired him.
SEE MORE: Why 1,600 years of ice melting in 25 years is a bad omen
2. A lot of what's in the vocabulary and grammar of Dothraki has never appeared on the show.
With Peterson's dictionary of more than 3,000 words, and his description of the proper way to form a wide range of sentence types, you could say all kind of things in correct Dothraki that have never been uttered on the show. Want to compose some wedding vows? Write a poem? Translate Shakespeare? Learn Dothraki, and give it a go!
3. One grammatical feature was inspired by Dwight Schrute.
Last fall NBC aired an episode of The Office where Dwight tries to convince Erin to learn Dothraki instead of French. The writers did their homework and (without consulting Peterson) managed to use valid Dothraki. They even extended the grammar in an interesting way. Peterson had not yet explicitly described how noun-verb compounds work, but he noticed the Dothraki compound examples Dwight has written on a piece of paper — foth aggendak (I throat-rip), foth aggendi (you throat-rip), foth aggenda (he/she/it throat-rips) — and decided to deem it good Dothraki. That construction is now known as a "Schrutean compound."
SEE MORE: The 10 best political movies ever
4. Peterson's wife and cat are lovingly honored in the vocabulary.
In a sweet gesture, Peterson took his wife's name, Erin, and turned it into the Dothraki adjective meaning kind or good, from which is derived the verb "erinat" (to be good) and the noun "erinak" (lady, kind one). The word "okeo" is a tribute to a beloved cat, adopted by Peterson and his wife while he was beginning to work on the language. At the shelter the cat's name was "Oreo" but the way it was written on his tag made it look like "Okeo," so that's what they called him. Okeo died at 7 months from a congenital liver problem, but his name lives on as the Dothraki word for "friend."
5. If the actors ad-lib any Dothraki, it has to be retrofitted to the grammar.
The last Dothraki line of season 2 was ad-libbed by Iain Glen, who plays Jorah. In some bit of last minute shooting, the producers had sent Peterson an emergency request for a translation of "take all the gold and jewels," but the translation he provided didn't make it in time, so Glen improvised something. Later Peterson took the ad-libbed line, and figured out a way to make it proper Dothraki by deriving a couple of new words and assuming some minor mistakes on the part of Jorah (who is not a native Dothraki speaker). He managed to plausibly get the improvised line to mean "the loose valuables are for loading," which fit both the language and the situation perfectly.
SEE MORE: Could the NFL soon have its first openly gay players?
6. Dothraki has tongue-twisters.
Qafak qov kaffe qif qiya fini kaf faggies fakaya.
Say it three times fast. It means "the trembling questioner crushed the bleeding boar that squished a kicking corn bunting." Hear it here.
7. Dothraki includes interesting cultural metaphors in its idioms.
Athastokhdevishizar: Nonsense (lit. "fog talking")
Hash yer dothrae chek?: How are you? ("Do you ride well?")
Shierak qiya: Comet ("bleeding star")
Ki fin yeni!: WTF! ("By what failure!")
Thirat atthiraride: To dream ("to live a wooden/fake life")
Fonas chek!: Goodbye! ("Hunt well!")
SEE MORE: Maya Angelou's 6 favorite books
View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week
Other stories from this section:
- Olympus falls over a fact
- 7 Goosebumps books that would make amazing movies
- Two hot books to watch for