Hops, Skips and Jumps of Lawful Admission

UNTIE THE KNOT IN 212 H WAIVER

To help us untie this knot are precedent decisions in Medina- Rosales, Stanovsek, and Negrete-Ramirez.  The Immigration Court has often times over respondents who are statutorily eligible for relief under 212 h waiver  (8 U.S.C. § 1182(h) prior to the entry of the administrative final order of deportation.justice for olango

The 212 h waiver is an intended safeguard to ensure a proper and lawful disposition of Immigration proceedings  to respondent’s core claims. INA § 240 (c)(7)(B). Most respondent who are served with Notice to Appear in light of the above mentioned precedents are not barred from applying for this waiver, only non-citizens who entered into United States as Legal Permanent Residents (LPR) are barred from eligibility to apply for waiver. Source; Immigration and Nationality Act § 212(h),8 U.S.C.§ 1182(h). 

Section 1182(h) statutory language stated in relevant part:

The Attorney General may, in his discretion, waive the application of [provisions relating to exclusion] . . . .(B) in the case of an immigrant who is the spouse, parent, son, or daughter of a citizen of the United States, or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if it is established to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that the alien’s exclusion would result in extreme hardship to the United States citizen or lawfully resident spouse, parent, son, or daughter of such alien”; 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h).

The bar to seeking a § 212(h) waiver does not apply to people who have entered the country through inspection and adjusted status thereafter. This include refugees who attained lawful permanent residents status after two years of being in the country rather than those who were admitted as LPR. On issue of first impression, respondent’s who post-entry adjustment of status  as “alien” refugees to LPR’s after they entered United States does not constitute “admission” in context of provision governing waiver of grounds of inadmissibility.

Adjustment is this content is a change of an “alien’s” refugee status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, (Husic, 776 F.3d at 64) (citing 8.U.S.C. § 1255(a) but adjustment of status is not an admission. Section 101(a)(20) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(20), defines the term, lawfully admitted for permanent residence as [t]he status of having been lawfully accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States as an immigrant in accordance with the immigration laws, such status not having changed, regardless of whether they obtained that status prior to or by adjusting their status while they physically entered the United States. See; Negrete-Ramirez v. Holder, 741 F.3d 1047, 1050-54 (9th Cir.2014)  (recognizing definition refers to immigration status regardless of how or when it was obtained).

“ The phrase “lawful admission for permanent residence”  is a totally different phrase from the term of art of 8 U.S.C. 1101 (a) (20), “lawfully admitted for permanent residence.” See; In re Jose Luise Mercado-Zazueta v. Holder, 580 F.3d 1102, 1104(9th Cir. 2009). 

Needless to say, plain statutory language is the most instructive and reliable indicator of Congressional § 212(h)’s plain language as stated above demonstrates unambiguously Congress’ intent not to bar respondents convicted of felonies who adjusted their status post entry to lawful resident status from seeking a waiver of inadmissibility.” as here the immigration court must give effect to Congress intent. Moreover in light of this cases, Court must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what is says there. Absent indication to the contrary, in analyzing the text of a statute, courts apply the “ordinary, contemporary, common meaning” of the terms contained in it. See;,Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs., 123 L. Ed. 2D 74 (1993).

Admission vs. Admitted

The plain  language of 212 (h) REVEALS THAT “admitted”, as employed in § 212(h), includes an “Alien” lawful entry into this Country with permanent resident status, stated differently for the §212 (h) bar to apply, when the “Alien” is granted permissions, after inspection, to enter the United States, he must then be admitted as an LPR. Accordingly, there’s no basis for the statutory language’s being ambiguous. Again this based in part on Congress’ having defined “admitted.”  Under the Chevron-framework, we first determine “whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter for the court, therefore agency must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress”. quoting Chevron, 467 U.S at 842-43.

For determining ambiguity vel non, if this statutory text stood alone, the court would define “admitted” by its ordinary, contemporary, and common meaning, as discussed supra. Congress has relieved us from this task, however, by providing the following definition: “The terms ‘admission’ and ‘admitted’ mean, with respect to an alien, the lawful entry of the alien into the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer”. 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(13)(A) (emphasis added). Under statutory definition, “admission” is the lawful entry of an alien after inspection, something quite different, obviously, from post-entry adjustment of status, as done by most respondents in immigration proceedings.

Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)’s malfeasance, including the Immigration Court, the Board’s and Attorney General’s incorrect positions and misguided interpretations regarding § 212(h) eligibility prevented many respondents from applying for this relief. The Immigration Court begin with failure to inform respondents that they could apply for § 212(h) relief. Under title 8 Code of Federal Regulations, § 1240.11 (a)(2) Immigration Judges are obliged to inform the respondents of possible relief from removal.

Immigration Court conduct on this issue is symptomatic of a larger Board of Immigration’s misinterpretation of eligibility of § 212(h) relief which will be discus more in detail in the next article.

As here the fact that Congress may not have foreseen all of the consequences of a statutory enactment is not a sufficient reason for refusing to give effect to its plain meaning. Based on the clear and unambiguous language of § 1182(h) the court should conclude that’ only persons who obtained LPR status before or when the entered the United States are barred from seeking a waiver under § 1182(h). Because most respondents in immigration proceedings obtained LPR status after they entered the United States, they are eligible for discretionary consideration for waiver of  inadmissibility under § 1182(h), 212 h waiver.

 

Advertisements

Having Served in U.S. Military Honorably and His Case on Direct Appeal, Oliveira Domingos fights for Deportation Order

Many of ICE concentration camps are run by for-profit corporations, so clearly some people are making lots and lots of money off the booming business of keeping human beings in cages See; [Ray Downs]. Among these human beings, it is a former military service men Domingos Jose de Oliveira who served this country honorably and most unfortunate, his being detain at one of the Core civic concentration camps in Otay Mesa despite the prevailing circumstances that his case that form the basic for his detention is on direct appeal.                                                                                                                               The Board of Immigration Appeals and many Federal Courts have long required that for a criminal conviction to trigger the criminal provisions of the immigration laws, all direct criminal appeals of right must be exhausted or waived. Only then can a criminal conviction render an immigrant deportable subject to civil immigration detention, or barred from applying for relief from deportation or for lawful status. (Matter of Ulices MONTIEL) Consequently, the Immigration Court seeks to undermine this finality rule as Oliveira still face a prolong civil detention hence his conviction is under direct appeal.

Oliveira is a 53 years-old year native of Portugal who was admitted into the United States as an immigrant in New York City on or about or about December 18, 1972. He became a lawful permanent resident (LPR) on March 16, 1973. Oliveira’s siblings have lawful statues in the United States and his children are United States citizens. He also owned a property in Spring Valley which was paid off in 1999, however due to prolong “civil detention”, he was forced to sell his property. Oliveira served in the United States Army in the 1980’s. While in service in 1983, he filed an application to obtain citizenship, however, he was ordered to Germany three days later. Upon his return, he contacted the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) about the status of his application and was informed that his application had been lost. Due to lack of funds, Oliveira was unable to reapply for citizenship at that time.

On July 1, 2011 following a jury trial, Oliveira was convicted of violating California Penal Code section 653f, subdivision (b), and section 422, with an additional enhancement under section 422.75, subdivision(a). He was sentenced to seven years and four months in state prison. After the guilty verdict and again after sentencing on August 01, 2011 Oliveira reminded his Counsel before leaving the court room to file the appeal for his conviction, at this moment his Counsel had promised to see Oliveira in a holding cell for further discussion but failed to show-up. His Trial Counsel later communicated to Oliveira’s daughter that he was in the process of filling the appeal, but it could take as long as long as two years to be resolved. Oliveira relied upon his counsel’s representations, although his repeated attempts to contact trial counsel were unsuccessful. On September 22, 2014 Oliveira on his earliest possible released date was released from state prison and taken into Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody and later was transferred to CCA Otay Mesa Detention Facility in San Diego (Core Civics). At some point in January of 2015, Oliveira learned that his appeal had never been filed. His Trial Counsel had filed a notice of appeal in state court after statutory period of 60 days (CalRule31); however, it was rejected as untimely.
Since is a duty of the trial Court to afford every defendant in criminal case a fair and impartial trial is duty of the Court to correct matters by granting a new Trial transcends statutory limitations (People v. Oliver) (1975) Cal. App 3d 747, 751 (120 Cal. Rptr. 368] in Strickland v. Washington. 466 U. S. 668 (1994) the Supreme Court held that criminal defendants have a Sixth Amendment right to “reasonably effective “legal assistance, and announced a now-familiar test; A defendant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel must show (1) that counsel’s representation “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,” and (2) that counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced. A Notice of Appeal is generally a one -sentence document stating that the defendant wishes to Appeal from the Judgment moreover filing such notice is a purely ministerial task that imposes no great burden on Counsel. As here, at no point did Oliveira’s Trial Counsel attempt to remedy his mistake or even inform him about the error, rendering these critical stages constitutionally inadequate, in violation of state and federal rights to the effective assistance of counsel, due process, and a fair trial. This error was fatal to Oliveira’s right to appeal. ‘Thus, the trial counsel failed to fulfill the constitutionally-imposed duty to consult with Oliveira about appeal.

Under California Rule of Court, the reviewing Court for good cause may relieve a party from a default occasioned by any failure to comply. Oliveira used due diligence to pursue his right for appeal to which the courts should evoke excusable neglect doctrine. Delay in filing this petition should be deemed timely filed under the theory of “constructive filing. The Court in Benoit; the doctrine of constructive filing based upon a promise or representation made by each defendant’s attorney that he would timely file a notice of appeal on his client’s behalf. (Benoit, supra, 10 Cal.3d at pp. 86-87, 109 Cal. Rptr. 785, 514 P.2d 97.) We relied in part upon the circumstance that the assurances had been made by the defendants’ trial counsel, noting that “the prisoner would be more justified in relying on his counsel who had represented him and might have some continuous concern for him …” (Id. at p. 86, 109 Cal. Rptr. 785, 514 P.2d 97.) In contrast to this present case, Oliveira did seek and receive assurances from his original trial counsel that he would prepare or file his appeal. On December 23, 2017, Oliveira through his Immigration Counsel; Attorney Jamahl C. Kersey filed for constructive notice of appeal which was granted by San Diego Superior Court on January 12, 2017. Meaning that Oliveira case it is on direct appeal not to be confuse with collateral attack.

OLIVEIRA STILL UNLAWFULLY DETAIN.

The Court in a precedent decision, decided that when an immigration judge is deciding whether to deport someone based on a criminal conviction, deportation cannot occur unless and until the direct appeal of that conviction has been resolved. (Orabi vs. Attorney General). During a bail hearing held on April 10, 2017 Immigration Court did not base its decision on its finding that Oliveira have a pending direct appeal, but rather on its determination that a conviction is final for immigration purposes. See: transcripts;

20170821_170201.jpg

 [U]nder section 101(a) (48) (A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.§ 1101(a) (48) (A), the term “conviction” means “a formal judgment of guilt of the alien entered by a court, however in this particular case, a conviction does not attain a sufficient degree of finality for immigration purposes until direct appellate review of the conviction has been exhausted or waived. In emphasis, prior to the passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”), it was “well established that a conviction does not attain a sufficient degree of finality for immigration purposes until direct appellate review of the conviction has been exhausted or waived. (In-re-Ozkok) see also Planes, 686 F.3d at 1037 (Reinhardt, J., dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc) (citing “the longstanding rule that a conviction is not final for immigration purposes until the immigrant has exhausted or waived his direct appeal as of right”).  The IIRIRA defined the term “conviction,” for purposes of immigration removal as: a formal judgment of guilt of the alien entered by a court or, if adjudication of guilt has been withheld, where . . . (I) a judge or jury has found the alien guilty or the alien has entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or has admitted sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilt, and (II) the judge has ordered some form of punishment, penalty, or restraint on the alien’s liberty to be imposed. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a) (48) (A). Thus, the IIRIRA‟s amendment, which focuses solely on the term “conviction,” sought to broaden the scope of that term, but in so doing, it did not refer to, amend, change, or even mention doing away with the need for appeal to acquire finality of judgment. Understandably, 1196 Section 322 as recalled in the Conference Committee Report of the House of Representatives, addressed only adjudications that were “deferred” (a product of numerous state procedures) and instances in which the subject alien has violated a term or condition of probation. (104 Congress). The 1996  IIRIRA amendment was designed to correct a myriad of provisions for ameliorating the effects of a conviction” by giving effect to the “original finding or confession of guilt . . . to establish a conviction for purposes of the immigration laws. Moreover, the Court in Orabi did not agree that the IIRIRA eliminated a direct appeal from the finality rule in its definition of conviction.

While Congress “adopted almost verbatim” this definition of “conviction” in the IIRIRA, the statute explicitly eliminated the finality requirement for deferred adjudications. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a) (48) (A). That is, “for immigration purposes, a deferred adjudication [as distinct from a pending direct appeal] would be considered a conviction if three elements were met, the third of which consisted of a finality requirement.” Planes, 686 F.3d at 1040. Nothing in IIRIRA or its legislative history suggests that Congress intended the phrase “formal judgment of guilt” to be interpreted any differently from how it always had been interpreted prior to the enactment of the statute. . .. The elimination of the finality provision for deferred adjudications, along with the failure to make any change in the language regarding direct appeals as of right . . . demonstrates Congress‟ intent to retain the finality rule for the latter category of appeals. 686 F.3d at 1039-40 (Reinhardt, J., dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc); (Reinhardt, J., dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc) (emphasis added).

Given that Oliveira’s s appeal was one of right and that no deferred adjudication is at issue here, IIRIRA‟s elimination of the finality requirement in the case of deferred adjudications does not disturb the longstanding finality rule for direct appeals recognized in Ozkok. INS section 1228(c)(3)(A)(iii) (providing that before a district court may enter a judicial order of removal at the time of sentencing against an alien who is deportable, there must be a valid waiver of the right to appeal, the expiration of the period to file a petition for review, or the final dismissal of an appeal from such a conviction); The Court in precedent decision, Orabi v. Attorney General of the United States 738 F.3d 535 (2014) decided that when an immigration judge is deciding whether to deport someone based on a criminal conviction, deportation cannot occur unless and until the direct appeal of that conviction has been resolved. It is within our fundamental right to assert that due process guarantee of fundamental fairness derives from belief of uniform Federal Law and that Justice cannot be equal simply as result of Respondents Jurisdiction. Accordingly based on above contents of transcript, Immigration Judge decision should be reversed with instructions that the Government release Oliveira, particularly were public interest is implicated.

Credit: to Attorney Jamahl C. Kersey
Works Cited

No. Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 31 (a). n.d.
104 Congress. “H.R. Conf. Rep. No.828.” WL 563320 at 496-97. 1996.
In-re-Ozkok. No. 19 I&N. Dec.546,552 n.3. BIA. 1988.
Matter of Ulices MONTIEL. No. 26 I&N Dec. 555(BIA 2015). Board of Immigration Appeal. 17 04 2015.
Orabi vs. Attorney General. No. 738 F.3d 535. 3rd Circuit. January 2014.

Charlottesville – American History X 109: Racism Constructed on Supremacy, Control and White Privilege

There’s a cultural backdrop where Black Americans from the beginning of times lived under suspicion. The sentiment of this backdrop is racism that we observed from Our founding fathers, our legislation’s and judicial system. A narrative in a film American History X, directed by Tony Kaye illustrates the brutal realities of a mindset in American culture associated with a belief that one race of people is humanly superior to another race of people. It also replicates a nation that is founded on slavery and white privilege. Among these illustrations, it is our nation legislation’s that are predominantly race motivated by a culture that created laws like separate but equal, stand your ground and coupled in an industry that is obsessed and nearly erotic intensity with guns as the manifestation of manhood. African Americans were born with their backs against the wall where they can’t even dress with the same kind of freedom that their white peers do. Throughout American history requesting equal protection by African Americans and other minorities has been a journey of camels going through the hole of a needle.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/c/embed/7c67cb72-7fb1-11e7-b2b1-aeba62854dfa

 

Our Founding Fathers & Racism

Our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson with his leadership of a slave-holding society and the reality of his ownership of fifty slave plus his wife’s inheritance of one hundred and thirty-five slaves could never reconcile the ideals of freedom, expressed in the Declaration of Independence, as he writes “The former race had not the moral fiber, intelligence, and industry necessary for citizenship in the society of the latter…On the other hand, if the races should not destroy one another in civil war, the black must eventually interbreed with the white, destroying the intelligence and beauty of the superior race”. (McColley).  Equally guilty flip flop hypocrite, was Abraham Lincoln: On Race “I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and
political equality of the white and black races (applause); that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” 1858 Senate Campaign Speech (September) Quoted from Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States. New York: Harper Collins, 2003: p. 186  Credit to: San Diego City College Professor Robert Schultz.                                                                                   Jefferson and Lincoln statement reflect distinctions that they draws between whites and African Americans. In an Article by Heather Andrea Williams Compartmentalizing Slavery:  “How white Americans constructed a fictitious distinction between white and black emotions” the author writes’ It is fair to say that most white people had been so acculturated to view black people as different from them that they did not perceive the existence of slavery in America as a problem, and when exposed to slaves, they barely noticed the pain that they experienced.

  This distinction will later have physiological influence on whites to view black and other minorities people as different from them that they will not perceive the negative impact of slavery or racism in America as a problem. In contract to the American History X,  its Charllottesville Fire and Fury. Same mentality that we seen in a film scene were Derek his interview by a reporter after a murder of his father, when asked “how he fell …in his response he allude to blacks and other immigrants as parasites and attaches AIDS, welfare and immigration as problems fit to this communities. Derek goes further as he elaborates that his father was murdered putting a fire in f***g N***r neighborhood he should give a shit about and moreover a fucking drug dealer who probably collects a welfare check. Also in a different scene when Seth ask Danny; Who do you hate? his answer was “I hate everyone that isn’t white because their burden to the advancement of the white race”. This depiction of N***r neighborhood and blacks as criminal savages equates to the same racial distinction stigma held by  Jefferson and Lincoln. It is not a conceited to see this stigma of racism in our nation, consequently as Trump  fail to condemn terrorist act by James Alex Fields Jr., 20, of Ohio after his car plowed into crowds, claiming a life of 32 yrs old Heather Heyer and leaving 19 others injured. Prominent white supremacist David Duke was quoted that marching in Donald Trump’s name at the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, VA. “ represents a turning point for the people of this country,”. We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump,” the former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan said at the rally. Washington Post   

Our Legislation’s

From inception our laws were writing to support white nationalism as they focused on power and privilege, moreover these laws were protected by the constitution. Our  nation  had opportunity at different periodic time line in our history to correct the stigma of slavery and racism.  The Trial of Celia the slave girl bears witness to this core parables of legal racial stigmas that gravitated for centuries. In Celia case Missouri Slave Code” of 1804 will be made no distinction between slaves and other personal property. A court had an opportunity to protect Celia as a woman under Missouri statute of 1845, article 2, section 29 which declared it a crime “to take any woman unlawfully against her will and by force, menace or duress, compel her to be defiled” (Williamson 85). With the States battle over morality of slave ownership many understood that the court’s decision in this case held significant implications for the economic and social foundations of slavery. (McLaurin 67).

With a favorable decision for Celia that might hold a precedent, our nation had a chance to express and incorporate blacks equally into legal definitions. However, with ideal culture of supremacy to protect the privileged and maintain the status Que, the courts defined state’s argument by legal proclamations that separate rape of a slave as a trespass on the property by its owner. A culture that was displayed in Charllotteville, is a culture  that can be define by set of attitudes, values, goals, and practices rooted in  America laws. Driving by thoughts of ethnocentric, Southern states felt that the federal government had no right to interfere with their states ‘rights (slavery), (Worthington) and through Compromise Act of 1854 and 1877 a new generation brand of based politics culture- founded on racism was born in 1861 and culminated in the formation of the Southern Confederacy to which our President Trump cannot speak against.

Our Laws

After the civil war, to ridicule the African American Jim Crow laws were initiated and created more disparities of language in our Justice System. These laws help to maintain and create a racial class system in the American society. One group of people asserting power over another for the pride and vanity of a system of politics. In 1896 Supreme Court ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson legalized racism under the guise of a doctrine referred to as “separate but equal”. The Judge in this case argued that “the object of the [Fourteenth] Amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but in the nature of things it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political, equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either.” —Justice Henry Billings Brown. (Plessy v. Ferguson). Consequently, our judicial system like our founder fathers and laws that followed failed to rectify stigma of racism. Under “separate but equal” doctrine racial segregation was constitutional. In a film American History X, we see this indoctrination when Danny doing a report on civil rights arguing for Hitler as a civil rights leader. Moreover, Derek after heinous aggravated murder of two African Americans, his only sentenced to 3 years, accordingly an African American woman in a film thinks that Derek deserved the death penalty for what he did.

In 2017, in a case of John Rik Howard who admitted to kicking coat hanger into a rectum of 18 years old black disabled teammate with see the same believe that Danny held in a film, filth, destruction, chaos, death and greed. In Howard after the victim testimony despite evidence that white players and coaches called the victim “fried chicken, grape soda and Kool-Aid and taught him a KKK-glorifying song that called for the lynching of black people, the Presiding Judge agreed with Dietrich Attorney General and discounted testimony of racist remarks during assault. Times-News reports that during sentencing Judge Stoker said that “nobody” thinks those are racial slurs, even though the terms have a long history of being used as racist insults (Riggins).

In contracts to the film American X, Derek explain how police are granted certain amount of authority by society and white people, wherefore the cops used a textbook-solid tactics in a betting of Rodney King. Derek further allude that white people pull over because the trust the law. This couldn’t ring truer as we compare Idaho crime which shared similar characteristics with Chicago Four. Each crime involves a brutal assault against a special needs teenager, each involve the issue of race. Rick Howard was sentence to three years of probation and three-hundred hours of community service on a charge of felony injury to a child. The judge also granted a deferral judgment, meaning the conviction could eventually be dismissed upon completing probation successfully. Yet, the Chicago four charges are starkly different from Howard as they been charged with aggravated kidnapping, aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and criminal hate crimes which according to federal sentencing guidelines generally call for a sentence to be increased by about 40% when a crime is considered a hate.

All in all, as here African Americans are still faced with skeptic in suspicion and public policies and laws that that are unnecessary unduly and disproportionately stigmatizing blacks. This stigma was also felt by Obama when he was profile, asked in a vicious fashion about his transcript and for his birth certificate as if his not American. As much as the movie attempt to present how racism and hatred in all its form are distractive and leads to no resolution, we see Derek as a develop character hence blacks remain represented as mindless thugs and antagonist to Derick family. Such portrayal of black maleness that expresses a menace in America culture need to be decoupled in the collective imagination of America. Like Derek says it’s always good to end a paper with a quote. So, like Danny, I borrow from a flip flopper Abraham Lincoln that; “Through passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection”. Once we recognize that African Americans are the recipients of the outrageous indignity by being assume not to be intelligent and human, the stigma of racism can be solved. A dialogue that suggests both sides on equal footing can be enacted, one that point s toward a realized humanity for both the white and blacks (Freire). We other missed opportunity for our President to correct the History of America that has stain in our nation, Schools are the institutional mediums that should be used in an alternative to articulate expressions and educate ourselves as we hold each other accountable. As people learn in multiple ways, creation of alternative structures to admit multiple form of learning will be a start in a right direction.

Our thoughts and prayers goes to families that had been affected by this violence in Charllottesville.

Works Cited

Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder,, 1970.

McColley, Robert. “Gentlemen’s Opinion on Race and Freedom.” Slavery and Jeffersonnian Virginia. Urbana: University of Illinois, 1964.

McLaurin, Melto. Celia A Slave. Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 1991.

Plessy v. Ferguson. No. 163 US 537. Supreme Court. 18 May 1896.

Riggins, Alex. “Jurge says Dietrich crime not racially motivated.” Magic Valley (Feb 24, 2017).

Williamson, Jurge Hugh P. Negro Digest (1964): 84.

Worthington, Daryl. “NewHistorian.” 2016 Feb 2016. newhistorian.com/the-meeting-that-made-confederate-states-of-america/5901/. 07 August 2017.

 

RAISE Act: Exploitation in Ski Mask for American Skilled Workers.

Clss

We think America in terms of champion of democracy, liberty, equal treatment and opportunities.  For immigrants who don’t have European characteristics or that of a Caucasian, Trumps new RAISE Act policy is a wrap of old fish in a piece of paper that still going to stink. Immigration and globalization policies such as NAFTA are written to give United States employers a latitude to exploit immigrants.  This exploitation is well demonstrated in a 2000 film Bread and Butter directed by Ken Loach. As here RAISE Act bill eliminates the diversity visa program, which awards 50,000 visas every year based on a lottery. It cuts so-called “chain immigration,” in which immigrants can sponsor their family members to come to the United States. It caps the number of refugees admitted to the United States every year at 50,000. And it creates a point system in which visa applicants are scored based on “predictors of immigrant success,” like their ability to speak English and their education level. Meaning the bill not only its racist in its inception but a chameleon that will change as it slips through legislation’s to affect American Skilled workers to compete with foreign cheap labors on H-2A Visas.

Prime example consequently is President himself, accordingly to his winery, private clubs in Florida including Mar-A-Lago Resort reportedly asked to hire 29 workers through the federal H-2A visa program. The winery, located near Charlottesville, had originally intended to hire six foreign workers in December, but applied for 23 more this year. (Seipel) . According to New York Times Feb. 25, 2017 article by Charles V. titled “Donald Trump to Foreign Workers for Florida Club: You’re Hired  the President has also pursued more than 500 visas for foreign workers at Mar-a-Lago since 2010 most from Romania while per US Department of labor hundreds of American applicants failed to get the same jobs.

In an article by Roger Waldinger; Helots No More, a union organizer explain that the immigrants would work for lower wages and quoted as saying….” I think ‘cheap’ was less of a question as sort of ‘cheap’ in addition to “controllable”. The pattern of RAISE Act has well been demonstrated in a film Bread and Roses, the debates in storage room and at home shows that these janitors were not naïve but politically informed. However, the conflicting demands between family security and unionization was detected by fear of getting fired. A scene when unsympathetic Perez fired Teresa who she been working there for 17 yrs. just for been late, shows how fear and control is been asserted against these workers, moreover emphasis of this fear is well demonstrated by Rosa’s negative approach towards union. Administration policies that call for crack downs makes many migrant workers afraid to come forward even when they are cheated of wages. Scaling back on regulations by Trump administration means less OSHA and more cutting corners in industries that employed undocumented workers. Beware as the impressions of this exploitation are now aimed at American skilled workers through RAISE ACT.

With such policies as here, the US employers in 1% brackets have incentives to hire undocumented immigrants and H-2A visas who will be in the whips of their exploiters because there are more afraid to assent their workplace rights or file a complains that might bring them into attention of authorities. To emphasis, Antonio Vanegas, a Guatemala native successfully filed and recoup back pay from his employer, a pita shop in D.C. and his was later detained by immigration”. (Dave Jamieson). We can cite a case of Mi Pueblo Supermarket chain in Bay area, “this chain announced that it will use E-Verify after its employees tried to organize union”. (Eunice Cho). Moreover, immigrant exploitation is built into our federal welfare codes like 1996 Welfare Reform, which deny benefits to undocumented immigrants. The immigration law also denies accompanying spouse to migrate with on guest visas. These provisions kept immigrant’s away from public assistance and turn them into super-exploitable, low wages workforce regardless of wages and working conditions. “Flooding the low-wages markets increases the number of people competing for jobs”. (Hoffer) This makes it easier for employers to pay less and harder for the union to organize. David Bacon Article How US Policies Fueled Mexico’s Great Migration detail how this exploitation from inception are product of the interest of globalization by big Cooperation. Moreover, this article further shows how hog farmers had to follow their jobs that they lost in Veracruz when Smithfield flooded the Mexican markets with their products and disenfranchise 4,000 farmers with 120,000 lost in jobs. These migrations and exploitation cannot be said are voluntary choice by immigrants as US policies themselves created these conditions. In many industries, a rule of thumb is’ you follow the job, similarly Mexican farm, poultry, etc… workers had to follow sectors of employment. Subsequently, we cannot agree with the nuance view that the dynamics of this exploitation are matter of individual choice or walk like we have broom sticks stuck in our rear end accusing Latinos of taking our jobs when their presence here is due to our foreign policies such as NAFTA and RAISE ACT. Trump RAISE Act its written to follow a suite of H-1B to which US computer programmers and other tech workers complain that companies use workers from Asia to undercut Americans — going so far as to lay off U.S. workers and forcing them to train their foreign replacements who are hired for far less pay. (Stephen Dinan).

All in all, to fight this exploitation demand pricking the cracks in our foreign and immigration policies. Neither social condition’s nor social policy can change for the better unless presses from below. We need to take notice of 1912 textile strike in Lawrence, Massachusetts or Justice for Janitors Campaign in 1990 and understand the power that the workers possess, and start subverting the system that oppress us. As the President failing American People, as constituency were are fired, so what not do for the Boy Scott billionaire club? Raise Act mirrors policies that led to employment issues faced by over flooded low paying jobs industries. Beware, these  many ways to kill a cat than pour it with a cream or shook it with a butter. As here, if outsourcing is not enough, Raise Act is a chameleon that is ready to change color into a legalized discrimination against U.S. skilled workers.

References

Chalmers, Martin. “Thinking Man.” Stories of Mr Keuner. San Francisco: City Lights Books, n.d.

Dave Jamieson. “Donald Trump’s Crackdown on undocumented Immigrations Is Silencing Exploited Workers.” Huffpost (03/08/2017).

Eunice Cho. The Mercurynews.com. 23 04 2013. 12 07 2017.

Hoffer, Frank. “The Real Problems of Migration Work.” 29 04 2014. http://www.socialeurope.eu/2014/04/migration-and-work. 11 07 2017.

Paul Laverty. Bread and Roses. 2001.

Seipel, Brooke. “Trump winery seeks to hire more foreign workers.” The Hill (03/21/20147).

Stephen Dinan. “Trump administration warns companies on H-1B visas: Hire Americans over foreign guest workers.” The Washington Times (Monday, April 3, 2017).

 

Lesson’s from The Bush Era Reflects on What has to Come of Trump Administration Lies

Our inner voice of reason has been extinguished and intuitively remote controlled. In both dystopian and utopian societies once ideas are imprinted in our brains and opinions formed, we become like horses with blinkers. Before the invasion of Iraq without substantiated evidence Collin Powell presented a case that Iraq had weapon of mass distractions. As here, fabrication of propaganda was used by those who exert power by distorting the historical development leading to the war and alter records to stomp out any contrary view from the one formulated by the Bush Administration coupled with ensuring absolute control over public opinion. With the aftermath of September 11 our nation was still in grief and vulnerable. In this setting, the public is emasculated and the administration preyed on our emotion and stopped at nothing to justify the means. Without factual knowledge, we bought into distorted public opinion that Iraq has weapon of mass destruction and waged our patriotic support for the invasion. Subsequently even after Powell reffed to his United Nation presentation about Iraqi’s weapon of mass destruction “as a lowest point in his life”, we still ignore the correction but rather maintain a sentiment by putting lipstick on a pig that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons, and yet today most Bush supporters still claim that WMD were hiding or moved before the invasion.    

In a movie 1984, we observed people of Oceania seeing posters and television screens of “Big Brother” face announcing that they were at war with Eurasia and winning instead of Eastasia, as much as this information was misleading, people of Oceania they believed that to be true.  In comparisons, the Bush Administration at the time leading to war in Iraq they used mass media as effective tool to control people thoughts ensuring absolute control over public opinion. The belief was refined in a media by repeatedly uttering “Iraq,” “9/11” and “war on terror” in the same breath. (Paul R.Pillar). This propaganda was so successful that the public took on a rule of passive individuals and not able to think critically, merely following a believe that Saddam Hussein not only has alliance with al-Qaeda but also had been directly involved in the 9/11 attack.  According to Paul R. Pillar article The Iraq War and the Power of Propaganda the Bush campaign was “testimony to what a determined use of the opinion-molding capabilities of the government of the day, including the bully pulpit of the presidency”. (Paul R.Pillar)”  Wilson job in a movie 1984 was to manipulate documents and photographs to ensure that history shows Oceania “Big Brother” government in a positive light. As much as Wilson knew this information was misleading, he still bought into mindset that people of Oceania we well off and cared for by the government. In comparisons to Wilson is Condellesa Rice when she had foreknowledge a year before invasion of Iraq that anonymous government nuclear expert had seriously doubted that the tubes on satellite photographs were for nuclear weapons (Benen). To make a case for war in Iraq, Condellesa Rice went on to promote version of the story by choosing interpretation favorable to the Bush administrations. With Rice trademark line: “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud” without substantiated evidence the American public and United Nation took her statements as true. At this juncture, we were convinced and hooked by perceived truth.

 

Furthermore, with aftershock of September 11, the Bush Administration preyed on our emotion and stopped at nothing to justify the means going to war. In an article that we discussed in class Trump’s Lies vs. Your Brain the author writes “Lies are exhausting to fight, pernicious in their effects and perhaps worst of all, almost impossible to correct… .and that when we are overwhelmed with false information our brains are particularly ill-equipped to deal with lies particularly when they come not singly but in a constant stream.” (Konnikova). As WMD’s lies hit our brains in a constant stream, we bought into the Bush Administration authoritative claims and seen invasion of Iraq as a necessary response to avert emergence of terrorist threat in the Middle East. In an article; Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds the author writes about confirmation bias and emphasize that people have tendency to embrace information that supports their beliefs and reject information that contradicts them. (Kolbert). For instance, after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the belief that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the invasion was closely associated with support for President Bush (Kull). As here we tend to avoid assault on our identity and evaluate misperceptions of WMD’s by reinforcing such information with a directional bias. Yet, after Colin Powell correction, Republicans as they align themselves with the Bush Administration didn’t change their minds to conform with the truth. Accordingly, they ignored the correction but rather maintain a sentiment by putting lipstick on a pig that Iraq might had move its nuclear weapons. Thielmann, who headed the office of Strategic, Proliferation, and Military Affairs in the INR until September 2002 when ask about accuracy of the information his own intelligence bureau had developed and Powell awareness of  truth omission, he replied : I can only assume that he was doing it to loyally support the president of the United States and build the strongest possible case for arguing that there was no alternative to the use of military force. (Schwarz, Jonathan).

 

After all, armed with preserved truth of alleged alliance between Saddam Hussain and Al Qaeda, our nation further agreed with the Bush Administration that there is the need to step-up efforts to enhance the country’s intelligence-gathering capabilities subsequently modeling 1984 Oceania where citizens are never sure whether they are being watched. To Emphasis, in 2013 a $52.6 billion budget— was brought to light last year when the Washington Post obtained a “black budget” report from Snowden, detailing the bureaucratic and operational landscape of the 16 spy agencies and that the National Security Agency alone has annually scooped up as many as 56,000 emails and other communications by Americans with no connection to terrorism. (Godon). In contrast to 1994 movie, not only that we see “Big Brother” government oversight and web surveillance but also a formation of dystopia characteristics where we are surrounded by the Thought Police. With patriotism imprint to our brain, our understanding of the effect of information on issue opinions going to war were stained. Afterwards, the Bush Administration could effectively control the public opinion through uncertainty widespread symbols of Big Brother watchful face. Our inner voice of reason was extinguished and intuitively remote controlled. Henceforth We didn’t have to be physically in Abu Ghraib prison Baghdad or undergo Room 101 O’Brien “Big Brother” series of torturous interrogations against Winston, instead our grief of September 11 became potent weapon for the Bush Administration to oppressed our minds. Our backbones were broken as we orderly behaved obediently, in a process we let go our privacy and unquestionably echo with senses of patriotism henceforth afraid to hold contrary views. With lies developing into preserved truth and ideological preferences that aligned with the Bush Administration we became victims of circles of certainties within which reality is imprisoned. Consequently, once ideas are imprinted in our brains and opinions formed, like Wilson I had to agree we added 2+2 to equal 5, we swallowed our opinions and gave up political process of check and balances that could had demanded substantiated evidence and questioned lies used to push for war.

References

Benen, Steve. “The ’smoking gun’ wasn’t a mushroom cloud; it was a New York Times article.” The Carpet Bagger Report (October, 04 2014).

 

Godon, Philip H. “September 11 and American Foreign Policy.” Bookings Education Articles (2001, November 1).

 

Kolbert, Elizabeth. “Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds.” The New Yorker (2017, February 27).

 

Konnikova, Maria. “Trump’s Lies vs. Your Brain.” (2007 February).

 

Kull, Steven, Clay Ramsay, and Evan Lewis. “Misperceptions, the Media, and the Iraq War.” Political Science Quarterly 2003: 569-598.

 

Paul R.Pillar. “The Irag War and the the Power of Propaganda.” The National Intrest (September 14, 2011).

 

Schwarz, Jonathan. Huffing Post. com. 05 02 2013. 28 07 2017.