Darryl Cherness asked:


As election day draws near, it appears extremely likely that Barack Obama will be elected the next President of the United States. In addition, there is a general consensus, even among Republicans, that the Democrats will pickup seats in congress and may even obtain a “filibuster proof” majority in the Senate.

Currently, the Democrats have 49 seats in the Senate. In addition to those 49 seats, there are 2 independents, Joe Lieberman and Bernard Sanders, who caucus with the Democrats, effectively giving them a 51 seat majority. However, in order to get anything done in the Senate, 60 votes are needed to break Republican sponsored filibusters, the process of talking a bill to death and preventing action on urgently needed legislation.

There is general agreement, given the state of the economy, that 2008 will be a Democratic year. If Democrats pick up 5 seats in the Senate, the minimum they are projected to win, they will have 56 votes and will only need 4 Republican votes to break a filibuster. However, if the Democrats pick up 9 votes, difficult but not impossible, they will be able to shut off debate without crossover Republican votes.

What will it mean for the labor movement to have a filibuster proof, Democratic majority in the Senate?

First and foremost, it means that the Employee Free Choice Act will be enacted into law. The Democratic congress will vote for the Employee Free Choice Act and send that legislation to President Barack Obama who will sign it into law. Once the Employee Free Choice Act becomes law and management can no longer manipulate company based representation elections, it is a safe bet that there should be a significant increase in the number of union represented employees in the United States.

In addition to the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, a strong Democratic majority in congress can be counted on to periodically raise the federal minimum wage for the working poor. Hopefully, the days of having to wait nine years for small increases in the minimum wage should become a relic of the past.

Other areas where significant changes can be anticipated include revisions in NAFTA to make it more labor friendly, the elimination of tax incentives to encourage American businesses to relocate overseas, greater regulation of the home loan industry to prevent a reoccurrence of the “subprime” housing debacle, and tax breaks for middle income wage earners.

Another significant change will come in the area of job creation. Unlike George Bush, Senator Obama has made it clear that he intends to spend significant sums of money on promoting renewable energy such as wind, solar, and geothermal energy. The expenditure of these funds should create thousands of new jobs for working men and women.

Finally, it is my belief that it is absolutely inevitable that the Democratic congress and the new Democratic president will allocate significant resources for “public works” projects; i.e. repair of infrastructure such as roads, bridges, sewers, water treatment plants, etc. Rather than rely on the marketplace to generate wealth that will “trickle down” to the masses, Obama and the Democratic congress will take direct action to stimulate our economy and return our nation to prosperity by means of these job creating projects.

I believe that the next four years may very well be recorded by historians as labor’s new “golden age.”

Add A Comment

Logged in as Darryl Cherness. Logout »

J.J. Jackson asked:


Baseball may be America’s favorite pastime, but liberals have a favorite pastime of their own; stretching and warping the Constitution. They’ve been at it so long that it has become a sport which they excel at and one at which daily practice is strongly encouraged, if not already mandated, for any aspiring leftist.

Of course, they only succeed in this pursuit when discussing the Constitution amongst themselves. When they journey out into the real world they run into people like myself who have spent a lot of time discussing how they distort and down right lie about what is in the document that established our current government. When they try to engage in their favorite sport with normal Americans who are not willfully blind as to what the Constitution says and have a grasp of the English language beyond that of a first grader, they fail miserably with their spin which always leads to interesting, if not ignorant, slogans, rants and shout-fests.

Rep. John “Cut and Run” Murtha may just be finding out that he and his liberal brethren have stretched the Constitution as far as the Constitution is willing to stretch even with a healthy suspension of logic, history and basic English however. Last week, U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer ordered Rep. Murtha to give a sworn deposition in the case brought against him by Marine Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich relating to his unwise, ignorant and self-serving comments about the marines in Haditha participating in “cold-blooded murder and war crimes”. It is important to note that the case against these Marines has fallen apart.

Murtha’s defense, which was rejected so far by the judge, was that Murtha was immune from prosecution and even questioning about the incident because those comments were made while acting in his official role as a United States Representative. This is an apparent reference to Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution and his “interpretation” of what it says which might get by people unable to actually read the Constitution. But since I actually can, it isn’t going to fly with me and apparently not with the judge either.

For the record, Article I, Section 6 states in it’s entirety: “The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”

The long and the short of this section is that if you are an elected representative of the United States in either house of Congress you cannot be arrested while the Congress is in session, nor can you be arrested while traveling to or from said session. It also grants immunity from prosecution for any “speech” or “debate” that takes place on the floor by saying that they “shall not be questioned in any other Place”. Which would include a court of law. The exceptions to this are of course given as when the Representative or Senator commits a Felony, Treason or “Breach of the Peace”.

Notice there is no exemption for acting in your “official role” beyond these limited descriptions. It is important to note at this time that John “Our Troops Are Murderers” Murtha made the statements with regards to our soldiers and promulgated his charges at places other than during a “speech” or “debate” in the House such as at press conferences and on Chris Matthew’s television program.

So is he immune? Should he not be questioned? Should he just be free to continue to make these assertions? Not unless you really, really stretch the meaning of the Constitution and read between the lines by inserting language that isn’t there. Making such statements during Speeches and Debates in the House may be deplorable and anti-American in as much that they were made without evidence and to prejudice the case against the Marines to promote John Murtha’s delusions, but his despicable acts would be protected. However once he steps out of the Halls of Congress he has no more protection.

He is not being arrested either. This is a civil suit, not a criminal matter. So again, Article I, Section 6 does not apply. Now, if he refuses the order to comply he could be faced with an arrestable offense such as contempt of court. In such a case, he had better convince the House to remain in permanent session and always be in a constant state of travel to and from the Capitol when it is to avoid arrest.

You could also make a strong case that his words provided aid and comfort to the enemy since the Haditha incident was used by our enemies against America and freedom seeking Iraqis. And since Treason is a clear exemption to this clause as well as the first amendment I certainly would be looking over my shoulder if I were Mr. Murtha.

But it’s just the Constitution. Right? And since when do liberals actually care about what the Constitution actually says? Since when do Congressmen care that their power is not unlimited? So I am sure that John “Where’s My White Flag?” Murtha will continue to whine and twist and squirm in an attempt to avoid the truth.

All the while his fellow members of Congress can continue to their smoke screen to cover their own failures. They can run cover for him and promulgate abuses of their power by waging a dog and pony show over things Rush Limbaugh didn’t even say with regards to our troops who are serving bravely over in Iraq and slamming General Patraeus and calling our troops NAZIs, stupid and anything else that they can think of. All for what? In order to try and further convince moonbats who naively believe that the troops really do agree with their stance on the war? Despite the fact that they are continually signing up and even re-upping to serve in a time of war for a mission the liberals detest so much?

Perhaps we are finally getting to a point where the Constitution has been stretched as far as it can be by the left to support their ideas and goals. But even if it has, I doubt they will stop trying to stretch it even further. At which point it is only a matter of whether it will snap back like a rubber band and leave a massive welt or completely break.

God help us if it is that latter

hasan yahya asked:


The Zionist Lobby at work in the USA Congress!

Hasan Yahya, Ph.D

The power of the Zionist Lobby in directing American foreign as well as local policies are debated for a long time, the AIPAC denies its involvement, Today, a Washington Post editorial ‘Blame the Lobby’ (3/12) offered a ridiculous critique of the Charles W. Freeman debacle — which ended on Tuesday with Mr. Freeman withdrawing his nomination for chairman of the National Intelligence Council.  Mr. Freeman, formerly chairman of the Middle East Policy Council,  is known for his strong criticism of Israeli policies against Palestinians — and claims he withdrew his nomination mostly as a result of heavy pressure from supporters of Israeli policies. (the Jewish Lobby)     

The Washington Post editorial page took issue with Mr. Freeman’s claim of the role of an influential Israeli lobby and rejected Freeman’s argument that there is an ‘inability to discuss Middle East policies opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics.’    

WRITE! Team issued a report as an activist group  stands For Justice, Human Rights and International Law in Palestine. In the report  www.writetruth.org describing the “Lobby”and the unsuccessful nomination of former ambassador Charles W. Freeman Jr. As the chair for Obama administration’s National Intelligence Council.

Who was Mr. Freeman? He was a former envoy to Saudi Arabia and China, he suffered from an extreme case of clientitis on both accounts. In addition to chiding Beijing for not crushing the Tiananmen Square democracy protests sooner and offering sycophantic paeans to Saudi King “Abdullah the Great,” Mr. Freeman headed a Saudi-funded Middle East advocacy group in Washington and served on the advisory board of a state-owned Chinese oil company. It was only reasonable to ask — as numerous members of Congress had begun to do — whether such an actor was the right person to oversee the preparation of National Intelligence Estimates.

What was his fault? He describes “an inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for U.S. policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics.” the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) says that it took no formal position on Mr. Freeman’s appointment and undertook no lobbying against him. What’s striking about the charges by Mr. Freeman and like-minded conspiracy theorists is their blatant disregard for such established facts. Mr. Freeman darkly claims that “it is not permitted for anyone in the United States” to describe Israel’s nefarious influence.

Mr. Freeman withdrew from consideration for the job, however, that it became clear just how bad a selection Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair had made. Mr. Freeman issued a two-page screed on Tuesday in which he described himself as the victim of a shadowy and sinister “Lobby” whose “tactics plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency” and which is “intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government.” Yes, Mr. Freeman was referring to Americans who support Israel — and his statement was a grotesque libel.

As proof of the vigorous US debate with Israel, the editorial cites examples such as US support for actual Palestinian elections, not providing Israel with weapons to provoke war with Iran, and the idea that the US can negotiate directly with Iran.  The Post editorial fails to acknowledge that the US raced weapons to Israel during the bombing of Gaza and Lebanon, signed a $30 billion agreement to promote Israel’s regional defense — and played a central role in disrupting the previous Palestinian unity government.  More recently, the Obama administration is seeking to tie Gaza aid to a recognition of Israel without reciprocal recognition of a Palestinian state.   

The Post also makes the incredulous statement that two Israeli governments have been forced from power because of disagreement with the US over Israeli settlement policy — even though the settlements doubled during the Clinton administration and continued unimpeded during the Bush II administration. 

For readers anywhere in this world support the cause For Justice, Human Rights and International Law in Palestine. WRITE! Team and the writer urge all to send this letter to let  the Washington Post editorial page  letters@washpost.com know that while one may disagree with Mr. Freeman’s assessment, its own tirade on this matter, sorely lacking in factual analysis certainly does not pass the credibility test. And the Zionist Lobby role in the unsuccessful nomination of Mr Freeman should be known for Americans. We have the right to ask: For how long American government remains far from justice when it comes to Muslim, Arab and Palestinian human rights? (759 words) 

Carol Forsloff asked:


 

Whatever people say about Joe Biden’s gaffes, no one would accuse him of not being intelligent and articulate. We all know he can be wordy, perhaps, but not one who doesn’t have a lot of governmental experience that gives him a broad perspective on the national level.

Biden was laid back for awhile. We didn’t see him much on the national news except for the debate. But given the outspoken nature, and the type of speech of his Vice Presidential rival, Joe Biden has picked up pace and is beginning to take on the opposition with the type of passion and flair for which he has become known to many.

At a time of great controversy, Joe Biden may well be the one who indeed helps us make the final decision. He hasn’t gotten into the mud with the others and has a record that may upset some conservatives, but even those people know Biden to be someone who knows his material. If these same people were to be asked to choose between Biden’s knowledge on the economy and that of Sarah Palin, most of them would choose Biden as well.

We should focus attention on Joe Biden these days for lots of reasons. First of all, he has the background that we just discussed. Second both John McCain and Barack Obama have more than the ordinary amount of physical risks. McCain has had cancer four times; Barack Obama, as a black man, has had his life threatened publicly with one plan intercepted before the Convention. So the position of Vice President is more critical now than almost any other time except during the wars fought by the United States.

Here’s a snapshot of Joe Biden’s experience. Biden was born in  Scranton, Pennsylvania where he lived before becoming involved in politics. He received his law degree in 1969, then became a city councilman the following year. He became an attorney in 1969 and was elected to serve on the city council in 1970. Biden became one of the youngest senators ever elected when he first became Senator in 1972 and has been re-elected by comfortable margins to serve as one of those with a term that has been one of the longest terms in the Senate of anyone presently in Congress.

Biden presently chairs the Foreign Relations Committee. This certainly gives him the foreign relations experience the country needs now. He has helped resolve conflicts around the world, especially the war with Bosnia. Although Biden voted in favor of the original Iraq War Resolution in the Congress, when he recognized that he, along with other Senators had the wrong facts presented to them, proposed resolutions in order that the US take a different course in the region of the Middle East.

Joe Biden’s knowledge extends beyond foreign relations experience. He has served as chairman of the  Senate Judiciary Committee where he has dealt with drug problems, crime, and violence against women issues.  He also served as chair of the Judiciary Committee during the contentious hearings of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas.  Biden chaired the Judiciary Committee during the contentious hearings. That allows him to manage controversy and get people talking about important issues. He knows qualifications, how to understand the needs of people in social situations and has a record of advocacy.

Most of the talk on the Internet seems to come from those who question whether Joe Biden is either liberal or conservative enough and whether his gaffes get him into trouble. That might be a good thing, given the extremes of left and right. Perhaps that’s because Biden may not the glamorous creature that we cling to these days, but his steady hand on the till that McCain referred to in the town hall meeting with Barack Obama might be what we need in a crisis. These are the days when potential crisis can occur. So he deserves our serious examination.

Cathy D. Christiansen asked:


Jerry Erickson

Published: July 1, 2009

The U.S. immigration system is “broken and needs fixing.” So confirms President Obama after meeting with Republican and Democratic leaders last Thursday. Although there is no consensus yet in terms of what a restructuring of the immigration system will include, the process has now begun in earnest to adopt a comprehensive plan. President Obama acknowledged that the broken immigration system is “one of the most critical issues” that our nation faces.

In his remarks following the meeting, President Obama said: “My administration is fully behind an effort to achieve comprehensive immigration reform. I have asked my Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Secretary Janet Napolitano, to lead up a group that is going to be working with a leadership group from both the House and the Senate to start systematically working through these issues . . .”

One of the key issues that must be dealt with early in the immigration discussion concerns border security. At this point the American public is just not persuaded that the borders are secure. Until the borders are secured, it is unclear whether there are enough votes for the passage of comprehensive immigration reform.  Senator Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) said “I think the votes in the Senate are a little dicey at the moment. I don’t think it can pass today.” Developing an intelligent plan that clearly articulates the steps to make the border more secure will go a long way in getting the necessary votes.

President Obama is clearly aware that the road ahead will be bumpy. In his statement he said: “We all know that comprehensive immigration reform is difficult. We know it’s a sensitive and politically volatile issue. One of the things that was said around the table is the American people still don’t have enough confidence that Congress and any administration is going to get serious about border security, and so they’re concerned that any immigration reform simply will be a short-term legalization of undocumented workers with no long-term solution with respect to future flows of illegal immigration.”

It seems that the president has hit the nail on the head. In order to come up with a meaningful immigration policy that will serve our nation long-term, the government must come up with a solution to secure the borders. Assuming this can be accomplished, then the many issues associated with immigration reform can be debated.

On the eve of last week’s bipartisan meeting with the president, Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who chairs the Senate’s main immigration subcommittee, offered that one of the ideas being considered is a requirement that all U.S. workers verify their identity through fingerprint or eye scan. As reported by The Washington Post, Schumer said that a national system to verify work authorization is necessary because Congress hasn’t cracked down hard enough on unscrupulous employers and illegal immigrants with fake documents. Schumer shows he gets the key issue when he says: “The American people will never accept immigration reform unless they truly believe their government is committed to ending future illegal immigration.” In a nutshell, that is the issue. Control the borders, and then fix the broken system.

There are approximately 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. Schumer expects legislation to be enacted that will secure the nation’s borders and require those here illegally to register with the government and “submit to a rigorous process to convert to legal status,” or face immediate deportation.

Done right, there is the opportunity to achieve some real long-lasting benefits here, not the least of which is the securing of our borders, having millions of non-tax paying people come out of the shadows and onto the tax rolls and developing a process to ensure that the work force is legitimate.

President Obama has conceded that “It’s going to require some heavy lifting; it’s going to require a victory of practicality and common sense and good policymaking over short term politics.” Here’s to the effort; let’s hope that all involved have the clarity and foresight to address the obvious first — securing our borders, and then the muscle to see through the remaining challenges.

 

The above information is provided for informational purposes only.  The information should not be construed as legal advice and does not constitute an engagement of the Szabo, Zelnick & Erickson, P.C. law firm or establish an attorney-client relationship with any of its attorneys.  An attorney-client relationship with our firm is only created by signing a written agreement with our firm.

 

 

 

Aaron Wilmont asked:

Congress will begin debating if a Consumer Financial Protection Agency should be created, that will help to make credit agreements transparent. Banks complain this would obstruct credit.

All in all, consumer credit counseling services are in demand for many people, because of the lack of understanding of the contracts involved. There have been attempts made to protect borrowers from the confusing agreements with some transparency and Congress is being urged by the present administration to make lenders agreements even more transparent.

On the whole, this is basically an attempt to make it less of a risk for people that are taking loans to understand clearly what is entailed in the loan agreement to the dismay of some lenders.

Having stated this, however, it should be duly noted that this is really not so very different from the Georgia predatory lending laws that were enacted from the fall of 2002 to the spring of 2003 that required investors that purchased secondary mortgages to hold liability for wrongdoing in the original loan.

The predatory lending law was later repealed as it was felt it might prevent credit for the borrower that needed it most. This is what banks are complaining of with the transparency from lenders that Congress is currently debating, the fear of choking off credit from those borrowers that need it.

Regarding the ethics of many of the credit counseling firms as well as the many free and non-profit Debt consolidation and debt help organizations, a good general rule of thumb to use regarding them is that when debt settlement appears too good to be true, in most cases it probably is, and the only way to be sure according to financial experts is seek the advice of a credit counselor prior to agreeing to pay an amount decided upon by a credit card company in general. This is your due diligence as a consumer, as well as good common sense overall.

In many cases with some adjustments to the person’s budget they are able to pay off the debt and when using a licensed credit counseling company it is possible for them to help make arrangement to have the payments lowered to an affordable price. Choosing this type of option rather than agreeing to a payment is the fact that it will not affect the person’s credit rating in the same manner.

There are actually many different places where it is quite possible to find reliable credit counseling companies like the website for the National Foundation for Credit Counseling or the Association of Independent Consumer Credit Counseling Agencies. Just go to your favorite search engine and type those names in and their website url’s will appear along with other related resources. Just remember that when dealing with a non-profit credit counseling company a fee of approximately $20 per month can be expected and in cases where it is not possible to pay one of these companies the fee can be waived until the financial debt issues have been satisfied.

J.J. Jackson asked:

Liberals are gushing over, and President Obama is praising endlessly, Sonia Sotomayor. Repeatedly we are being barraged by the left with the personal story of one who could possibly be the first Hispanic woman on the Supreme Court. While such tales are always compelling, what is rather annoying is how any time you want to move beyond that superficial and sugary coating to examine her record the left quickly jumps right back to it. In an attempt to keep your attention away from a debate about who should be sitting on the highest court in the nation, people who do not want to examine anything of substance shout, “Look! Up In the sky!” Then they regale you with tales about how Sotomayor can stop a speeding bullet and leap tall buildings in a single bound.

President Obama claims that Sotomayor is smart. He even claims that she believes in the Constitution. But when one stops following his pointed finger into the sky where his nominee supposedly soars, we see that there is a plethora of evidence on the ground that contradicts the rhetoric. And for Sotomayor, that evidence littering the ground is damning and destroys any credibility those that call her smart and a defender of the Constitution may have.

There is one case in particular that sums this point up so succinctly and makes it impossible to ignore that Sonia Sotomayor is neither smart nor a believer in our Constitution. That case is Maloney vs. Cuomo in which Sotomayor signed onto an opinion that flies so far in the face of the facts that she should not be elected bubblegum sidewalk scraper much less nominated to the Supreme Court.

The case involved one James Maloney who was trying to assert his second amendment right to keep and bear arms but had been arrested for carrying a pair of nunchucks. The opinion with which Sotomayor agreed stated that the arrest was warranted because, now get this, the second amendment, “is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the national government and not upon that of the state.”

Sotomayor did in this decision what liberals always do. She looked for something that she might be able to use to support her opinion and disregarded anything that actually contradicted it. Things like, oh I don’t know, say the 14th Amendment? You know that one don’t you? It says that, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” which makes it clear that the states must, absolutely must, protect the same rights as the Constitution itself protects.

Sotomayor’s opinion does lead to some interesting potential conundrums however. If the second amendment only applies to the federal government as she suggests then what about other rights retained by the people and specifically called out in our Constitution?

Can the states now infringe upon my freedom of religion? How about my freedom of speech? What about my right to petition from redress? After all, unlike the second amendment, the first amendment specifically states that it is Congress that shall make no law regarding such.

Can the states now decide that they do not need a warrant to search my home even though the Constitution forbids such actions? Or can the states now decide to deprive me of a right to due process and a right to jury trial? What about these Constitutional protections written in a similar manner to the second amendment that Sonia Sotomayor believes stops at federal authority only?

Can I now be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment at the whim of the state? Can blacks now be placed back in shackles and shipped off to the plantations again simply for being black? After all, if what is written in the federal constitution only applies to the federal government what is to stop the states from doing any of these things?

Is my right to assemble in jeopardy now because my state legislature might decide that such is not a good idea? Can the state now quarter soldiers in my home without my permission? Can my papers and effects now be seized on the whim of the state alone?

Where does the lunacy of this opinion which Sotomayor agreed with end?

Of course the 14th Amendment renders all of these questions of mine moot. But Sotomayor either never read far enough into the Constitution to find it or is so wedded to ideology that she chose to ignore it. Can we afford to place someone who is obviously a wifty illiterate or dangerous ignoramus at best and a treacherous anti-American radical at worst to a court where such opinions of hers would become the norm and perhaps even the law? Will Americans stop looking to the sky for a super woman that does not exist long enough to ask serious questions and soundly reject her?

Gurumurthy Kalyanaram asked:

The India-US Nuclear agreement (123) debate is furious in India. The coaltion government led by Congress party, and the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh are finally determined to have a go at the nuclear agreement. The communist parties with about 60 parliamentary (Lok Sabha) members are about to withdraw their support to the coalition government but the Samajwadi Party led by Mulayam Singh with about 39 parliament members are all set to support the government.

There is ferocious finger-pointing and heated rhetoric in the Indian debate. Without considering the substance or merit of the agreement, I rate as follows the winners and losers of this debate. I rate on a 1-10 scale, 1 being a perfect loser, 10 being a perfect winner and 5 being no-loss and no-gain.

(1) Congress Party: I give a 5. By pushing aggressively for the consummation of the 123 agreement, the Congress party reinforces its standing as a national party which protects and furthers the country’s interests above its own party interests. But the near-collapse of the political alignments for (governance) now and for the forthcoming elections, and the great uncertainty about the final approval of the agreement by the U.S. Congress in good time, and the eventuality that even if the agreement is consummated the United States invokes the Hyde Amendment are too many potential negatives that it make it a 5 for the Congress party.

(2) Mrs. Sonia Gandhi: I give a 5 for the same reasons. The political downsides are too many. But I do laud her ability to put the national interest above the partisan interest.

(3) Prime Minister Manmohan Singh: I give him an 8. Even if the Congress party and its allies were to form the next government after the parliamentary elections, it is most likely that Manmohan Singh will be nominated/elected to be the Prime Minister again. Manmohan Singh is, most likely, concluding his serendipitous political life — first as much hailed reformist Finance Minister and now as the Prime Minister. Given these facts, how can there be a more lasting and memorable legacy than the consummation of this extra-ordinary nuclear agreement?

(4) The political allies of the Congress party: I give them a 5. What are their choices — be with the Congress party or with the other political party — BJP.

(5) Bharatiya Janata Party: I give an 8. The Congress party and its political allies won the 2004 parliamentary elections simply because their collection of parties was larger than that of the Bharatiya Janata Party and its allies. Take, for example, the state of Maharashtra. The coalition Congress party, the National Congress party led by Sharad Pawar and the Communist parties clearly outdid the combine of Bharatiya Janata Party and Shiv Sena. And so went the story in state after state.

But now the opposition to BJP and its political friends is now fragmented — most states are likely to witness a triangular contest with Congress and its friends as one contestant, the BJP and its friends as the other contestant, and the Communist parties and other small regional groupings as the third contestant. In such a fragmented contest, BJP is likely to benefit very substantially.

Add to this, the opportunity to woo the Muslim voters who are deeply suspicious of the United States — not unlike the Muslims all over the world after 9/11.

(6) Lal Krishna Advani: I give him a 9. For a man who is 80 years old and who is not seen as a statesman, and who was almost cast away by his own party after his favorable remarks about Jinnah in 2005, there is a remarkable turn-around in fortunes.

Jerry Erickson asked:


Jerry Erickson

Published: July 22, 2009

As the Obama administration begins to tackle the issues associated with immigration reform, it is undoubtedly searching for the keys to fixing our broken and neglected immigration system. The issues that we face are not all new and previous administrations have recognized the seriousness of finding and implementing a proper strategy. When President Clinton appointed Barbara Jordan to chair the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform on Dec. 14, 1993, he understood that immigration was an issue that could no longer be ignored. In appointing Ms. Jordan, he said:

“I have chosen Barbara Jordan — one of the most well-respected people in America — to chair this commission because immigration is one of the most important and complex issues facing our country today.“

Ms. Jordan led what is referred to as the “Jordan Commission“… due in large part because of her efforts and her leadership on the commission. She passed away in January 1996 and the commission’s report, largely completed at the time of her death, was issued on Sept. 30, 1997. It’s important to note that this was a bipartisan group of nine members — four members chosen by the leadership from both the House and Senate, and the chairman being chosen by the president. Despite the differences in political loyalties among the group, the commission was unanimous in almost all of its policy

recommendations, with the exception of an 8-1 vote in favor of reducing the annual number associated with legal immigration.

Ms. Jordan also understood that the issues were tough. In testifying before Congress, she said:

“Our work has not been easy. Distinguishing fact from fiction has been almost impossible, because of what has become a highly emotional debate on immigration. We have heard contradictory testimony, shaky statistics, and a great deal of honest confusion regarding the impacts of immigration. Nevertheless, we have tried throughout to engage in what we believe is a systematic, nonpartisan effort to reach conclusions drawn from analysis of the best data available. The recommendations that I present today have been adopted unanimously.“

One of the commission’s most forward-thinking recommendations was to divide the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) into two separate divisions: one for enforcement and border patrol, and the other for immigration services, such as processing

 

visas and permanent resident applications. That idea, along with many others, were not acted upon initially and, in fact, little occurred after the report was issued in 1997. Again, having great ideas is only half the battle when it comes to immigration reform.

The recommendation to divide INS was finally embraced after the events of Sept. 11, 2001 and was ultimately implemented in March 2003. The strategy provided that all immigration functions would be in the hands of the newly formed Department of Homeland Security, but now the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) would be solely responsible for the adjudication of visa petitions, naturalization, asylum and refugee applications while the Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) would be responsible for border patrol,

detention, removal, intelligence, investigations and inspections.

The U.S. immigration policies are exceptionally complex and have long been considered too hot to handle. As a result, politicians have sidestepped the larger issues and have been unwilling to step up and be heard on the issues for fear of risking re-election.

Getting the support from the public will require that the immigration proposals makes sense and that there will be significant improvement in handling an issue that has long vexed political leaders. We will need our leaders to act in a nonpartisan way as they search for a solution and agree on a plan to implement same.

Our country is at its best when government functions in a nonpartisan fashion, truly seeking to do good for the country as a whole. There is no doubt in my mind that solutions to the immigration crisis can be developed. The bigger challenge will be finding politicians committed and willing to speak up and advocate implementation of the solutions.

Jerry Erickson is the managing partner of Szabo, Zelnick, & Erickson, P.C. (www.szelaw.com), in Woodbridge, Virginia.  He is the senior attorney in the firm’s Business Immigration Section. He has practiced law for over 20 years and represents clients in numerous complex areas of immigration law. He can be reached at jerickson@szelaw.com or (703) 494-7171.

 

The above information is provided for informational purposes only.  The information should not be construed as legal advice and does not constitute an engagement of the Szabo, Zelnick & Erickson, P.C. law firm or establish an attorney-client relationship with any of its attorneys.  An attorney-client relationship with our firm is only created by signing a written agreement with our firm.