Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Monday, July 30, 2007
Corruption rankings hold some good news - 07/29/2007 - MiamiHerald.com (Venezuela #2!)
My Comments:
Although many do not believe these indicators and/or variables used by the World Bank, for me what's most important is how do we (Venezuelans) compare vs. the rest of L.America and the trend, worsening for the past 8 years. The obvious difference with Haiti is that Venezuela exports 2.5-3 millions of barrels per day at almost $80/b -- there is more money than ever, unfortunately to steal!!
------------------
Aunque muchos no creen en estos indicadores y varibles utilizadas por el Banco Mundial, creo que los mas importante es como nos comparamos vs. el resto de L. America y la tendencia, como ha empeorado en los ultimos 8 anos. The diferencia obvia con Haiti es que Venezuela exporta entre 2,5-3 millones de barriles diarios a casi $80/b -- hay mas dinero que nunca para desafortunadamente robar!!!!
Corruption rankings hold some good news - 07/29/2007 - MiamiHerald.com
Although many do not believe these indicators and/or variables used by the World Bank, for me what's most important is how do we (Venezuelans) compare vs. the rest of L.America and the trend, worsening for the past 8 years. The obvious difference with Haiti is that Venezuela exports 2.5-3 millions of barrels per day at almost $80/b -- there is more money than ever, unfortunately to steal!!
------------------
Aunque muchos no creen en estos indicadores y varibles utilizadas por el Banco Mundial, creo que los mas importante es como nos comparamos vs. el resto de L. America y la tendencia, como ha empeorado en los ultimos 8 anos. The diferencia obvia con Haiti es que Venezuela exporta entre 2,5-3 millones de barriles diarios a casi $80/b -- hay mas dinero que nunca para desafortunadamente robar!!!!
Corruption rankings hold some good news - 07/29/2007 - MiamiHerald.com
Friday, July 27, 2007
Economist Intelligence Unit - Venezuela Forecast
Economic data
Jul 3rd 2007
From the Economist Intelligence Unit
Source: Country Data
The Economist Intelligence Unit’s forecast is based on the assumption that the president, Hugo Chavez, will stay in power throughout the outlook period. His victory in the presidential poll in December 2006 extends his term of office to 2012, and there is little meaningful organised opposition. The political environment will remain polarised, particularly in the context of government policy radicalisation, which also has the potential to intensify conflicts within the broad government alliance. In the medium term, this could reduce support for the president and further erode political stability and governability.
The radical economic policy agenda of the government, which is centred on expanding the state-led development model, will exacerbate deficiencies in the business environment, and Venezuela will remain a challenging place in which to invest. Investment in most sectors is unlikely to thrive against a background of distortionary macroeconomic policy (with price and exchange controls expected to be retained), rising threats to property and contract rights, unpredictable state intervention, and a growing bureaucratic burden. Even in the dominant energy sector, foreign investment will be below potential, as a result of legal uncertainty and an emerging emphasis on links with investors from“friendly”countries. The burden of oil investment will fall increasingly on the public sector, but here there are questions over efficiency and technical capacity.
A steady decline in oil prices from record highs is projected in the medium term, but the rise in essentially permanent spending commitments makes a fiscal retrenchment unlikely. The result will be a widening fiscal deficit and a rise in the public debt stock (although this is from modest levels by regional standards). The long-standing structural problems of oil dependency (which requires a comprehensive reform of the non-oil tax system) and an inefficient and costly state (which would require large-scale redundancies to reverse) are unlikely to be tackled within the forecast period.
Venezuela is at the peak of another oil-fuelled boom. In the past, oil-fuelled booms have been followed by spectacular crashes in the wake of oil price falls. However, with world oil prices expected to remain high (by historical comparison) for a prolonged period, the economic cycle is likely to prove to be more drawn out in this case. Our assumption of a gradual decline in oil prices, combined with an unfavourable climate for private enterprise, implies a gradual deceleration of investment growth and of the fiscal stimulus. Growth will slow to around 3% over the medium term as a result. Our oil price forecast also implies yearly step devaluations of the bolivar from 2008.
Key indicators 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Real GDP growth (%) 10.3 5.2 2.8 3.1 2.9 2.8
Consumer price inflation (av; %) 13.7 18.2 22.9 15.6 14.0 13.6
Budget balance (% of GDP) 0.0 -4.1 -4.4 -2.1 -1.6 -0.8
Current-account balance (% of GDP) 14.9 7.6 5.0 2.5 0.6 -1.5
Commercial banks' prime rate (%; av) 15.5 15.5 15.7 16.0 17.0 17.0
Exchange rate Bs:US$ (av) 2,147.0 2,147.0 2,700.0 3,204.2 3,662.5 4,158.3
Exchange rate Bs:€(av) 2,695.9 2,920.2 3,732.8 4,213.5 4,678.8 5,239.5
Thursday, July 26, 2007
“Lo Que Ustedes No Leen Sobre Venezuela (en EEUU)”
(Publicado originalmente en Inglés el 20 de Julio del 2007 – traducción literal)
Acabo de llegar de mi viaje de 2 semanas en Venezuela. Estuve en Margarita hace 2 años pero no había ido a Caracas ni al interior del país en casi 5 años.
Como un crítico feroz de Chávez, tengo que admitir que hay grandes mejoras de las que no se leen especialmente en EEUU. Yo he vivido casi 20 años en Venezuela y casi 20 años en EEUU, principalmente en Miami. Yo trato de leer todos los principales diarios y escuchar casi todos los noticieros que pueda sobre Venezuela y Chávez. Yo estoy de acuerdo con casi el 100% de lo que se escribe sobre Chávez, y en particular de periodistas que respeto tanto en Venezuela como en EEUU. Sin embargo solo se escribe o se escucha un punto de vista. (En EEUU) no se escucha el otro punto de vista.
Como le comente a mis amigos y familiares, según mi humilde punto de vista, hay 3 principales problemas con Chávez que debemos colocar en el tope de la lista (de muchos más):
- Las relaciones internacionales: nuestros amigos más cercanos son Cuba e Irán y tenemos relaciones horribles no solo con EEUU pero también muy frías (siendo sutil) con Europa, México, Chile, y pronto Brasil. Mi principal preocupación es Irán;
- La división del país en 2 grupos: Chavista y "Escuálidos y Golpistas". Esto tiene mayores consecuencias por todo el odio creado por Chávez especialmente entre las familias. Si firmaste el referéndum contra Chávez no puedes participar en programas del Gobierno (que representa la mayoría de la economía);
- La propiedad privada: eliminara Chávez la propiedad privada de todos – como en Cuba? Para la mayoría, como yo, creemos que no es posible, pero en Cuba quizás pensaron lo mismo.
Sin embargo vamos hablar un poco sobre lo que ustedes no leen. Cuando aterrice a Maiquetía (el principal aeropuerto internacional cerca de Caracas) está completamente renovado. Uno se siente como si estuviera en un aeropuerto moderno en EEUU. Yo he estado en más de 80 países y este aeropuerto se puede considerar entre unos de los de nivel más alto. Además está en plena construcción nuevos estacionamientos, hoteles, etc. El proceso de Inmigración fue eficiente con toda la tecnología más moderna de sistemas. Lo que no me agrado del todo fue ver un 747 de la aerolínea Iraní al lado de nuestro avión de American Airlines – un buen ejemplo de los contrastes entre las cosas buenas y las malas.
El propósito principal de mi viaje era ir a los juegos de la Copa América y visitar algunos familiares y amigos que no había visto en muchos años. De las 2 semanas pase el 80% manejando por casi toda Venezuela para ir a los juegos de futbol. Las mejoras de infraestructura son impresionantes: autopistas, puentes nuevos (el viaducto de La Guaira a Caracas se puede comparar con los de los Alpes). Yo no podía recocer los pueblos que no había visitado en 10 años por todas las nuevas vías, autopistas, y edificios. Lo que más me impresiono fue la construcción de los 9 estadios de futbol (3 completamente nuevos y 6 completamente renovados). Si ustedes vieron algunos juegos por la televisión quizás pensaban que estaban viendo un juego del Mundial de Alemania 2006. Tengo que también decir que entrar y salir de los estadios de Maturín y Barquisimeto fue una pesadilla. Los asientos no estaban enumerados y estaban sobrevendidos, con poca o ninguna seguridad y los baños y pasillos sin terminar. Pero si vemos el balance era impresionante positivo. En Miami llevamos 10 años discutiendo para construir un estadio de beisbol y no hay manera que se pueda construir con todo y eso que el equipo (de los Marlins) ha ganado 2 Series Mundiales en 10 años.
También quede impresionado con Caracas. Cuando uno maneja por la Francisco de Miranda y la Libertador, las 2 principales avenidas de Caracas, se ven muchos edificios nuevos y modernos. Hay que darle crédito a los Alcaldes de Chacao, Baruta y el Hatillo (los pocos que quedan de la Oposición). Conozco personalmente a los de Chacao y el Hatillo, y no me sorprende en absoluto su buena labor. Chacao es un municipio del 1er mundo en un país del 3er mundo (esta labor comenzó con Irene Sáez – la ex-Miss Universo que se lanzo contra Chávez en las primeras elecciones).
Yo necesitaba una cedula nueva (Bolivariana). Chequeamos primero en el Internet para ver donde estaba el operativo ese día. Cuando llegamos a Chacao le preguntamos a un policía motorizado de Chacao. Primero averiguo por radio el lugar exacto y después nos dijo que lo siguiéramos al sitio correcto. Por cierto, me saque la cedula relativamente rápido y no tuve que sobornar a nadie (como era antes). Los empleados del Gobierno eran todos muy profesionales y eficientes. Por cierto, en el aeropuerto, yo le mostré al oficial de Emigración mi pasaporte Venezolano y el Americano y también me trataron muy bien. Yo tenía dudas de mostrar mi pasaporte Americano.
También fui a Cūa – un pueblo suburbano a las afueras de Caracas – por 2 días. Llegando a Cua, de la autopista se ve una estación que parecía espacial. Esta es la nueva estación de tren que llega a Caracas en 20 minutos. No me monte en el tren pero nunca he visto una estación como esta en EEUU, Japón o Francia. Desafortunadamente se suponía que iban a poner el tren más rápido del mundo pero por la corrupción pusieron uno simplemente rápido.
Finalmente, me contaron que la gente pobre no solo puede obtener medicinas y atención medica gratis, créditos preferenciales para un carro, pero además una casa gratis!!!! Aunque solo se han construido como 10.000, esto es un programa increíble. Tengo que investigar más como funciona este programa. Mi primo renuncio la Coca Cola y ahora tiene una compañía de construcción con un socio de estas viviendas .
También me entere que Chavez perdono los créditos de Fundayacucho, un programa de becas y créditos (a intereses muy bajos y provisiones que perdonaban cierta porción según el desempeño del estudiante) para estudiantes Venezolanos en el exterior. Yo fui uno de los afortunados de beneficiarme con Fundayacucho para realizar mi MBA en Harvard Business School. (En aquel entonces) Fundayacucho me prestó $70.000 para la matricula, vivienda y libros, y me perdonaron $35.000 en base a desempeño. Tuve que pagarlo inmediatamente para poder permanecer en EEUU. La mayoría de mis amigos y familiares que fueron a las Universidades Ivy League (las mejores universidades de EEUU) estaban con Fundayacucho pero casi todos se quedaron en EEUU. Me acuerdo que ninguno de mis amigos en Harvard de otros países tenía un programa como este.
Mis familiares y amigos de la Oposición me dicen "si, es todo verdad, pero lo malo hace contrapeso sobre lo bueno" Yo estoy de acuerdo con ellos pero nadie habla de lo "bueno". La mayoría de la población Venezolana está afectada directamente por lo "bueno" y no mucho por lo "malo". También quiero mencionar que no sentí en ningún momento que no podía decir lo quería (pero lo evite entre Chavista no conocidos). Estuve viendo una entrevista en Globovision del ex-Ministro de Defensa y no podía creer las preguntas y acusaciones que la entrevistadora hacia de corrupción y a Chávez. Aunque sean ciertas, mi punto es que me parece que la absoluta falta de liberta de expresión es exagerada. Yo veo O'Reilly, Hannity & Colmes, Matthews, y casi todos los programas del Domingo (en EEUU) y nunco he visto un entrevistador acusar a un oficial del Gobierno de esa manera.
Yo siempre he votado en contra de Chávez y me considero radicalmente opuesto a las políticas y el comportamiento de Chávez, pero no se puede ignorar que algo de lo "bueno" se ha hecho con los Petrodólares, y algunos periodistas en EEUU tampoco deberían ignorarlo.
Disfrute mucho mi viaje a Venezuela y no puedo esperar volver pronto. Yo reconozco que mi experiencia no es una muestra representativa, pero quería mencionar lo que ustedes no van a leer especialmente en los diarios en EEUU.
Parte II – publicada el 22 de Julio del 2007
He recibido muchos comentarios de amigos y familiares de ambos lados del tema. Aprecio todos sus comentarios porque pienso que necesitamos un debate productivo, que desafortunadamente, no tenemos en la actualidad, por que los "radicales" de ambos lados se han adueñado del debate.
Déjenme aclarar que no apoyo a Chávez. Todo lo contrario, vote contra él en todos los procesos electorales y participe en el "firmazo" Estoy orgulloso y lo haría otra vez. También pienso que él hizo trampa en el referéndum, y que las elecciones (de Diciembre) no fueron democráticas por que estaban bajo amenazas del Gobierno. Nadie sabe por quién hubiese votado la mayoría sin estar bajo alguna amenaza de retribución. El punto de mi artículo era escribir sobre algunas de las razones porque Chávez todavía tiene mucho apoyo especialmente de los pobres. Aquí en Miami, la cobertura es muy deficiente. Los programas de TV solo invitan radicales que solo hablan de cómo tumbar o eliminar a Chávez. Aquí la gente ve Baily (que se ha convertido en un comediante que llama a Chávez matón a diario) y Polos Opuestos donde invitan a Patricia Poleo y Orlando Urdaneta para dar su punto de vista y algún líder exiliado Cubano que nunca ha estado en Venezuela o no tiene idea de lo que está pasando, solo diciendo que todo es como en Cuba. Los artículos y columnas del Herald, WSJ, NYT son superficiales, en el mejor de los casos y solo hablan de lo obvio. Yo conozco varios líderes jóvenes de la Oposición, que no son radicales, y deberían darles chance de explicar la situación, especialmente para el público de Miami. Este problema es bien complicado y profundo, por eso menciono algunas de las razones por que Chávez tiene apoyo, para empezar un debate productivo. Esperemos que los estudiantes universitarios den el ejemplo y empiecen un verdadero debate.
The First Law of Petropolitics by Friedman
There are a lot "papers" on "Dutch Disease" by Academics, but I found a great article by Thomas Friedman from NYT (I usually don't agree with many of his views) but I agree with this one very much. It certainly helps explain the situation in Venezuela in layman's terms.
-----------------
The First Law of Petropolitics
By: THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN - For The North County Times
When I heard the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, declare that the Holocaust was a "myth," I couldn't help asking myself: "I wonder if the president of Iran would be talking this way if the price of oil were $20 a barrel today rather than $60 a barrel."
When I heard Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez telling British Prime Minister Tony Blair to "go right to hell" and telling his supporters that the U.S.-sponsored Free Trade Area of the Americas "can go to hell," too, I couldn't help saying to myself, "I wonder if the president of Venezuela would be saying all these things if the price of oil today were $20 a barrel rather than $60 a barrel, and his country had to make a living by empowering its own entrepreneurs, not just drilling wells."
As I followed events in the Persian Gulf during the past few years, I noticed that the first Arab Gulf state to hold a free and fair election, in which women could run and vote, and the first Arab Gulf state to undertake a total overhaul of its labor laws to make its own people more employable and less dependent on imported labor, was Bahrain. Bahrain happened to be the first Arab Gulf state expected to run out of oil. I couldn't help asking myself: "Could that all just be a coincidence?
The more I pondered these questions, the more it seemed obvious to me that there must be a correlation ---- a literal correlation that could be measured and graphed ---- between the price of oil and the pace, scope and sustainability of political freedoms and economic reforms in certain countries.
I would be the first to acknowledge that this is not a scientific lab experiment, because the rise and fall of economic and political freedom in a society can never be perfectly quantifiable or interchangeable. But I think there is value in trying to demonstrate this very real correlation between the price of oil and the pace of freedom, even with its imperfections.
The First Law of Petropolitics posits the following: The price of oil and the pace of freedom always move in opposite directions in oil-rich petrolist states. According to the First Law of Petropolitics, the higher the average global crude oil price rises, the more free speech, free press, free and fair elections, an independent judiciary, the rule of law and independent political parties are eroded. And these negative trends are reinforced by the fact that the higher the price goes, the less petrolist leaders are sensitive to what the world thinks or says about them.
I would define petrolist states as states that are both dependent on oil production for the bulk of their exports or gross domestic product and have weak state institutions or outright authoritarian governments. High on my list of petrolist states would be Azerbaijan, Angola, Chad, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Iran, Kazakhstan, Nigeria, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Uzbekistan and Venezuela.
To be sure, professional economists have, for a long time, pointed out in general the negative economic and political impacts that an abundance of natural resources can have on a country. This phenomenon has been variously diagnosed as "Dutch Disease" or the "resource curse." Dutch Disease refers to the process of deindustrialization that can result from a sudden natural resource windfall. The term was coined in the Netherlands in the 1960s, after it discovered huge deposits of natural gas.
What happens in countries with Dutch Disease is that the value of their currency rises, thanks to the sudden influx of cash from oil, gold, gas, diamonds or some other natural resource discovery. That then makes the country's manufactured exports uncompetitive and its imports very cheap. The citizens, flush with cash, start importing like crazy, the domestic industrial sector gets wiped out and, presto, you have deindustrialization.
Beyond these general theories, some political scientists have explored how an abundance of oil wealth, in particular, can reverse or erode democratizing trends. One of the most trenchant analyses that I have come across is the work of UCLA political scientist Michael L. Ross.
Using a statistical analysis from 113 states between 1971 and 1997, Ross concluded that a state's "reliance on either oil or mineral exports tends to make it less democratic; that this effect is not caused by other types of primary exports; that it is not limited to the Arabian Peninsula, to the Middle East, or sub-Saharan Africa; and that it is not limited to small states."
First, Ross argues, there is the "taxation effect." Oil-rich governments tend to use their revenues to "relieve social pressures that might otherwise lead to demands for greater accountability" from, or representation in, the governing authority. Oil-backed regimes that do not have to tax their people in order to survive also do not have to listen to their people or represent their wishes.
The second mechanism, argues Ross, is the "spending effect." Oil wealth leads to greater patronage spending, which in turn dampens pressures for democratization. The third mechanism he cites is the "group formation effect." When oil revenues provide an authoritarian state with a cash windfall, the government can use its newfound wealth to prevent independent social groups ---- precisely those most inclined to demand political rights ---- from forming. In addition, he argues, an overabundance of oil revenues can create a "repression effect," because it allows governments to spend excessively on police, internal security and intelligence forces that can be used to choke democratic movements.
Finally, Ross sees a "modernization effect" at work. A massive influx of oil wealth can diminish social pressures for occupational specialization, urbanization and the securing of higher levels of education ---- trends that normally accompany broad economic development and that also produce a public that is more articulate, better able to organize, bargain and communicate, and endowed with economic power centers of its own.
What I am arguing in positing the First Law of Petropolitics is not only that an overdependence on crude oil can be a curse in general but also that one can actually correlate rises and falls in the price of oil with rises and falls in the pace of freedom in petrolist countries.
An Axis of Oil?
Since 9/11, oil prices have structurally shifted from the $20-$40 range to the $40-$60 range. Part of this move has to do with a general sense of insecurity in global oil markets due to violence in Iraq, Nigeria, Indonesia and Sudan, but even more appears to be the result of what I call the "flattening" of the world and the rapid influx into the global marketplace of 3 billion new consumers, from China, Brazil, India and the former Soviet Empire, all dreaming of a house, a car, a microwave and a refrigerator. Without a dramatic move toward conservation in the West, or the discovery of an alternative to fossil fuels, we are going to be in this $40-to-$60 range, or higher, for the foreseeable future.
Politically, that will mean that a whole group of petrolist states ---- with weak institutions or outright authoritarian governments ---- will likely experience an erosion of freedoms and an increase in corruption and autocratic, antidemocratic behaviors.
Consider the drama now unfolding in Nigeria. Nigeria has a term limit for its presidents ---- two four-year terms. President Olusegun Obasanjo came to office in 1999, after a period of military rule, and was then reelected by a popular vote in 2003. When he took over from the generals in 1999, Obasanjo made headlines by investigating human rights abuses by the Nigerian military, releasing political prisoners and even making a real attempt to root out corruption. That was when oil was around $25 a barrel.
Today, with oil at $60 a barrel, Obasanjo is trying to persuade the Nigerian legislature to amend the constitution to allow him to serve a third term. A Nigerian opposition leader in the House of Representatives, Wunmi Bewaji, has alleged that bribes of $1 million were being offered to lawmakers who would vote to extend Obasanjo's tenure.
Very often in petrolist states, not only do all politics revolve around who controls the oil tap, but the public develops a distorted notion of what development is all about. If they are poor and the leaders are rich, it is not because their country has failed to promote education, innovation, rule of law and entrepreneurship. It is because someone is getting the oil money and they are not. People start to think that, to get rich, all they have to do is stop those who are stealing the country's oil.
Geology trumps ideology
With all due respect to Ronald Reagan, I do not believe he brought down the Soviet Union. There were obviously many factors, but the collapse in global oil prices around the late 1980s and early 1990s surely played a key role. And lower oil prices also surely helped tilt the post-Communist Boris Yeltsin government toward more openness to the outside world and more sensitivity to the legal structures demanded by global investors.
Think about the difference between Russian President Vladimir Putin when oil was in the $20-$40 range and now, when it is $40-$60. President Bush said after their first meeting in 2001 that he had looked into Putin's "soul" and saw in there a man he could trust.
If Bush looked into Putin's soul today, it would look very black down there, black as oil. He would see that Putin has used his oil windfall to swallow (nationalize) the huge Russian oil company, Gazprom, various newspapers and television stations, and all sorts of other Russian businesses and once independent institutions.
Although we cannot affect the supply of oil in any country, we can affect the global price of oil by altering the amounts and types of energy we consume. When I say "we," I mean the United States in particular, which consumes about 25 percent of the world's energy, and the oil-importing countries in general.
Thinking about how to alter our energy consumption patterns to bring down the price of oil is no longer simply a hobby for high-minded environmentalists. It is now a national security imperative.
Therefore, any American democracy-promotion strategy that does not also include a credible and sustainable strategy for finding alternatives to oil and bringing down the price of crude is utterly meaningless and doomed to fail. Today, no matter where you are on the foreign-policy spectrum, you have to think like a Geo-Green. You cannot be either an effective foreign-policy realist or an effective democracy-promoting idealist without also being an effective energy environmentalist.
Thomas L. Friedman is a columnist for The New York Times and author of, most recently, "The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century" (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2005). For more articles from Foreign Policy magazine, visit the Web site at www.foreignpolicy.com.
-----------------
The First Law of Petropolitics
By: THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN - For The North County Times
When I heard the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, declare that the Holocaust was a "myth," I couldn't help asking myself: "I wonder if the president of Iran would be talking this way if the price of oil were $20 a barrel today rather than $60 a barrel."
When I heard Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez telling British Prime Minister Tony Blair to "go right to hell" and telling his supporters that the U.S.-sponsored Free Trade Area of the Americas "can go to hell," too, I couldn't help saying to myself, "I wonder if the president of Venezuela would be saying all these things if the price of oil today were $20 a barrel rather than $60 a barrel, and his country had to make a living by empowering its own entrepreneurs, not just drilling wells."
As I followed events in the Persian Gulf during the past few years, I noticed that the first Arab Gulf state to hold a free and fair election, in which women could run and vote, and the first Arab Gulf state to undertake a total overhaul of its labor laws to make its own people more employable and less dependent on imported labor, was Bahrain. Bahrain happened to be the first Arab Gulf state expected to run out of oil. I couldn't help asking myself: "Could that all just be a coincidence?
The more I pondered these questions, the more it seemed obvious to me that there must be a correlation ---- a literal correlation that could be measured and graphed ---- between the price of oil and the pace, scope and sustainability of political freedoms and economic reforms in certain countries.
I would be the first to acknowledge that this is not a scientific lab experiment, because the rise and fall of economic and political freedom in a society can never be perfectly quantifiable or interchangeable. But I think there is value in trying to demonstrate this very real correlation between the price of oil and the pace of freedom, even with its imperfections.
The First Law of Petropolitics posits the following: The price of oil and the pace of freedom always move in opposite directions in oil-rich petrolist states. According to the First Law of Petropolitics, the higher the average global crude oil price rises, the more free speech, free press, free and fair elections, an independent judiciary, the rule of law and independent political parties are eroded. And these negative trends are reinforced by the fact that the higher the price goes, the less petrolist leaders are sensitive to what the world thinks or says about them.
I would define petrolist states as states that are both dependent on oil production for the bulk of their exports or gross domestic product and have weak state institutions or outright authoritarian governments. High on my list of petrolist states would be Azerbaijan, Angola, Chad, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Iran, Kazakhstan, Nigeria, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Uzbekistan and Venezuela.
To be sure, professional economists have, for a long time, pointed out in general the negative economic and political impacts that an abundance of natural resources can have on a country. This phenomenon has been variously diagnosed as "Dutch Disease" or the "resource curse." Dutch Disease refers to the process of deindustrialization that can result from a sudden natural resource windfall. The term was coined in the Netherlands in the 1960s, after it discovered huge deposits of natural gas.
What happens in countries with Dutch Disease is that the value of their currency rises, thanks to the sudden influx of cash from oil, gold, gas, diamonds or some other natural resource discovery. That then makes the country's manufactured exports uncompetitive and its imports very cheap. The citizens, flush with cash, start importing like crazy, the domestic industrial sector gets wiped out and, presto, you have deindustrialization.
Beyond these general theories, some political scientists have explored how an abundance of oil wealth, in particular, can reverse or erode democratizing trends. One of the most trenchant analyses that I have come across is the work of UCLA political scientist Michael L. Ross.
Using a statistical analysis from 113 states between 1971 and 1997, Ross concluded that a state's "reliance on either oil or mineral exports tends to make it less democratic; that this effect is not caused by other types of primary exports; that it is not limited to the Arabian Peninsula, to the Middle East, or sub-Saharan Africa; and that it is not limited to small states."
First, Ross argues, there is the "taxation effect." Oil-rich governments tend to use their revenues to "relieve social pressures that might otherwise lead to demands for greater accountability" from, or representation in, the governing authority. Oil-backed regimes that do not have to tax their people in order to survive also do not have to listen to their people or represent their wishes.
The second mechanism, argues Ross, is the "spending effect." Oil wealth leads to greater patronage spending, which in turn dampens pressures for democratization. The third mechanism he cites is the "group formation effect." When oil revenues provide an authoritarian state with a cash windfall, the government can use its newfound wealth to prevent independent social groups ---- precisely those most inclined to demand political rights ---- from forming. In addition, he argues, an overabundance of oil revenues can create a "repression effect," because it allows governments to spend excessively on police, internal security and intelligence forces that can be used to choke democratic movements.
Finally, Ross sees a "modernization effect" at work. A massive influx of oil wealth can diminish social pressures for occupational specialization, urbanization and the securing of higher levels of education ---- trends that normally accompany broad economic development and that also produce a public that is more articulate, better able to organize, bargain and communicate, and endowed with economic power centers of its own.
What I am arguing in positing the First Law of Petropolitics is not only that an overdependence on crude oil can be a curse in general but also that one can actually correlate rises and falls in the price of oil with rises and falls in the pace of freedom in petrolist countries.
An Axis of Oil?
Since 9/11, oil prices have structurally shifted from the $20-$40 range to the $40-$60 range. Part of this move has to do with a general sense of insecurity in global oil markets due to violence in Iraq, Nigeria, Indonesia and Sudan, but even more appears to be the result of what I call the "flattening" of the world and the rapid influx into the global marketplace of 3 billion new consumers, from China, Brazil, India and the former Soviet Empire, all dreaming of a house, a car, a microwave and a refrigerator. Without a dramatic move toward conservation in the West, or the discovery of an alternative to fossil fuels, we are going to be in this $40-to-$60 range, or higher, for the foreseeable future.
Politically, that will mean that a whole group of petrolist states ---- with weak institutions or outright authoritarian governments ---- will likely experience an erosion of freedoms and an increase in corruption and autocratic, antidemocratic behaviors.
Consider the drama now unfolding in Nigeria. Nigeria has a term limit for its presidents ---- two four-year terms. President Olusegun Obasanjo came to office in 1999, after a period of military rule, and was then reelected by a popular vote in 2003. When he took over from the generals in 1999, Obasanjo made headlines by investigating human rights abuses by the Nigerian military, releasing political prisoners and even making a real attempt to root out corruption. That was when oil was around $25 a barrel.
Today, with oil at $60 a barrel, Obasanjo is trying to persuade the Nigerian legislature to amend the constitution to allow him to serve a third term. A Nigerian opposition leader in the House of Representatives, Wunmi Bewaji, has alleged that bribes of $1 million were being offered to lawmakers who would vote to extend Obasanjo's tenure.
Very often in petrolist states, not only do all politics revolve around who controls the oil tap, but the public develops a distorted notion of what development is all about. If they are poor and the leaders are rich, it is not because their country has failed to promote education, innovation, rule of law and entrepreneurship. It is because someone is getting the oil money and they are not. People start to think that, to get rich, all they have to do is stop those who are stealing the country's oil.
Geology trumps ideology
With all due respect to Ronald Reagan, I do not believe he brought down the Soviet Union. There were obviously many factors, but the collapse in global oil prices around the late 1980s and early 1990s surely played a key role. And lower oil prices also surely helped tilt the post-Communist Boris Yeltsin government toward more openness to the outside world and more sensitivity to the legal structures demanded by global investors.
Think about the difference between Russian President Vladimir Putin when oil was in the $20-$40 range and now, when it is $40-$60. President Bush said after their first meeting in 2001 that he had looked into Putin's "soul" and saw in there a man he could trust.
If Bush looked into Putin's soul today, it would look very black down there, black as oil. He would see that Putin has used his oil windfall to swallow (nationalize) the huge Russian oil company, Gazprom, various newspapers and television stations, and all sorts of other Russian businesses and once independent institutions.
Although we cannot affect the supply of oil in any country, we can affect the global price of oil by altering the amounts and types of energy we consume. When I say "we," I mean the United States in particular, which consumes about 25 percent of the world's energy, and the oil-importing countries in general.
Thinking about how to alter our energy consumption patterns to bring down the price of oil is no longer simply a hobby for high-minded environmentalists. It is now a national security imperative.
Therefore, any American democracy-promotion strategy that does not also include a credible and sustainable strategy for finding alternatives to oil and bringing down the price of crude is utterly meaningless and doomed to fail. Today, no matter where you are on the foreign-policy spectrum, you have to think like a Geo-Green. You cannot be either an effective foreign-policy realist or an effective democracy-promoting idealist without also being an effective energy environmentalist.
Thomas L. Friedman is a columnist for The New York Times and author of, most recently, "The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century" (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2005). For more articles from Foreign Policy magazine, visit the Web site at www.foreignpolicy.com.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
A Brief Primer on Immigration History by Rachels
A Very Brief Primer on Immigration History Part 1
November 12, 2006 on 1:37 pm | Written by rachels in Government, Immigration, Portraying Race, Whiteness, Uncategorized |
One of the hot topics in the recent US election was immigration. Pundits, like Lou Dobbs, are on a mission to “fix our broken borders” by cracking down on illegal immigration. They argue that immigrants are taking jobs from American citizens, refusing to assimilate, changing American cultural values, and engaging in criminal activities. As I listen to these arguments, I am always reminded of my class lecture on European American immigration patters. The rhetoric of contemporary nativist activists like Lou Dobbs and Pat Buchanan is nothing new. In fact, it follows almost exactly the same rhetoric of earlier anti-immigrant backlashes. While Latinos are the primary targets of contemporary nativists, in the early years it was the Irish, the Germans, the Italians, the Jews, and the Chinese, and the “problems” were the same.
Before we can understand the significance of anti-immigration backlashes, it is also important to explore the variation waves of immigration and how they are shaped by policy and economic conditions. The earliest European immigrants were primarily English, and since the English became the dominant group, they were also able to set policies and social norms for other immigrants. ((Of course, I haven’t forgotten about the indigenous people of North America or the involuntary African immigrants, but the focus here will be on voluntary migrants.)) One of the primary social norms that British set was the norm of Anglo-conformity, which was proposed by Milton Gordon ((Gordon, Milton. 1964. Assimilation in American Life. New York: Oxford University Press.)) Under the system of Anglo-conformity immigrants were expected to model the English American customs and language to the point that they became indistinguishable.
During the earliest years, the US had a fairly open immigration policy. European immigrants were welcomed and encouraged to come to the US, and there were few laws or policies that limited immigration. Most immigrants in the earliest years came from England, Germany, and Ireland (along with a small contingent of Scandinavian immigrants). The German and Irish immigrants were very much vilified, as this quote from a recent Washington Post article highlights:
Still, European immigrants found plenty of backlash. Nativist sentiments ran strong, and white Protestant reformers championed English-language instruction and temperance, the latter reflecting the Establishment’s disdain for hard-drinking immigrants. The Germans set up 121 breweries in Brooklyn and Manhattan alone.
From the 1700s to the late 1800s immigration was open for these immigrants. Very few immigrants were turned away and there were few laws limiting immigration. As the Washington Post article states:
Until 1918, the United States did not require passports; the term “illegal immigrant” had no meaning. New arrivals were required only to prove their identity and find a relative or friend who could vouch for them.
Customs agents kept an eye out for lunatics and the infirm (and after 1905, for anarchists). Ninety-eight percent of the immigrants who arrived at Ellis Island were admitted to the United States, and 78 percent spent less than eight hours on the island. (The Mexico-United States border then was unguarded and freely crossed in either direction.) “Shipping companies did the health inspections in Europe because they didn’t want to be stuck taking someone back,” said Nancy Foner, a sociology professor at Hunter College and author of “From Ellis Island to JFK: New York’s Two Great Waves of Immigration.” “Eventually they introduced a literacy test,” she added, “but it was in the immigrant’s own language, not English.”
In the later half of the 1800s the first major restrictions against immigrants were imposed. The Chinese were primary the targets of these laws, and the Naturalization Act of 1870 made Chinese ineligible for citizenship. This act also targeted the wives of Chinese laborers, and all people born in African or of African descent were made eligible for citizenship. Then in 1882 Chinese were banned entirely from entering the country. ((This ban on Chinese laborers was not lifted until the 1940s.)) The backlash against Chinese often stemmed from fear that they were taking away jobs.
During the late 1800s and early 1900s immigration from southern and eastern Europe skyrocketed, and there was also a backlash against these immigrants, which lead to much greater restrictions. In 1917, the restrictions against expanded to include an “Asiatic Barred Zone,” which extend over Asian and the Pacific Rim; moreover, immigrants were required to take literacy tests, and “anarchists” and other radical were also barred. This was one of several laws that lead to the National Origins Act of 1924. According to History Matters,
In response to growing public opinion against the flow of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe in the years following World War I, Congress passed first the Quota Act of 1921 then the even more restrictive Immigration Act of 1924 (the Johnson-Reed Act). Initially, the 1924 law imposed a total quota on immigration of 165,000—less than 20 percent of the pre-World War I average. It based ceilings on the number of immigrants from any particular nation on the percentage of each nationality recorded in the 1890 census—a blatant effort to limit immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe, which mostly occurred after that date. In the first decade of the 20th century, an average of 200,000 Italians had entered the United States each year. With the 1924 Act, the annual quota for Italians was set at less than 4,000.
This act radically changed immigration by setting quotas that gave preferences to groups that were already represented in the US. While there were other immigration restrictions imposed during this period, this law had the greatest impact. From the 1920s until 1965, the number of immigrants entering the US dropped dramatically and at it’s low point in the 1970s the percentage of the population that was foreign born was only 4.7%.
So the first major wave of immigration, which ended in the late 1800s, included immigrants mostly from western Europe, and these immigrants faced very few restrictions. The restrictions in this era were based on race and mental health, but complex immigration processing or laws did not exist at this time. It was until the second wave of immigration from the late 1800s-1924 that much greater restrictions were put on immigration. These restrictions were explicitly racialized and directed at Chinese and Eastern European immigrants. Over both of these waves of immigration similar concerns were expressed about the fitness of immigrants. Nativist believed that immigrants threatened the American way of life, and the arguments used are remarkably similar to those of the contemporary nativists like Lou Dobbs or Pat Buchanan.
In an earlier post, I discussed immigration history in the 1800s and early 1900s. In this post, I would like to discuss the most recent wave of immigrants, specifically those who came after 1965. As I stated in the previous post, a National Origins quota system was put in place in 1924. These quotas were designed to maintain the current ethnic make up of the US population, keeping the balance in favor of northern Europeans and stemming the tide of immigrants from southern/eastern Europe and other parts of the world. This system was in place until 1965, and during this time period the rate of immigration decreased markedly. By 1960 only 5% of the US population was foreign born, compared to 15% of the population in 1910 and 12% of the total population in 2004 (US Census Bureau).
The Immigration Act of 1965 (Hart Cellar Act) scrapped the national origin quotas, and replaced them with other methods for gaining entry/residence into the US. While less restrictive than the national origins system, it was more restrictive than very early immigration policies (pre 1870s).
What were the provisions of this new immigration policy? One of the key goals of this immigration policy was family reunification of immediate relatives–spouses, parents, and children. Families were given preference and were not subject to the new quotas that were set as were several other groups: “certain ministers of religion; certain former employees of the U.S. government abroad; certain persons who lost citizenship (e.g., by marriage or by service in foreign armed forces); and certain foreign medical graduates.” Immigration quotas were shifted from nations to hemispheres. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, this act
Allocated 170,000 visas to countries in the Eastern Hemisphere and 120,000 to countries in the Western Hemisphere. This increased the annual ceiling on immigrants from 150,000 to 290,000. Each Eastern-Hemisphere country was allowed an allotment of 20,000 visas, while in the Western Hemisphere there was no per-country limit. This was the first time any numerical limitation had been placed on immigration from the Western Hemisphere. Non-quota immigrants and immediate relatives (i.e., spouses, minor children, and parents of U.S. citizens over the age of 21) were not to be counted as part of either the hemispheric or country ceiling.
Additionally, those immigrants with “special skills” that were needed in the US were also given a preference. This would include people such as highly trained scientists, athletes, artists, and people who can fulfill high demand jobs (i.e. nursing). Finally, refugees were also granted slots (especially those from communist countries and the Middle East.).
There have been important subsequent immigration policies, including amnesty for undocumented immigrants; however, many of these policies are slight adjustments on the Hart Cellar Act. The Center for Immigration Studies highlights several of post 1965 reforms in this list:
1976 Amendments to Immigration and Nationality Act — Extended a version of the seven-category preference system previously applied to Eastern Hemisphere countries to all Western Hemisphere countries. Also imposed an annual ceiling of 20,000 immigrants from any one country in the Western Hemisphere.
1978 Amendments to Immigration and Nationality Act — The two hemispheric ceilings were combined into a worldwide quota of 290,000. The U.S. now had a policy that, on paper, applied uniformly to the people of all countries.
1980 Refugee Act — Established a separate admissions policy for refugees, eliminating the previous geographical and ideological criteria, and defining “refugee” according to United Nations norms. It abolished the seventh preference category for refugees (see Details). It set a separate target for refugees at 50,000 and reduced the annual worldwide ceiling for immigrants to 270,000.
1981 Report of the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy — The 16-member commission was created by Congress to evaluate immigration and refugee laws, policies, and procedures. The Commission’s recommendations were summed up as follows by its chairman, the Rev. Theodore Hesburgh: “We recommend closing the back door to undocumented, illegal migration, opening the front door a little more to accommodate legal migration in the interests of this country, defining our immigration goals clearly and providing a structure to implement them effectively, and setting forth procedures which will lead to fair and efficient adjudication and administration of U.S. immigration laws.”
1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) — Tried to control and deter illegal immigration by providing amnesty and temporary status to all illegal aliens who had lived in the United States continuously since before January 1, 1982; extended a separate, more lenient amnesty to farmworkers; imposed sanctions on employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens; increased inspection and enforcement at U.S. borders.
1990 Immigration Act (IMMACT) — Modified and expanded the 1965 act; it significantly increased the total level of immigration to 700,000, increasing available visas 40 percent. The act retained family reunification as the major entry path, while more than doubling employment-related immigration. The law also provided for the admission of immigrants from “underrepresented” countries to increase the diversity of the immigrant flow.
In spite of these alterations, basic immigration policies still follow the 1965 Immigration Act’s basic guidelines. This policy change dramatically changed the US population. The rate of immigration dramatically increased, and many groups that had previously faced high level of discrimination, especially Asians, were now entering the US in much larger numbers. Many of the post 1965 Asian immigrants were recruited to the US specifically for their skills in fields such as medicine, a stark departure from the early Chinese immigrants who were working class/low wage laborers. Overall, the new immigrants come mostly from Latin American and Asia. Contemporary immigrants tend to be more highly educated than immigrants of previous generations because of the 1965 immigration preferences; however, there is still a noticeable immigrant working class (especially for Latin American immigrants). In fact, it is probably fair to say that immigrants are disproportionately part of the working poor (especially those who are undocumented or refugees) and the upper middle class.
What does the future of immigration policy hold? I don’t feel qualified to predict the future, but if we want to talk about meaningful immigration policies and reforms, we need to understand what the current policies are. The 1965 law set the basis for current policy, and thus, it is imperative to reference it in the immigration debates.
A Very Brief Primer on Immigration History Part 1
November 12, 2006 on 1:37 pm | Written by rachels in Government, Immigration, Portraying Race, Whiteness, Uncategorized | 2 Comments
One of the hot topics in the recent US election was immigration. Pundits, like Lou Dobbs, are on a mission to “fix our broken borders” by cracking down on illegal immigration. They argue that immigrants are taking jobs from American citizens, refusing to assimilate, changing American cultural values, and engaging in criminal activities. As I listen to these arguments, I am always reminded of my class lecture on European American immigration patters. The rhetoric of contemporary nativist activists like Lou Dobbs and Pat Buchanan is nothing new. In fact, it follows almost exactly the same rhetoric of earlier anti-immigrant backlashes. While Latinos are the primary targets of contemporary nativists, in the early years it was the Irish, the Germans, the Italians, the Jews, and the Chinese, and the “problems” were the same.
Before we can understand the significance of anti-immigration backlashes, it is also important to explore the variation waves of immigration and how they are shaped by policy and economic conditions. The earliest European immigrants were primarily English, and since the English became the dominant group, they were also able to set policies and social norms for other immigrants. ((Of course, I haven’t forgotten about the indigenous people of North America or the involuntary African immigrants, but the focus here will be on voluntary migrants.)) One of the primary social norms that British set was the norm of Anglo-conformity, which was proposed by Milton Gordon ((Gordon, Milton. 1964. Assimilation in American Life. New York: Oxford University Press.)) Under the system of Anglo-conformity immigrants were expected to model the English American customs and language to the point that they became indistinguishable.
During the earliest years, the US had a fairly open immigration policy. European immigrants were welcomed and encouraged to come to the US, and there were few laws or policies that limited immigration. Most immigrants in the earliest years came from England, Germany, and Ireland (along with a small contingent of Scandinavian immigrants). The German and Irish immigrants were very much vilified, as this quote from a recent Washington Post article highlights:
Still, European immigrants found plenty of backlash. Nativist sentiments ran strong, and white Protestant reformers championed English-language instruction and temperance, the latter reflecting the Establishment’s disdain for hard-drinking immigrants. The Germans set up 121 breweries in Brooklyn and Manhattan alone.
From the 1700s to the late 1800s immigration was open for these immigrants. Very few immigrants were turned away and there were few laws limiting immigration. As the Washington Post article states:
Until 1918, the United States did not require passports; the term “illegal immigrant” had no meaning. New arrivals were required only to prove their identity and find a relative or friend who could vouch for them.
Customs agents kept an eye out for lunatics and the infirm (and after 1905, for anarchists). Ninety-eight percent of the immigrants who arrived at Ellis Island were admitted to the United States, and 78 percent spent less than eight hours on the island. (The Mexico-United States border then was unguarded and freely crossed in either direction.) “Shipping companies did the health inspections in Europe because they didn’t want to be stuck taking someone back,” said Nancy Foner, a sociology professor at Hunter College and author of “From Ellis Island to JFK: New York’s Two Great Waves of Immigration.” “Eventually they introduced a literacy test,” she added, “but it was in the immigrant’s own language, not English.”
In the later half of the 1800s the first major restrictions against immigrants were imposed. The Chinese were primary the targets of these laws, and the Naturalization Act of 1870 made Chinese ineligible for citizenship. This act also targeted the wives of Chinese laborers, and all people born in African or of African descent were made eligible for citizenship. Then in 1882 Chinese were banned entirely from entering the country. ((This ban on Chinese laborers was not lifted until the 1940s.)) The backlash against Chinese often stemmed from fear that they were taking away jobs.
During the late 1800s and early 1900s immigration from southern and eastern Europe skyrocketed, and there was also a backlash against these immigrants, which lead to much greater restrictions. In 1917, the restrictions against expanded to include an “Asiatic Barred Zone,” which extend over Asian and the Pacific Rim; moreover, immigrants were required to take literacy tests, and “anarchists” and other radical were also barred. This was one of several laws that lead to the National Origins Act of 1924. According to History Matters,
In response to growing public opinion against the flow of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe in the years following World War I, Congress passed first the Quota Act of 1921 then the even more restrictive Immigration Act of 1924 (the Johnson-Reed Act). Initially, the 1924 law imposed a total quota on immigration of 165,000—less than 20 percent of the pre-World War I average. It based ceilings on the number of immigrants from any particular nation on the percentage of each nationality recorded in the 1890 census—a blatant effort to limit immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe, which mostly occurred after that date. In the first decade of the 20th century, an average of 200,000 Italians had entered the United States each year. With the 1924 Act, the annual quota for Italians was set at less than 4,000.
This act radically changed immigration by setting quotas that gave preferences to groups that were already represented in the US. While there were other immigration restrictions imposed during this period, this law had the greatest impact. From the 1920s until 1965, the number of immigrants entering the US dropped dramatically and at it’s low point in the 1970s the percentage of the population that was foreign born was only 4.7%.
So the first major wave of immigration, which ended in the late 1800s, included immigrants mostly from western Europe, and these immigrants faced very few restrictions. The restrictions in this era were based on race and mental health, but complex immigration processing or laws did not exist at this time. It was until the second wave of immigration from the late 1800s-1924 that much greater restrictions were put on immigration. These restrictions were explicitly racialized and directed at Chinese and Eastern European immigrants. Over both of these waves of immigration similar concerns were expressed about the fitness of immigrants. Nativist believed that immigrants threatened the American way of life, and the arguments used are remarkably similar to those of the contemporary nativists like Lou Dobbs or Pat Buchanan.
Next in this series I’ll discuss the Immigration Act of 1965 and it’s effects on our current population.
Thought for the day
June 27, 2006 on 5:14 pm | Written by IrrationalPoint in Immigration | 19 Comments
I’m going to briefly interrupt Vegan’s Unlearning Racism series (sorry, Vegan) with some points relevant to the immigration debate. One of the issues that a lot of conservatives are concerned about is American culture, and whether it will change with immigrants. So here’s some questions to think about.
What does “integration” mean?
What does it require on the part of immigrants to a new country, and those already residing in that country?
Is it a good thing or a bad thing, and why?
Is it important, and if so, why?
I’d be interested to hear other people’s thoughts on this before I provide more of my own.
–IP
schools and fields
March 31, 2006 on 12:44 pm | Written by vegankid in Government, Immigration, blogs and websites | 3 Comments
IrrationalPoint over at The Soapbox has recently written a couple of posts about the racism of some US domestic policies. The first of which is title Land of Opportuninty and talks about the Bush administration’s immigration policy.
“If you’re doing a job an American won’t do”? Well that’s the give-away line, isn’t it? That’s the way the US makes it’s money kids: segregate the workforce, make the immigrants work the shitty jobs for shitty pay with no security that makes the US economy float, and then hound them down for being in the country illegally. Exploit the countries they come from so that, after you’ve deported them, they’re as desperate as you can make ‘em to come back to the US and do it all over again.
November 12, 2006 on 1:37 pm | Written by rachels in Government, Immigration, Portraying Race, Whiteness, Uncategorized |
One of the hot topics in the recent US election was immigration. Pundits, like Lou Dobbs, are on a mission to “fix our broken borders” by cracking down on illegal immigration. They argue that immigrants are taking jobs from American citizens, refusing to assimilate, changing American cultural values, and engaging in criminal activities. As I listen to these arguments, I am always reminded of my class lecture on European American immigration patters. The rhetoric of contemporary nativist activists like Lou Dobbs and Pat Buchanan is nothing new. In fact, it follows almost exactly the same rhetoric of earlier anti-immigrant backlashes. While Latinos are the primary targets of contemporary nativists, in the early years it was the Irish, the Germans, the Italians, the Jews, and the Chinese, and the “problems” were the same.
Before we can understand the significance of anti-immigration backlashes, it is also important to explore the variation waves of immigration and how they are shaped by policy and economic conditions. The earliest European immigrants were primarily English, and since the English became the dominant group, they were also able to set policies and social norms for other immigrants. ((Of course, I haven’t forgotten about the indigenous people of North America or the involuntary African immigrants, but the focus here will be on voluntary migrants.)) One of the primary social norms that British set was the norm of Anglo-conformity, which was proposed by Milton Gordon ((Gordon, Milton. 1964. Assimilation in American Life. New York: Oxford University Press.)) Under the system of Anglo-conformity immigrants were expected to model the English American customs and language to the point that they became indistinguishable.
During the earliest years, the US had a fairly open immigration policy. European immigrants were welcomed and encouraged to come to the US, and there were few laws or policies that limited immigration. Most immigrants in the earliest years came from England, Germany, and Ireland (along with a small contingent of Scandinavian immigrants). The German and Irish immigrants were very much vilified, as this quote from a recent Washington Post article highlights:
Still, European immigrants found plenty of backlash. Nativist sentiments ran strong, and white Protestant reformers championed English-language instruction and temperance, the latter reflecting the Establishment’s disdain for hard-drinking immigrants. The Germans set up 121 breweries in Brooklyn and Manhattan alone.
From the 1700s to the late 1800s immigration was open for these immigrants. Very few immigrants were turned away and there were few laws limiting immigration. As the Washington Post article states:
Until 1918, the United States did not require passports; the term “illegal immigrant” had no meaning. New arrivals were required only to prove their identity and find a relative or friend who could vouch for them.
Customs agents kept an eye out for lunatics and the infirm (and after 1905, for anarchists). Ninety-eight percent of the immigrants who arrived at Ellis Island were admitted to the United States, and 78 percent spent less than eight hours on the island. (The Mexico-United States border then was unguarded and freely crossed in either direction.) “Shipping companies did the health inspections in Europe because they didn’t want to be stuck taking someone back,” said Nancy Foner, a sociology professor at Hunter College and author of “From Ellis Island to JFK: New York’s Two Great Waves of Immigration.” “Eventually they introduced a literacy test,” she added, “but it was in the immigrant’s own language, not English.”
In the later half of the 1800s the first major restrictions against immigrants were imposed. The Chinese were primary the targets of these laws, and the Naturalization Act of 1870 made Chinese ineligible for citizenship. This act also targeted the wives of Chinese laborers, and all people born in African or of African descent were made eligible for citizenship. Then in 1882 Chinese were banned entirely from entering the country. ((This ban on Chinese laborers was not lifted until the 1940s.)) The backlash against Chinese often stemmed from fear that they were taking away jobs.
During the late 1800s and early 1900s immigration from southern and eastern Europe skyrocketed, and there was also a backlash against these immigrants, which lead to much greater restrictions. In 1917, the restrictions against expanded to include an “Asiatic Barred Zone,” which extend over Asian and the Pacific Rim; moreover, immigrants were required to take literacy tests, and “anarchists” and other radical were also barred. This was one of several laws that lead to the National Origins Act of 1924. According to History Matters,
In response to growing public opinion against the flow of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe in the years following World War I, Congress passed first the Quota Act of 1921 then the even more restrictive Immigration Act of 1924 (the Johnson-Reed Act). Initially, the 1924 law imposed a total quota on immigration of 165,000—less than 20 percent of the pre-World War I average. It based ceilings on the number of immigrants from any particular nation on the percentage of each nationality recorded in the 1890 census—a blatant effort to limit immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe, which mostly occurred after that date. In the first decade of the 20th century, an average of 200,000 Italians had entered the United States each year. With the 1924 Act, the annual quota for Italians was set at less than 4,000.
This act radically changed immigration by setting quotas that gave preferences to groups that were already represented in the US. While there were other immigration restrictions imposed during this period, this law had the greatest impact. From the 1920s until 1965, the number of immigrants entering the US dropped dramatically and at it’s low point in the 1970s the percentage of the population that was foreign born was only 4.7%.
So the first major wave of immigration, which ended in the late 1800s, included immigrants mostly from western Europe, and these immigrants faced very few restrictions. The restrictions in this era were based on race and mental health, but complex immigration processing or laws did not exist at this time. It was until the second wave of immigration from the late 1800s-1924 that much greater restrictions were put on immigration. These restrictions were explicitly racialized and directed at Chinese and Eastern European immigrants. Over both of these waves of immigration similar concerns were expressed about the fitness of immigrants. Nativist believed that immigrants threatened the American way of life, and the arguments used are remarkably similar to those of the contemporary nativists like Lou Dobbs or Pat Buchanan.
In an earlier post, I discussed immigration history in the 1800s and early 1900s. In this post, I would like to discuss the most recent wave of immigrants, specifically those who came after 1965. As I stated in the previous post, a National Origins quota system was put in place in 1924. These quotas were designed to maintain the current ethnic make up of the US population, keeping the balance in favor of northern Europeans and stemming the tide of immigrants from southern/eastern Europe and other parts of the world. This system was in place until 1965, and during this time period the rate of immigration decreased markedly. By 1960 only 5% of the US population was foreign born, compared to 15% of the population in 1910 and 12% of the total population in 2004 (US Census Bureau).
The Immigration Act of 1965 (Hart Cellar Act) scrapped the national origin quotas, and replaced them with other methods for gaining entry/residence into the US. While less restrictive than the national origins system, it was more restrictive than very early immigration policies (pre 1870s).
What were the provisions of this new immigration policy? One of the key goals of this immigration policy was family reunification of immediate relatives–spouses, parents, and children. Families were given preference and were not subject to the new quotas that were set as were several other groups: “certain ministers of religion; certain former employees of the U.S. government abroad; certain persons who lost citizenship (e.g., by marriage or by service in foreign armed forces); and certain foreign medical graduates.” Immigration quotas were shifted from nations to hemispheres. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, this act
Allocated 170,000 visas to countries in the Eastern Hemisphere and 120,000 to countries in the Western Hemisphere. This increased the annual ceiling on immigrants from 150,000 to 290,000. Each Eastern-Hemisphere country was allowed an allotment of 20,000 visas, while in the Western Hemisphere there was no per-country limit. This was the first time any numerical limitation had been placed on immigration from the Western Hemisphere. Non-quota immigrants and immediate relatives (i.e., spouses, minor children, and parents of U.S. citizens over the age of 21) were not to be counted as part of either the hemispheric or country ceiling.
Additionally, those immigrants with “special skills” that were needed in the US were also given a preference. This would include people such as highly trained scientists, athletes, artists, and people who can fulfill high demand jobs (i.e. nursing). Finally, refugees were also granted slots (especially those from communist countries and the Middle East.).
There have been important subsequent immigration policies, including amnesty for undocumented immigrants; however, many of these policies are slight adjustments on the Hart Cellar Act. The Center for Immigration Studies highlights several of post 1965 reforms in this list:
1976 Amendments to Immigration and Nationality Act — Extended a version of the seven-category preference system previously applied to Eastern Hemisphere countries to all Western Hemisphere countries. Also imposed an annual ceiling of 20,000 immigrants from any one country in the Western Hemisphere.
1978 Amendments to Immigration and Nationality Act — The two hemispheric ceilings were combined into a worldwide quota of 290,000. The U.S. now had a policy that, on paper, applied uniformly to the people of all countries.
1980 Refugee Act — Established a separate admissions policy for refugees, eliminating the previous geographical and ideological criteria, and defining “refugee” according to United Nations norms. It abolished the seventh preference category for refugees (see Details). It set a separate target for refugees at 50,000 and reduced the annual worldwide ceiling for immigrants to 270,000.
1981 Report of the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy — The 16-member commission was created by Congress to evaluate immigration and refugee laws, policies, and procedures. The Commission’s recommendations were summed up as follows by its chairman, the Rev. Theodore Hesburgh: “We recommend closing the back door to undocumented, illegal migration, opening the front door a little more to accommodate legal migration in the interests of this country, defining our immigration goals clearly and providing a structure to implement them effectively, and setting forth procedures which will lead to fair and efficient adjudication and administration of U.S. immigration laws.”
1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) — Tried to control and deter illegal immigration by providing amnesty and temporary status to all illegal aliens who had lived in the United States continuously since before January 1, 1982; extended a separate, more lenient amnesty to farmworkers; imposed sanctions on employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens; increased inspection and enforcement at U.S. borders.
1990 Immigration Act (IMMACT) — Modified and expanded the 1965 act; it significantly increased the total level of immigration to 700,000, increasing available visas 40 percent. The act retained family reunification as the major entry path, while more than doubling employment-related immigration. The law also provided for the admission of immigrants from “underrepresented” countries to increase the diversity of the immigrant flow.
In spite of these alterations, basic immigration policies still follow the 1965 Immigration Act’s basic guidelines. This policy change dramatically changed the US population. The rate of immigration dramatically increased, and many groups that had previously faced high level of discrimination, especially Asians, were now entering the US in much larger numbers. Many of the post 1965 Asian immigrants were recruited to the US specifically for their skills in fields such as medicine, a stark departure from the early Chinese immigrants who were working class/low wage laborers. Overall, the new immigrants come mostly from Latin American and Asia. Contemporary immigrants tend to be more highly educated than immigrants of previous generations because of the 1965 immigration preferences; however, there is still a noticeable immigrant working class (especially for Latin American immigrants). In fact, it is probably fair to say that immigrants are disproportionately part of the working poor (especially those who are undocumented or refugees) and the upper middle class.
What does the future of immigration policy hold? I don’t feel qualified to predict the future, but if we want to talk about meaningful immigration policies and reforms, we need to understand what the current policies are. The 1965 law set the basis for current policy, and thus, it is imperative to reference it in the immigration debates.
A Very Brief Primer on Immigration History Part 1
November 12, 2006 on 1:37 pm | Written by rachels in Government, Immigration, Portraying Race, Whiteness, Uncategorized | 2 Comments
One of the hot topics in the recent US election was immigration. Pundits, like Lou Dobbs, are on a mission to “fix our broken borders” by cracking down on illegal immigration. They argue that immigrants are taking jobs from American citizens, refusing to assimilate, changing American cultural values, and engaging in criminal activities. As I listen to these arguments, I am always reminded of my class lecture on European American immigration patters. The rhetoric of contemporary nativist activists like Lou Dobbs and Pat Buchanan is nothing new. In fact, it follows almost exactly the same rhetoric of earlier anti-immigrant backlashes. While Latinos are the primary targets of contemporary nativists, in the early years it was the Irish, the Germans, the Italians, the Jews, and the Chinese, and the “problems” were the same.
Before we can understand the significance of anti-immigration backlashes, it is also important to explore the variation waves of immigration and how they are shaped by policy and economic conditions. The earliest European immigrants were primarily English, and since the English became the dominant group, they were also able to set policies and social norms for other immigrants. ((Of course, I haven’t forgotten about the indigenous people of North America or the involuntary African immigrants, but the focus here will be on voluntary migrants.)) One of the primary social norms that British set was the norm of Anglo-conformity, which was proposed by Milton Gordon ((Gordon, Milton. 1964. Assimilation in American Life. New York: Oxford University Press.)) Under the system of Anglo-conformity immigrants were expected to model the English American customs and language to the point that they became indistinguishable.
During the earliest years, the US had a fairly open immigration policy. European immigrants were welcomed and encouraged to come to the US, and there were few laws or policies that limited immigration. Most immigrants in the earliest years came from England, Germany, and Ireland (along with a small contingent of Scandinavian immigrants). The German and Irish immigrants were very much vilified, as this quote from a recent Washington Post article highlights:
Still, European immigrants found plenty of backlash. Nativist sentiments ran strong, and white Protestant reformers championed English-language instruction and temperance, the latter reflecting the Establishment’s disdain for hard-drinking immigrants. The Germans set up 121 breweries in Brooklyn and Manhattan alone.
From the 1700s to the late 1800s immigration was open for these immigrants. Very few immigrants were turned away and there were few laws limiting immigration. As the Washington Post article states:
Until 1918, the United States did not require passports; the term “illegal immigrant” had no meaning. New arrivals were required only to prove their identity and find a relative or friend who could vouch for them.
Customs agents kept an eye out for lunatics and the infirm (and after 1905, for anarchists). Ninety-eight percent of the immigrants who arrived at Ellis Island were admitted to the United States, and 78 percent spent less than eight hours on the island. (The Mexico-United States border then was unguarded and freely crossed in either direction.) “Shipping companies did the health inspections in Europe because they didn’t want to be stuck taking someone back,” said Nancy Foner, a sociology professor at Hunter College and author of “From Ellis Island to JFK: New York’s Two Great Waves of Immigration.” “Eventually they introduced a literacy test,” she added, “but it was in the immigrant’s own language, not English.”
In the later half of the 1800s the first major restrictions against immigrants were imposed. The Chinese were primary the targets of these laws, and the Naturalization Act of 1870 made Chinese ineligible for citizenship. This act also targeted the wives of Chinese laborers, and all people born in African or of African descent were made eligible for citizenship. Then in 1882 Chinese were banned entirely from entering the country. ((This ban on Chinese laborers was not lifted until the 1940s.)) The backlash against Chinese often stemmed from fear that they were taking away jobs.
During the late 1800s and early 1900s immigration from southern and eastern Europe skyrocketed, and there was also a backlash against these immigrants, which lead to much greater restrictions. In 1917, the restrictions against expanded to include an “Asiatic Barred Zone,” which extend over Asian and the Pacific Rim; moreover, immigrants were required to take literacy tests, and “anarchists” and other radical were also barred. This was one of several laws that lead to the National Origins Act of 1924. According to History Matters,
In response to growing public opinion against the flow of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe in the years following World War I, Congress passed first the Quota Act of 1921 then the even more restrictive Immigration Act of 1924 (the Johnson-Reed Act). Initially, the 1924 law imposed a total quota on immigration of 165,000—less than 20 percent of the pre-World War I average. It based ceilings on the number of immigrants from any particular nation on the percentage of each nationality recorded in the 1890 census—a blatant effort to limit immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe, which mostly occurred after that date. In the first decade of the 20th century, an average of 200,000 Italians had entered the United States each year. With the 1924 Act, the annual quota for Italians was set at less than 4,000.
This act radically changed immigration by setting quotas that gave preferences to groups that were already represented in the US. While there were other immigration restrictions imposed during this period, this law had the greatest impact. From the 1920s until 1965, the number of immigrants entering the US dropped dramatically and at it’s low point in the 1970s the percentage of the population that was foreign born was only 4.7%.
So the first major wave of immigration, which ended in the late 1800s, included immigrants mostly from western Europe, and these immigrants faced very few restrictions. The restrictions in this era were based on race and mental health, but complex immigration processing or laws did not exist at this time. It was until the second wave of immigration from the late 1800s-1924 that much greater restrictions were put on immigration. These restrictions were explicitly racialized and directed at Chinese and Eastern European immigrants. Over both of these waves of immigration similar concerns were expressed about the fitness of immigrants. Nativist believed that immigrants threatened the American way of life, and the arguments used are remarkably similar to those of the contemporary nativists like Lou Dobbs or Pat Buchanan.
Next in this series I’ll discuss the Immigration Act of 1965 and it’s effects on our current population.
Thought for the day
June 27, 2006 on 5:14 pm | Written by IrrationalPoint in Immigration | 19 Comments
I’m going to briefly interrupt Vegan’s Unlearning Racism series (sorry, Vegan) with some points relevant to the immigration debate. One of the issues that a lot of conservatives are concerned about is American culture, and whether it will change with immigrants. So here’s some questions to think about.
What does “integration” mean?
What does it require on the part of immigrants to a new country, and those already residing in that country?
Is it a good thing or a bad thing, and why?
Is it important, and if so, why?
I’d be interested to hear other people’s thoughts on this before I provide more of my own.
–IP
schools and fields
March 31, 2006 on 12:44 pm | Written by vegankid in Government, Immigration, blogs and websites | 3 Comments
IrrationalPoint over at The Soapbox has recently written a couple of posts about the racism of some US domestic policies. The first of which is title Land of Opportuninty and talks about the Bush administration’s immigration policy.
“If you’re doing a job an American won’t do”? Well that’s the give-away line, isn’t it? That’s the way the US makes it’s money kids: segregate the workforce, make the immigrants work the shitty jobs for shitty pay with no security that makes the US economy float, and then hound them down for being in the country illegally. Exploit the countries they come from so that, after you’ve deported them, they’re as desperate as you can make ‘em to come back to the US and do it all over again.
Ellis Island
I think when we talk about the Immigration issue, we should be reminded about the history of Ellis Island -- where as many of 1/3 of today's U.S population is a decendant. Below is a link to some facts and history. What I found most interesting is the quote below and the numbers from each country.
"Despite the island's reputation as an "Island of Tears", the vast majority of immigrants were treated courteously and respectfully, and were free to begin their new lives in America after only a few short hours on Ellis Island. Only two percent of the arriving immigrants were excluded from entry. The two main reasons why an immigrant would be excluded were if a doctor diagnosed that the immigrant had a contagious disease that would endanger the public health or if a legal inspector thought the immigrant was likely to become a public charge or an illegal contract laborer."
Country Number of Immigrants
Italy
2,502,310
Russia
1,893,542
Hungary (1905-1931)
859,557
Austria (1905-1931)
768,132
Austria-Hungary (1892-1904)
684,163
Germany
633,148
Ireland
520,904
Sweden
348,036
Greece
245,058
Norway
226,278
Ottoman Empire
212,825
Scotland
191,023
The West Indies
171,774
Poland (1892-1897and1920-1931)
153,444
Portugal
120,725
France (Including Corsica)
109,687
Denmark
99,414
Romania (1892-1897)
79,092
The Netherlands
78,602
Spain
72,636
Belgium
63,141
Czechoslovakia (1920-1931)
48,140
Bulgaria (1901-1931)
42,085
Wales
27,113
Yugoslavia (1920-1931)
25,017
Finland (1920-1931)
7,833
Switzerland
1,103
Significant Historic DatesAffecting US immigrationNaturalization
Act of 1790 Stipulated that "any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States"
1875 Supreme Court declared that regulation of US immigration is the responsibility of the Federal Government.
1882 The Chinese Exclusion Act prohibited certain laborers from immigrating to the United States.
1885 and 1887 Alien Contract Labor laws which prohibited certain laborers from immigrating to the United States.
1891 The Federal Government assumed the task of inspecting, admitting, rejecting, and processing all immigrants seeking admission to the U.S.
1892 On January 2, a new Federal US immigration station opened on Ellis Island in New York Harbor.
1903 This Act restated the 1891 provisions concerning land borders and called for rules covering entry as well as inspection of aliens crossing the Mexican border.
1907 The US immigration Act of 1907 reorganized the states bordering Mexico (Arizona, New Mexico and a large part of Texas) into Mexican Border District to stem the flow of immigrants into the U.S.
1917 - 1924 A series of laws were enacted to further limit the number of new immigrants. These laws established the quota system and imposed passport requirements. They expanded the categories of excludable aliens and banned all Asians except Japanese.
1924 Act Reduced the number of US immigration visas and allocated them on the basis of national origin.
1940 The Alien Registration Act required all aliens (non-U.S. citizens) within the United States to register with the Government and receive an Alien Registration Receipt Card (the predecessor of the "green card").
1950 Passage of the Internal Security Act which rendered the Alien Registration Receipt Card even more valuable. Immigrants with legal status had their cards replaced with what generally became known as the "green card" (Form I-151).
1952 Act Established the modern day US immigration system. It created a quota system which imposes limits on a per-country basis. It also established the preference system that gave priority to family members and people with special skills.
1968 Act Eliminated US immigration discrimination based on race, place of birth, sex and residence. It also officially abolished restrictions on Oriental US immigration.
1976 Act Eliminated preferential treatment for residents of the Western Hemisphere.
1980 Act Established a general policy governing the admission of refugees.
1986 Act Focused on curtailing illegal US immigration. It legalized hundred of thousands of illegal immigrants. It also introduced the employer sanctions program which fines employers for hiring illegal workers. It also passed tough laws to prevent bogus marriage fraud.
1990 Act Established an annual limit for certain categories of immigrants. It was aimed at helping U.S. businesses attract skilled foreign workers; thus, it expanded the business class categories to favor persons who can make educational, professional or financial contributions. It created the Immigrant Investor Program.
USA Patriot Act 2001 : Uniting and Strengthening America by providing appropriate tools required to intercept and obstruct terrorism
Creation of the USCIS 2003 : As of March 1, 2003, the US immigration and Naturalization Service becomes part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The department’s new U.S. Citizenship and US immigration Services (USCIS) function is to handle US immigration services and benefits, including citizenship, applications for permanent residence, non-immigrant applications, asylum, and refugee services. US immigration enforcement functions are now under the Department's Border and Transportation Security Directorate, known as the Bureau of US immigration and Customs Enforcement (BICE)
"Despite the island's reputation as an "Island of Tears", the vast majority of immigrants were treated courteously and respectfully, and were free to begin their new lives in America after only a few short hours on Ellis Island. Only two percent of the arriving immigrants were excluded from entry. The two main reasons why an immigrant would be excluded were if a doctor diagnosed that the immigrant had a contagious disease that would endanger the public health or if a legal inspector thought the immigrant was likely to become a public charge or an illegal contract laborer."
Country Number of Immigrants
Italy
2,502,310
Russia
1,893,542
Hungary (1905-1931)
859,557
Austria (1905-1931)
768,132
Austria-Hungary (1892-1904)
684,163
Germany
633,148
Ireland
520,904
Sweden
348,036
Greece
245,058
Norway
226,278
Ottoman Empire
212,825
Scotland
191,023
The West Indies
171,774
Poland (1892-1897and1920-1931)
153,444
Portugal
120,725
France (Including Corsica)
109,687
Denmark
99,414
Romania (1892-1897)
79,092
The Netherlands
78,602
Spain
72,636
Belgium
63,141
Czechoslovakia (1920-1931)
48,140
Bulgaria (1901-1931)
42,085
Wales
27,113
Yugoslavia (1920-1931)
25,017
Finland (1920-1931)
7,833
Switzerland
1,103
Significant Historic DatesAffecting US immigrationNaturalization
Act of 1790 Stipulated that "any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States"
1875 Supreme Court declared that regulation of US immigration is the responsibility of the Federal Government.
1882 The Chinese Exclusion Act prohibited certain laborers from immigrating to the United States.
1885 and 1887 Alien Contract Labor laws which prohibited certain laborers from immigrating to the United States.
1891 The Federal Government assumed the task of inspecting, admitting, rejecting, and processing all immigrants seeking admission to the U.S.
1892 On January 2, a new Federal US immigration station opened on Ellis Island in New York Harbor.
1903 This Act restated the 1891 provisions concerning land borders and called for rules covering entry as well as inspection of aliens crossing the Mexican border.
1907 The US immigration Act of 1907 reorganized the states bordering Mexico (Arizona, New Mexico and a large part of Texas) into Mexican Border District to stem the flow of immigrants into the U.S.
1917 - 1924 A series of laws were enacted to further limit the number of new immigrants. These laws established the quota system and imposed passport requirements. They expanded the categories of excludable aliens and banned all Asians except Japanese.
1924 Act Reduced the number of US immigration visas and allocated them on the basis of national origin.
1940 The Alien Registration Act required all aliens (non-U.S. citizens) within the United States to register with the Government and receive an Alien Registration Receipt Card (the predecessor of the "green card").
1950 Passage of the Internal Security Act which rendered the Alien Registration Receipt Card even more valuable. Immigrants with legal status had their cards replaced with what generally became known as the "green card" (Form I-151).
1952 Act Established the modern day US immigration system. It created a quota system which imposes limits on a per-country basis. It also established the preference system that gave priority to family members and people with special skills.
1968 Act Eliminated US immigration discrimination based on race, place of birth, sex and residence. It also officially abolished restrictions on Oriental US immigration.
1976 Act Eliminated preferential treatment for residents of the Western Hemisphere.
1980 Act Established a general policy governing the admission of refugees.
1986 Act Focused on curtailing illegal US immigration. It legalized hundred of thousands of illegal immigrants. It also introduced the employer sanctions program which fines employers for hiring illegal workers. It also passed tough laws to prevent bogus marriage fraud.
1990 Act Established an annual limit for certain categories of immigrants. It was aimed at helping U.S. businesses attract skilled foreign workers; thus, it expanded the business class categories to favor persons who can make educational, professional or financial contributions. It created the Immigrant Investor Program.
USA Patriot Act 2001 : Uniting and Strengthening America by providing appropriate tools required to intercept and obstruct terrorism
Creation of the USCIS 2003 : As of March 1, 2003, the US immigration and Naturalization Service becomes part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The department’s new U.S. Citizenship and US immigration Services (USCIS) function is to handle US immigration services and benefits, including citizenship, applications for permanent residence, non-immigrant applications, asylum, and refugee services. US immigration enforcement functions are now under the Department's Border and Transportation Security Directorate, known as the Bureau of US immigration and Customs Enforcement (BICE)
Chavez Programs Worsens Income Distribution according Central Bank! Why "Socialism of XXI century" Fails
For those who don't understand Spanish, let me translate some key indicators just published by the Central Bank (ie. the Government controlled). Although 47% have benefited directly or indirectly by the "Missions", the income distribution has actually worsen. The Gini coefficient has increased from .44% in 2000 to .48% in 2005. For perspective, those countries with the best income distribution include Japan, Denmark, Swiss (0.24-.29%), while the worst are Boliva and Haiti with 0.64%.
Another measurement that caught my attention was that 62% of the poor have been directly/indirectly affected by the "Missions", which helps explain Chavez strong support among the poor. I would be interested to know the effect of previous administration programs. Chavez has been successful in giving to most of the poor -- even if it is only a little -- it is still more than nothing!
This is significant because it is another indicator that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer under the "Socialism of the XXI century" Scaring away investment (especially foreign) mainly benefits the few local business people that are already established -- the already rich -- they are also very happy because less competition means more demand and high profit margins. The Government tries to control prices but it does not work because the market can be much more efficient in creating more wealth and lowering pricing with competition. This is one of the reasons why the Communist system has failed miserably in E. Europe and Cuba.
----------------------------
El 10% más rico de la población absorbe 37,6% del ingreso
Encuesta de hogares del BCV indica que 47% se ha beneficiado de alguna misión
VÍCTOR SALMERÓN
EL UNIVERSAL
La radiografía de la sociedad que ha realizado el Banco Central a través de la encuesta de hogares, con datos a 2005, indica que la distribución del ingreso empeora levemente respecto al resultado de 2000.
El estudio indica que el 10% más rico de la población absorbe 37,6% del ingreso y el 10% más pobre 1,4%.
Para medir la desigualdad el BCV utiliza un termómetro conocido como el coeficiente de Gini, que consiste en un número que oscila entre cero y uno. El cero quiere decir que todos los habitantes del país tienen los mismos ingresos, y el uno implicaría que una persona concentra toda la renta.
En el caso de Venezuela el coeficiente aumenta desde 0,44% en 2000 hasta 0,48% en 2005.
En los países donde existe menor desigualdad como Japón, Dinamarca y Suiza, el resultado varía entre 0,24 y 0,29%, mientras que en las naciones con mayor desigualdad como Haití y Bolivia, se ubica en 0,64%.
El Banco Central confeccionó lo que denomina el índice de condiciones de vida, basándose en criterios de salubridad, condición de la vivienda, educación del jefe del hogar e ingresos.
El índice varía entre 0 y 100. Si se ubica entre 80 y 100, arroja una condición alta y entre 0 y 49, baja.
El Central afirma que "Venezuela pasó de un bienestar mediano medio en 1997 ( 60-69) a un bienestar alto (80-100) en 2005.
Al analizar el impacto que han tenido los programas sociales del Gobierno, la encuesta determina que 47,4% de los hogares del país se ha beneficiado de alguna de las misiones.
En las familias de menores ingresos, ubicadas en los deciles 1 y 3, esta proporción asciende a 62,3% y en las de mayores ingresos, ubicadas en los deciles 9 y 10, la porción de los hogares que ha utilizado alguna de las misiones desciende a 22,65%.
La Misión Sucre, que imparte educación superior, ha sido utilizada por 22,8% de los hogares con mayores ingresos, "de lo que se infiere que esta opción está dando respuesta al problema del cupo en las universidades", dice el Banco Central.
Dentro del gasto de los hogares el mayor peso lo tienen los alimentos y bebidas no alcohólicas, que consumen 31,8% de todos los egresos, seguido de transporte con 11,1%, vestido y calzado, 9,6%, salud 4,8% y servicios de educación 3,1%.
El 59% de la población come tres veces al día, mientras que 39% hace cuatro o más comidas, es decir, además del desayuno, almuerzo y cena, suele incluir en la dieta una merienda.
Alrededor de la mitad de la población venezolana tiene en la arepa y sus distintos acompañantes el plato principal del desayuno y la cena.
La preferencia por el pan es predominante en las familias de mayores ingresos, mientras que el gusto por el café, negro o con leche, es compartido por todos los estratos.
"El desafío identificado por el sondeo es que los estratos de menor poder adquisitivo de la sociedad deben incluir más hortalizas y frutas en su dieta diaria para que ésta sea mejor balanceada. Sumar un jugo de frutas al desayuno o una ensalada al almuerzo puede hacer la diferencia", dice el BCV.
Entre las distorsiones que detecta la encuesta figura que los niños de entre 3 y 11 años consumen más bebidas gaseosas que leche en su dieta diaria.
En el desayuno 10,1% de los niños consume refrescos y 7,1% leche; en el almuerzo 17,4% opta por las gaseosas y 0,9% por la leche, y en la cena, 17,6% bebe refrescos y 6,4% leche.
Another measurement that caught my attention was that 62% of the poor have been directly/indirectly affected by the "Missions", which helps explain Chavez strong support among the poor. I would be interested to know the effect of previous administration programs. Chavez has been successful in giving to most of the poor -- even if it is only a little -- it is still more than nothing!
This is significant because it is another indicator that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer under the "Socialism of the XXI century" Scaring away investment (especially foreign) mainly benefits the few local business people that are already established -- the already rich -- they are also very happy because less competition means more demand and high profit margins. The Government tries to control prices but it does not work because the market can be much more efficient in creating more wealth and lowering pricing with competition. This is one of the reasons why the Communist system has failed miserably in E. Europe and Cuba.
----------------------------
El 10% más rico de la población absorbe 37,6% del ingreso
Encuesta de hogares del BCV indica que 47% se ha beneficiado de alguna misión
VÍCTOR SALMERÓN
EL UNIVERSAL
La radiografía de la sociedad que ha realizado el Banco Central a través de la encuesta de hogares, con datos a 2005, indica que la distribución del ingreso empeora levemente respecto al resultado de 2000.
El estudio indica que el 10% más rico de la población absorbe 37,6% del ingreso y el 10% más pobre 1,4%.
Para medir la desigualdad el BCV utiliza un termómetro conocido como el coeficiente de Gini, que consiste en un número que oscila entre cero y uno. El cero quiere decir que todos los habitantes del país tienen los mismos ingresos, y el uno implicaría que una persona concentra toda la renta.
En el caso de Venezuela el coeficiente aumenta desde 0,44% en 2000 hasta 0,48% en 2005.
En los países donde existe menor desigualdad como Japón, Dinamarca y Suiza, el resultado varía entre 0,24 y 0,29%, mientras que en las naciones con mayor desigualdad como Haití y Bolivia, se ubica en 0,64%.
El Banco Central confeccionó lo que denomina el índice de condiciones de vida, basándose en criterios de salubridad, condición de la vivienda, educación del jefe del hogar e ingresos.
El índice varía entre 0 y 100. Si se ubica entre 80 y 100, arroja una condición alta y entre 0 y 49, baja.
El Central afirma que "Venezuela pasó de un bienestar mediano medio en 1997 ( 60-69) a un bienestar alto (80-100) en 2005.
Al analizar el impacto que han tenido los programas sociales del Gobierno, la encuesta determina que 47,4% de los hogares del país se ha beneficiado de alguna de las misiones.
En las familias de menores ingresos, ubicadas en los deciles 1 y 3, esta proporción asciende a 62,3% y en las de mayores ingresos, ubicadas en los deciles 9 y 10, la porción de los hogares que ha utilizado alguna de las misiones desciende a 22,65%.
La Misión Sucre, que imparte educación superior, ha sido utilizada por 22,8% de los hogares con mayores ingresos, "de lo que se infiere que esta opción está dando respuesta al problema del cupo en las universidades", dice el Banco Central.
Dentro del gasto de los hogares el mayor peso lo tienen los alimentos y bebidas no alcohólicas, que consumen 31,8% de todos los egresos, seguido de transporte con 11,1%, vestido y calzado, 9,6%, salud 4,8% y servicios de educación 3,1%.
El 59% de la población come tres veces al día, mientras que 39% hace cuatro o más comidas, es decir, además del desayuno, almuerzo y cena, suele incluir en la dieta una merienda.
Alrededor de la mitad de la población venezolana tiene en la arepa y sus distintos acompañantes el plato principal del desayuno y la cena.
La preferencia por el pan es predominante en las familias de mayores ingresos, mientras que el gusto por el café, negro o con leche, es compartido por todos los estratos.
"El desafío identificado por el sondeo es que los estratos de menor poder adquisitivo de la sociedad deben incluir más hortalizas y frutas en su dieta diaria para que ésta sea mejor balanceada. Sumar un jugo de frutas al desayuno o una ensalada al almuerzo puede hacer la diferencia", dice el BCV.
Entre las distorsiones que detecta la encuesta figura que los niños de entre 3 y 11 años consumen más bebidas gaseosas que leche en su dieta diaria.
En el desayuno 10,1% de los niños consume refrescos y 7,1% leche; en el almuerzo 17,4% opta por las gaseosas y 0,9% por la leche, y en la cena, 17,6% bebe refrescos y 6,4% leche.
My comments on Presidential debate blog at WSJ and CNN.com
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/07/23/what-i-like-about-you/
I think this was the best debate yet — this format works!! The questions were actually much better than the answers! It reflected democracy at its best — let the people ask the questions directly to the Presidential candidates. I am also in agreement that Hillary and Barack got most of the questions. That’s who the people want to hear. However, Kucinich and Gravel helped the debate by saying what’s answering the question directly and being politically incorrect since they have nothing to lose. I think this format is here to stay. Great job, CNN!
Comment by Carlos Erban - July 24, 2007 at 9:43 am
I think this was the best debate yet — this format works!! The questions were actually much better than the answers! It reflected democracy at its best — let the people ask the questions directly to the Presidential candidates. I am also in agreement that Hillary and Barack got most of the questions. That’s who the people want to hear. However, Kucinich and Gravel helped the debate by saying what’s answering the question directly and being politically incorrect since they have nothing to lose. I think this format is here to stay. Great job, CNN!
Comment by Carlos Erban - July 24, 2007 at 9:43 am
Monday, July 23, 2007
"What You Don't Read About Venezuela - Part II"
I have received many comments from friends and family on both sides of the issue. I appreciate all of your comments because I think that we need to have a productive debate, which unfortunately, we do not have now, because the "radicals" on both sides have taken over the debate.
Let me clarify that I am NOT in support for Chavez. Quite the contrary, I have voted against him in every single electoral process and signed the "firmazo" and "refirmazo". I am proud of it, and would do it again. I also think that he cheated in the referendum, and the elections were undemocratic because they were done under the threat of the Government. Nobody knows who would have won if everybody would have voted for whom they wanted under no threat of retribution.
The point of my article was to bring up some of the reasons why Chavez still has a lot of support, especially from the poor. Here in Miami, the media coverage is very poor. The programs invite only radicals who talk about how to get rid of Chavez and constantly describe how Venezuela is already another Cuba. Here in Miami many people basically watch Baily (who has become now a comedian and calls Chavez a killer on a daily basis without any evidence) and Polos Opuestos, who invites regularly Patricia Poleo and Orlando Urdaneta to provide only their POV along with some Cuban exile leader who has never been to Venezuela and says with certainty that everything is like Cuba. The articles and columns in the Herald, WSJ, NYT are superficial at best and talk about the obvious.
I know some of the young Opposition leaders, who are not radicals, and should be given a chance to explain the situation, especially here in Miami. This a complicated and deep issue with no real debate, and that's the reason why I bring up some of the reasons why Chavez has support to start a productive debate. Hopefully, the University students set the example and start a real debate -- if Chavez let's them, which I doubt. Keep up the comments.
Let me clarify that I am NOT in support for Chavez. Quite the contrary, I have voted against him in every single electoral process and signed the "firmazo" and "refirmazo". I am proud of it, and would do it again. I also think that he cheated in the referendum, and the elections were undemocratic because they were done under the threat of the Government. Nobody knows who would have won if everybody would have voted for whom they wanted under no threat of retribution.
The point of my article was to bring up some of the reasons why Chavez still has a lot of support, especially from the poor. Here in Miami, the media coverage is very poor. The programs invite only radicals who talk about how to get rid of Chavez and constantly describe how Venezuela is already another Cuba. Here in Miami many people basically watch Baily (who has become now a comedian and calls Chavez a killer on a daily basis without any evidence) and Polos Opuestos, who invites regularly Patricia Poleo and Orlando Urdaneta to provide only their POV along with some Cuban exile leader who has never been to Venezuela and says with certainty that everything is like Cuba. The articles and columns in the Herald, WSJ, NYT are superficial at best and talk about the obvious.
I know some of the young Opposition leaders, who are not radicals, and should be given a chance to explain the situation, especially here in Miami. This a complicated and deep issue with no real debate, and that's the reason why I bring up some of the reasons why Chavez has support to start a productive debate. Hopefully, the University students set the example and start a real debate -- if Chavez let's them, which I doubt. Keep up the comments.
AP: Chavez will respect private property ... for now (por ahora)
CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - President Hugo Chavez assured private property owners their rights will be guaranteed in Venezuela under a pending constitutional reform, as long as proprietors and investors respect the law.
'Our socialism accepts private property,' Chavez said in comments published Sunday on the Web site of Union Radio. 'It's only that this private property must be within the framework of the constitution.'
He did not elaborate, saying only that he would present his proposal to lawmakers in the coming weeks. Few details have emerged from a committee Chavez has appointed to draft the proposed overhaul.
Critics accuse Chavez of steering this oil-rich South American nation toward Cuba-style communism, and many wealthy Venezuelans fear second homes, yachts or other assets could be seized.
Chavez denies copying Havana's economic model, and counters that Venezuela's socialist reforms will merely broaden the concept of ownership.
Speaking during his weekly radio and television program 'Hello President' on Sunday, Chavez also announced an initiative to slash the salaries of Venezuela's top public servants.
'I'm going to begin a fight against the mega-salaries,' Chavez said, adding that no public servant should make more than $7,000 a month. Most Venezuelans make minimum wage -- roughly $250 a month.
Reducing the pay of top government officials has become a popular move in Latin America. The presidents Nicaragua, Bolivia, Peru and Costa Rica recently cut salaries, including their own, in response to widespread criticism.
In his typically wide-ranging television program, Chavez also said Castro recently warned him to take precautions against possible U.S.-backed assassination attempts.
He said the Cuban leader gave him a copy of former CIA Director George Tenet's recently published memoir and told him: ''Read it, Chavez, because that is the most perfect killing machine ever invented and I'm a survivor ... I survived more than 600 (assassination) attempts.''
Chavez has repeatedly warned that President Bush could order him killed, although U.S. law has forbidden assassination attempts since the 1970s. Washington denies attempting to kill Castro since then.
Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
'Our socialism accepts private property,' Chavez said in comments published Sunday on the Web site of Union Radio. 'It's only that this private property must be within the framework of the constitution.'
He did not elaborate, saying only that he would present his proposal to lawmakers in the coming weeks. Few details have emerged from a committee Chavez has appointed to draft the proposed overhaul.
Critics accuse Chavez of steering this oil-rich South American nation toward Cuba-style communism, and many wealthy Venezuelans fear second homes, yachts or other assets could be seized.
Chavez denies copying Havana's economic model, and counters that Venezuela's socialist reforms will merely broaden the concept of ownership.
Speaking during his weekly radio and television program 'Hello President' on Sunday, Chavez also announced an initiative to slash the salaries of Venezuela's top public servants.
'I'm going to begin a fight against the mega-salaries,' Chavez said, adding that no public servant should make more than $7,000 a month. Most Venezuelans make minimum wage -- roughly $250 a month.
Reducing the pay of top government officials has become a popular move in Latin America. The presidents Nicaragua, Bolivia, Peru and Costa Rica recently cut salaries, including their own, in response to widespread criticism.
In his typically wide-ranging television program, Chavez also said Castro recently warned him to take precautions against possible U.S.-backed assassination attempts.
He said the Cuban leader gave him a copy of former CIA Director George Tenet's recently published memoir and told him: ''Read it, Chavez, because that is the most perfect killing machine ever invented and I'm a survivor ... I survived more than 600 (assassination) attempts.''
Chavez has repeatedly warned that President Bush could order him killed, although U.S. law has forbidden assassination attempts since the 1970s. Washington denies attempting to kill Castro since then.
Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Why Does Ahmadinejad need Chavez? This FP article explains a lot
Ahmadinejad is sinking fast; so how he is already resorting to the strategies of Castro, Ortega, Morales, Correa, Kirshner ... -- suck up to Chavez and his ego, and obtain billions of dollars in return.
------------------
Ahmadinejobless
By Monica Maggioni Page 1 of 1
Posted July 2007
Iran’s radical president is sinking fast, and he knows it. Now, there’s only one man who can keep Mahmoud Ahmadinejad out of the unemployment line: George W. Bush.
Majid/Getty Images News
It hurts: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is feeling the political pain.
In Tehran, the mood is quickly shifting. And it’s easy to feel it every time you stop to buy a newspaper, have a coffee, or wait in line at the grocery store. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s star is fading fast.
Since his election in June 2005, Iranians have had conflicted feelings about their president. At first, he evoked interest and curiosity. And there were great expectations from this humble man who was promising economic reform, an anticorruption campaign, and a rigid moral scheme for daily life. Then came fear—when Ahmadinejad began to destroy any chance of good relations with the outside world.
But today in Iran, laughter is supplanting fear. Mocking the president has become a pastime not only for rebellious university students, but also members of the establishment and the government itself.
Behind the high walls of Iranian palaces or in the quiet of Tehran’s parks, Iranian elites will indulge in a quick laugh about the president’s intelligence or his populist bombast. Jokes about his résumé are especially popular. Many refer to his “Ph.D. in traffic” or his letter last May to U.S. President George W. Bush, in which he proclaimed, “I am a teacher.”
The jokes—and who is delivering them—tell the story of a man whose power is on the decline as Iran’s economy collapses around him. Prices for basic goods are skyrocketing, and the government is unable to cope with increasing poverty. Just last month, over 50 Iranian economists sent an open letter excoriating the president’s mismanagement of the economy.
For each public gathering, his loyalists must now arrange hundreds of buses from the remotest and poorest regions of the country. The president’s rented crowds shuffle off the buses for an hour or two and then enjoy Tehran sightseeing, lunch, and dinner paid for by Ahmadinejad’s inner circle in the administration.
Perhaps the best evidence of the president’s decline, though, is the single-digit support obtained by his party in last December’s administrative elections. A personal defeat for Ahmadinejad, the loss reduced his base of support to an elite minority inside the powerful, hard-line Revolutionary Guards, also known as the Pasdaran. It’s this same minority that struggles against any attempt to open Iran’s economy and political system; with their extensive oil holdings, they are unperturbed by the country’s isolation or its economic woes. But even inside the Pasdaran, one can find distinct viewpoints and conflicting interests, which is why Ahmadinejad’s political stronghold is far from secure.
In fact, there are already signs that his job is in jeopardy. Tehran is rife with speculation that Ali Larijani, who is now widely seen as positioning himself for the post-Ahmadinejad era, and Mohammed Baqer Qalibaf, who competed against Ahmadinejad in 2005 and is still popular with members of both conservative and reformist camps, are already working to undermine the president. The next presidential elections are scheduled for June 2009. As a pragmatic conservative and one of Iran’s most prominent politicians, Larijani in particular is likely to do well. To be sure, he is no reformist along the lines of Ahmadinejad’s charismatic predecessor, Mohammed Khatami; in fact, Larijani was happy to see the reformists swept from the political scene following Ahmadinejad’s election. And as his tenacity as Iran’s top nuclear negotiator shows, he would be no shrinking violet on the international stage. At the same time, however, Larijani fairly drips with disdain for his boss, a president he sees as devoid of skill or rational stratagem in dealing with the rest of the world.
But it’s likely that Ahmadinejad’s power will decrease dramatically even before 2009. The elections for Iran’s parliament in March 2008 could represent a turning point if the majority inside the parliament shifts against him. Ahmadinejad still has a strong supporter in Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, who heads the 12-member Guardian Council that holds the political reins in Iran. The Council must clear all candidates for the presidency and parliament. But the Council itself is not monolithic, and it will be impossible to keep all the reformists and pragmatist conservatives out of the electoral race. But even if Ahmadinejad makes it through next spring, many analysts in the country are ready to bet that he won’t be reelected in 2009; the opposition is just too strong, and the economy will likely be in worse straits by that time.
In fact, the only thing that could save him now is the United States. Nobody knows this better than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. As his support within Iran has evaporated, he has cranked up the anti-American rhetoric, and the U.S. military has publicly accused the Pasdaran of arming insurgents in Iraq and even Afghanistan. At this point, the only way Ahmadinejad can revive his flagging fortunes is by uniting his country against an external threat. U.S. officials adamantly maintain that Washington is committed to using diplomacy to resolve the conflict over Iran’s nuclear program and its aggressive role in the region. Yet pressure is mounting in some branches of the Bush administration to take military action against Iran. That pressure should be resisted. For military action would give Mahmoud Ahmadinejad exactly what he wants most: job security.
Monica Maggioni is a Middle East special correspondent for Italy’s RAI TV.
------------------
Ahmadinejobless
By Monica Maggioni Page 1 of 1
Posted July 2007
Iran’s radical president is sinking fast, and he knows it. Now, there’s only one man who can keep Mahmoud Ahmadinejad out of the unemployment line: George W. Bush.
Majid/Getty Images News
It hurts: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is feeling the political pain.
In Tehran, the mood is quickly shifting. And it’s easy to feel it every time you stop to buy a newspaper, have a coffee, or wait in line at the grocery store. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s star is fading fast.
Since his election in June 2005, Iranians have had conflicted feelings about their president. At first, he evoked interest and curiosity. And there were great expectations from this humble man who was promising economic reform, an anticorruption campaign, and a rigid moral scheme for daily life. Then came fear—when Ahmadinejad began to destroy any chance of good relations with the outside world.
But today in Iran, laughter is supplanting fear. Mocking the president has become a pastime not only for rebellious university students, but also members of the establishment and the government itself.
Behind the high walls of Iranian palaces or in the quiet of Tehran’s parks, Iranian elites will indulge in a quick laugh about the president’s intelligence or his populist bombast. Jokes about his résumé are especially popular. Many refer to his “Ph.D. in traffic” or his letter last May to U.S. President George W. Bush, in which he proclaimed, “I am a teacher.”
The jokes—and who is delivering them—tell the story of a man whose power is on the decline as Iran’s economy collapses around him. Prices for basic goods are skyrocketing, and the government is unable to cope with increasing poverty. Just last month, over 50 Iranian economists sent an open letter excoriating the president’s mismanagement of the economy.
For each public gathering, his loyalists must now arrange hundreds of buses from the remotest and poorest regions of the country. The president’s rented crowds shuffle off the buses for an hour or two and then enjoy Tehran sightseeing, lunch, and dinner paid for by Ahmadinejad’s inner circle in the administration.
Perhaps the best evidence of the president’s decline, though, is the single-digit support obtained by his party in last December’s administrative elections. A personal defeat for Ahmadinejad, the loss reduced his base of support to an elite minority inside the powerful, hard-line Revolutionary Guards, also known as the Pasdaran. It’s this same minority that struggles against any attempt to open Iran’s economy and political system; with their extensive oil holdings, they are unperturbed by the country’s isolation or its economic woes. But even inside the Pasdaran, one can find distinct viewpoints and conflicting interests, which is why Ahmadinejad’s political stronghold is far from secure.
In fact, there are already signs that his job is in jeopardy. Tehran is rife with speculation that Ali Larijani, who is now widely seen as positioning himself for the post-Ahmadinejad era, and Mohammed Baqer Qalibaf, who competed against Ahmadinejad in 2005 and is still popular with members of both conservative and reformist camps, are already working to undermine the president. The next presidential elections are scheduled for June 2009. As a pragmatic conservative and one of Iran’s most prominent politicians, Larijani in particular is likely to do well. To be sure, he is no reformist along the lines of Ahmadinejad’s charismatic predecessor, Mohammed Khatami; in fact, Larijani was happy to see the reformists swept from the political scene following Ahmadinejad’s election. And as his tenacity as Iran’s top nuclear negotiator shows, he would be no shrinking violet on the international stage. At the same time, however, Larijani fairly drips with disdain for his boss, a president he sees as devoid of skill or rational stratagem in dealing with the rest of the world.
But it’s likely that Ahmadinejad’s power will decrease dramatically even before 2009. The elections for Iran’s parliament in March 2008 could represent a turning point if the majority inside the parliament shifts against him. Ahmadinejad still has a strong supporter in Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, who heads the 12-member Guardian Council that holds the political reins in Iran. The Council must clear all candidates for the presidency and parliament. But the Council itself is not monolithic, and it will be impossible to keep all the reformists and pragmatist conservatives out of the electoral race. But even if Ahmadinejad makes it through next spring, many analysts in the country are ready to bet that he won’t be reelected in 2009; the opposition is just too strong, and the economy will likely be in worse straits by that time.
In fact, the only thing that could save him now is the United States. Nobody knows this better than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. As his support within Iran has evaporated, he has cranked up the anti-American rhetoric, and the U.S. military has publicly accused the Pasdaran of arming insurgents in Iraq and even Afghanistan. At this point, the only way Ahmadinejad can revive his flagging fortunes is by uniting his country against an external threat. U.S. officials adamantly maintain that Washington is committed to using diplomacy to resolve the conflict over Iran’s nuclear program and its aggressive role in the region. Yet pressure is mounting in some branches of the Bush administration to take military action against Iran. That pressure should be resisted. For military action would give Mahmoud Ahmadinejad exactly what he wants most: job security.
Monica Maggioni is a Middle East special correspondent for Italy’s RAI TV.
AP: Chavez: Critical Foreigners to Get Boot
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Venezuela-Chavez.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Letter to Congresswoman on Immigration
Dear Congresswoman Wasserman,
Thank you for replying to my letter.
I am a disappointed with your response (below in italics) because you do not address any of the points that I made in my original letter, and your position is the same as President Bush's with the exception that it lacks any specifics on the guest worker program.
I support a comprehensive solution, including a guest worker program, that both relieves pressure on our borders and also resolves the status of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants living in our country.
For that reason, we must not only gain control of our borders, but we must also provide millions of illegal immigrants already living here an incentive to come out of the shadows and to be counted and identified. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House of Representatives to enact comprehensive immigration reforms.
I hope that we can all agree that if you support a guest worker visa for 2 years that costs $2500 and to renew requires to leave the country for 6 months, nobody will "come out of the shadows". Most undocumented workers are from lower socio-economic classes. Do you think that anyone can afford to leave with their whole family for 6 months with no income, maintain two places of living, and risk the chance of not being able to come back? It is completely absurd and ill-intentioned.
This year you still have an unique opportunity with a Democratic Congress and a President willing to provide legal status to illegals, to make real lasting reform. Unfortunately, with 9 months left, prior to the election season, I predict that nothing will get done and there will be no difference between the Republican and the Democratic Congress -- despite all the promises made to Hispanics by the latter.
I hope you read this e-mail and provide leadership action in this matter. It is ironic that Republican Congress people in South Florida such as Messrs. Diaz-Baralt and Mrs. Ros-Letinen are the ones providing some leadership instead of the Democrats.
Best Regards,
Carlos Erban
From: <Fl20@housemail.house.gov>
To: <carlos.erban@hotmail.com>
Subject: A Message from Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 18:17:38 -0400
April 10, 2007
Mr. Carlos Erban
19333 Collins Avenue
Apt. 1603
SUNNY ISLES BEACH, FL 33160-2371
Dear Mr. Erban,
Thank you for contacting me regarding immigration reform. I appreciate hearing from you on this important matter.
The United States is a nation founded by immigrants. Accepting other cultures into our society helps create the beautiful "melting pot" that has become the very essence of our nation. I am a strong supporter of legal immigration.
Our current immigration system is failing, and I believe our country must mend its broken borders. Additionally, the very real threat of terrorists crossing our borders means we must develop a policy that puts the security of the American people first. For that reason, I support a comprehensive solution, including a guest worker program, that both relieves pressure on our borders and also resolves the status of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants living in our country.
Any proposal to remedy our current immigration system must be comprehensive and not focus on "enforcement only" mechanisms. Rather than throwing billions of dollars away on a fence that would not solve the problem, I instead support alternative proposals that would increase funding for detention facilities, border patrol agents, and port-of-entry inspectors. I believe we should end the Bush Administration's "catch-and-release" program by providing our border patrol agents with more resources to help hold and detain illegal immigrants. Until Congress gets serious about authorizing the technology, personnel, and equipment needed to monitor and secure every mile of the border, a partial fence will not begin to solve the problem.
Additionally, I do not believe that state and local law enforcement resources should be used to fund a federal responsibility. Congress should not "pass the buck" to already overstretched police departments. If it did, new immigration enforcement responsibilities would distract local officers from their primary responsibilities of solving violent crimes and ensuring the safety of their communities. Our broken borders are a federal problem. We need a federal solution.
Please know that, as your Representative, I am committed to passing meaningful immigration reform that fixes our broken borders and protects America's citizens and legal immigrants. For the security of our nation, it is imperative that we know exactly who is in our country. For that reason, we must not only gain control of our borders, but we must also provide millions of illegal immigrants already living here an incentive to come out of the shadows and to be counted and identified. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House of Representatives to enact comprehensive immigration reforms.
Please know I will keep your concerns in mind and continue to keep you updated on this and other pressing issues of the 110th Congress. Thank you for contacting my office, and please do not hesitate to do so again regarding this or any other matter. I also invite you to visit my Web site at <a href="http://www.house.gov/schultz">www.house.gov/schultz</a> for additional information and legislative issue updates.
Sincerely,
Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Member of Congress
DWS\sr
------------------------------------------
I was born in Venezuela, and recently became a U.S. Citizen, one of the proudest and most emotional moments in my life. I am a proud American. I am registered as an Independent, and the number 1 issue for me is Immigration Reform. My view is that most undocumented aliens are productive people to the U.S. society and economy -- a view shared by most Nobel Prized Economists in the U.S. I was fortunate to graduate from Harvard Business School, and I was heavily recruited. Most people with my background automatically get a working visa and soon after a path to residency and citizenship. Most companies even pay the very high immigration attorney's fees, which in my case was about $20,000. However, poor blue collard workers are not afforded the same opportunity, and cannot afford top attoneys. You could argue that blue collar labor, especially performed by undocumented immigrants, is precisely the work that most Americans don't want to perform. They should be given the same opportunity, a working visa, and as long they demonstrate they are working, paying taxes, and with no criminal record qualify for Green Card and eventually for Citizenship. I also hope that join Congress people Baralt, Ross-Letinen in providing DED status to my fellow Venezuelans.
Regards,
Carlos Erban
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Friday, July 20, 2007
What You Don't Read about Venezuela
I just came back from a two weeks trip to Venezuela. I had been to Margarita two years ago, but I had not been to Caracas and the interior of the country in almost 5 years.
As a fierce critic of Chavez, I have to admit that there are some major improvements that you do not read about especially in the U.S. I lived almost 20 years in Venezuela and almost 20 years in the U.S., mostly in Miami. I read and listen to almost everything that I can about Venezuela and Chavez in all the major newspapers and news programs. However, you only hear one view. You do not hear the other point of view. I agree with almost 100% everything that is written about Chavez, especially from well-respected journalists in the U.S. and Venezuela.
As I told most of my friends and relatives, in my humble point of view, there are 3 major problems with Chavez that we really need to put on top the list:
1) foreign affairs: our closest friends are Cuba and Iran, and we have horrible relations with the U.S. and also "cold" relations to put it mildly with the Europe, Mexico, Chile, and soon Brazil. My biggest concern obviously is Iran;
2) dividing the country in two groups: Chavistas and "Escualidos y Golpistas" (squalid and participant of coup d'etat). This has major consequences because of all the hatred created by Chavez, especially among families. Also, if you signed the referendum against Chavez, you cannot participate in government programs (which now is most of the economy);
3) private property: is Chavez going after everyone's private property -- just like another Cuba? Most, like me, believe it is not possible, but in Cuba, most probably thought so as well.
However, let's talk a little about what you do not read. When I arrived to Maiquetia (the main international airport near Caracas), it was completely renovated. It felt like a new modern airport in the U.S. I have been to over 80 countries, and this airport now is in the top tier. Most importantly, there is construction for new parking lots, hotels, etc. The Immigration was smooth with all the modern IT technology. I was not so pleasantly surprised to see an Iranian airline 747 parked next our American Airlines plane -- a good example of the contrast you see between the good and the bad.
The main purpose of my visit was to go to the Copa America and visit relatives and friends that I had not seen in many years. Of the two weeks, I spent 80% of the time driving throughout most of Venezuela to go to the matches. The improvements in infrastructure are impressive, including highways, bridges (the viaduct from La Guaira to Caracas can be compared to the Alps). I could not recognize the small towns that I had seen 10 years ago because of all the new highways, buildings, and so on. I was most impressed by the constructions in record time of 9 football stadiums (3 completely new and 6 redone completely). If you saw one of the games on TV, you probably thought you were watching the World Cup from Germany 2006. I have to also say that going in and out of the stadium in Maturin and Barquisimeto was a nightmare, without seat numbers, oversold, little or no security, and unfinished bathrooms and hallways, but on balance, I was very impressed. In Miami, we have been arguing for 10 years now for a new baseball stadium, and we cannot get it done despite a team that has won two World Series in 10 years.
I was also impressed with Caracas. Driving down the Francisco de Miranda and Libertador, two main avenues in Caracas, you can see a lot new and modern buildings. You have to give credit to the Mayors of Chacao, Baruta, and el Hatillo (the few left from the Opposing parties). I know personally the Mayors of Chacao and Hatillo, and it does not surprise me one bit. Chacao is a 1st World neighborhood within a 3rd World country (this was started by Irene Saez - ex-Miss Universe, who first ran against Chavez). I needed a new Cedula (national Id), which I checked on the internet for daily locations, and we asked a Chacao police officer on a motorcycle for the exact location. First, he radioed to make sure it was taking place that day, and afterwards, he told us to follow him to take us to the right place. By the way, I got my new Cedula Bolivariana relatively quickly with no need to bribe anyone (like it used to be). The Government employees were all very professional and efficient. By the way, at airport, I showed the Immigration officials my Venezuelan and U.S. passport, and I was treated very well too. I had doubts about showing my U.S passport.
I went to Cua -- a suburban town outside of Caracas -- for two days. As I was arriving to Cua, I see a modern structure that looks like space station. This is the new train station that takes you to Caracas in about 20 minutes. I did not get on the train but I had never seen a station like this in the U.S., Japan or France. Unfortunately, it was supposed to have the fastest train in the World, but because of corruption had to settle for just fast.
Finally, I was told that poor people not only get free medicines, free medical attention, preferential credits for a car, but also a free house!!! If you live in shantytown (rancho), you can apply to rebuild it or build a new one. Although, I understand only 10,000 have been built, this is an incredible program to say the least. I have to do more research on this program. My cousin quit his job in Coca Cola, and found a construction company with a partner for this program.
I also found out that Chavez forgave all the student-loans "Fundayacucho" For perspective, Fundayacucho is a Government scholarship - loans (with very low interest and provisions to forgive part or all the loan based on performance) program for Venezuelans going abroad. I was fortunate enough to benefit from Fundayacucho to pursue my MBA at Harvard Business School. Fundayacucho gave me $70,000 to pay for tuition, room & board, and based on my performance forgave $35,000. I had to pay the balance right away to stay in the U.S. Most of my friends and family, who went to Ivy League Schools, with Fundayacucho stayed in the U.S. I remembered that none of my friends from other countries at Harvard had such program.
My family and friends from the Opposition say: "yes, it all true, but the bad outweighs the good". I agree with them, but nobody talks about the good. Most of the Venezuelan population is affected directly by the "good" and not so much by the "bad". I also want to mention that I did not feel in any moment that I could say what I wanted when I wanted even among Chavistas. I saw an interview in Globovision of a ex-Secretary of Defense. I could not believe the questions and accusations that the interviewer was making about corruption and Chavez. Even if they are all true, the point is that the lack of freedom of speech is exaggerated to say the least. I watch all the O'Reilly, Hannity & Colmes, Matthews, and all the Sunday shows, and I never have seen an interviewer accused a Government official in such a way.
I have always voted against Chavez and I still consider myself radically opposed to Chavez policies and his behavior, but I cannot ignore some of the good that has been done with the Petrodollars, and may be some journalists in the U.S. should do the same.
I truly enjoyed my trip to Venezuela, and I cannot wait to come back again. Although I recognized that this is only a small non-representative sample of experiences, I wanted to mention what you don't read about especially in U.S. papers.
As a fierce critic of Chavez, I have to admit that there are some major improvements that you do not read about especially in the U.S. I lived almost 20 years in Venezuela and almost 20 years in the U.S., mostly in Miami. I read and listen to almost everything that I can about Venezuela and Chavez in all the major newspapers and news programs. However, you only hear one view. You do not hear the other point of view. I agree with almost 100% everything that is written about Chavez, especially from well-respected journalists in the U.S. and Venezuela.
As I told most of my friends and relatives, in my humble point of view, there are 3 major problems with Chavez that we really need to put on top the list:
1) foreign affairs: our closest friends are Cuba and Iran, and we have horrible relations with the U.S. and also "cold" relations to put it mildly with the Europe, Mexico, Chile, and soon Brazil. My biggest concern obviously is Iran;
2) dividing the country in two groups: Chavistas and "Escualidos y Golpistas" (squalid and participant of coup d'etat). This has major consequences because of all the hatred created by Chavez, especially among families. Also, if you signed the referendum against Chavez, you cannot participate in government programs (which now is most of the economy);
3) private property: is Chavez going after everyone's private property -- just like another Cuba? Most, like me, believe it is not possible, but in Cuba, most probably thought so as well.
However, let's talk a little about what you do not read. When I arrived to Maiquetia (the main international airport near Caracas), it was completely renovated. It felt like a new modern airport in the U.S. I have been to over 80 countries, and this airport now is in the top tier. Most importantly, there is construction for new parking lots, hotels, etc. The Immigration was smooth with all the modern IT technology. I was not so pleasantly surprised to see an Iranian airline 747 parked next our American Airlines plane -- a good example of the contrast you see between the good and the bad.
The main purpose of my visit was to go to the Copa America and visit relatives and friends that I had not seen in many years. Of the two weeks, I spent 80% of the time driving throughout most of Venezuela to go to the matches. The improvements in infrastructure are impressive, including highways, bridges (the viaduct from La Guaira to Caracas can be compared to the Alps). I could not recognize the small towns that I had seen 10 years ago because of all the new highways, buildings, and so on. I was most impressed by the constructions in record time of 9 football stadiums (3 completely new and 6 redone completely). If you saw one of the games on TV, you probably thought you were watching the World Cup from Germany 2006. I have to also say that going in and out of the stadium in Maturin and Barquisimeto was a nightmare, without seat numbers, oversold, little or no security, and unfinished bathrooms and hallways, but on balance, I was very impressed. In Miami, we have been arguing for 10 years now for a new baseball stadium, and we cannot get it done despite a team that has won two World Series in 10 years.
I was also impressed with Caracas. Driving down the Francisco de Miranda and Libertador, two main avenues in Caracas, you can see a lot new and modern buildings. You have to give credit to the Mayors of Chacao, Baruta, and el Hatillo (the few left from the Opposing parties). I know personally the Mayors of Chacao and Hatillo, and it does not surprise me one bit. Chacao is a 1st World neighborhood within a 3rd World country (this was started by Irene Saez - ex-Miss Universe, who first ran against Chavez). I needed a new Cedula (national Id), which I checked on the internet for daily locations, and we asked a Chacao police officer on a motorcycle for the exact location. First, he radioed to make sure it was taking place that day, and afterwards, he told us to follow him to take us to the right place. By the way, I got my new Cedula Bolivariana relatively quickly with no need to bribe anyone (like it used to be). The Government employees were all very professional and efficient. By the way, at airport, I showed the Immigration officials my Venezuelan and U.S. passport, and I was treated very well too. I had doubts about showing my U.S passport.
I went to Cua -- a suburban town outside of Caracas -- for two days. As I was arriving to Cua, I see a modern structure that looks like space station. This is the new train station that takes you to Caracas in about 20 minutes. I did not get on the train but I had never seen a station like this in the U.S., Japan or France. Unfortunately, it was supposed to have the fastest train in the World, but because of corruption had to settle for just fast.
Finally, I was told that poor people not only get free medicines, free medical attention, preferential credits for a car, but also a free house!!! If you live in shantytown (rancho), you can apply to rebuild it or build a new one. Although, I understand only 10,000 have been built, this is an incredible program to say the least. I have to do more research on this program. My cousin quit his job in Coca Cola, and found a construction company with a partner for this program.
I also found out that Chavez forgave all the student-loans "Fundayacucho" For perspective, Fundayacucho is a Government scholarship - loans (with very low interest and provisions to forgive part or all the loan based on performance) program for Venezuelans going abroad. I was fortunate enough to benefit from Fundayacucho to pursue my MBA at Harvard Business School. Fundayacucho gave me $70,000 to pay for tuition, room & board, and based on my performance forgave $35,000. I had to pay the balance right away to stay in the U.S. Most of my friends and family, who went to Ivy League Schools, with Fundayacucho stayed in the U.S. I remembered that none of my friends from other countries at Harvard had such program.
My family and friends from the Opposition say: "yes, it all true, but the bad outweighs the good". I agree with them, but nobody talks about the good. Most of the Venezuelan population is affected directly by the "good" and not so much by the "bad". I also want to mention that I did not feel in any moment that I could say what I wanted when I wanted even among Chavistas. I saw an interview in Globovision of a ex-Secretary of Defense. I could not believe the questions and accusations that the interviewer was making about corruption and Chavez. Even if they are all true, the point is that the lack of freedom of speech is exaggerated to say the least. I watch all the O'Reilly, Hannity & Colmes, Matthews, and all the Sunday shows, and I never have seen an interviewer accused a Government official in such a way.
I have always voted against Chavez and I still consider myself radically opposed to Chavez policies and his behavior, but I cannot ignore some of the good that has been done with the Petrodollars, and may be some journalists in the U.S. should do the same.
I truly enjoyed my trip to Venezuela, and I cannot wait to come back again. Although I recognized that this is only a small non-representative sample of experiences, I wanted to mention what you don't read about especially in U.S. papers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
